So you like to make videos explaining how somebody owned you, yet speak in a sarcastic tone as if the opposite happened? You like personal shame or something?
@callingheyzeus Well we're not talking about you and given the evidence and the lack thereof (esp. no witness account from the doctors that supposedly amputated the leg); the most reasonable conclusion is that it was a hoax to earn money as a beggar. There is also no documentation outside of the gospels and hearsay written much later that Jesus was buried and resurrected.
@callingheyzeus (cont) "Although this lack of a buried leg is often put forth as evidence that the story is true, it is actually a lack of evidence of anything."
"Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated — or that he was even treated at all — at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial. The trial did find that no leg was buried where he said it was at the hospital, but this is exactly what we'd expect to find if it had never been amputated."
Okay, so I want an answer. A real answer to this question. "Why won't God heal amputees, except clear fakes with no documented proof, and always before a time when there could be scientific testing and proof positive documentation, and has clearly stopped healing them, if he ever did, in a modern era with modern witnesses. He can still according to faith cure cancer and Malaria, did he lose his touch?"
The problem is, when theist answer questions, they answer them like you answered the question....."what does apart from god mean"? i.e they don't give an answer. How can you be so deluded?
@callingheyzeus i said that age didnt disqualify it automatically, but considering the prevalence of christianity and the ease of fooling people at the time, it is hard for me to accept that the document would be completely accurate, especially because(unlike the documents you cited as examples) this a super natural occurrence. it is infinitely more probable that this was not in fact a miracle, but a ruse or misunderstanding. and if it IS true, why doesnt this happen more often?
it IS a retorical question, but tooltime said 'story', referring to how christians just throw the "god works in mysterious ways" bs out there. you would have to really think hard to justify god's actions, which begs the question, why are you trying to?
Jack poses an interesting question but he frames it wrong. It should read "Atheists don't want bullshit answers to legitimate questions." When an Atheist asks, what is the hard evidence to support the existence of a god, the christian shouldn't reach for the bible. There isn't a shred of evidence to substantiate the alleged events contained in the NT. It is a book of fiction. Jack will have to do better at creating a convincing argument instead of offering up the hysterical nonsense he uses now.
Most atheists are already convinced they're smarter than you, so they feel they don't have anything to learn from you. That's why they don't care if you answer their questions. It is the very definition of closed-mindedness.
You are actually the liar, and you don't even know it!
You said "Jesus lives", that is a lie.
But I suppose if you are sadly delusional, and believe explanations of reality fabricated by ancient men who were intellectually immature, you are not really lying, you're just brainwashed into believing that a fairy tale is true.
It is not!
You need to watch some Richard Dawkins (PBUH) videos, and get you mind out of the Dark Ages.
The pointe is; why can't you answer, to a non-believer, the question well enought that a non-believer would admit to being a plausible explanation. I'm very open minded but I have NOT YET heard a plausible explanation for why god won't heal amputees.
It's not that I'm not listening, I've read it all but it still doesn't explain it intelligently. The bible contradicts itself all around and that doesn't foster belief in me. SHOW ME the miracles.
In all of Gods omnipotence and all knowing grandure why did he choose Saul as king? and since GOD himself has ALL the knowledge. Past, present and future. Wouldn't HE himslef have known the atrocities Saul and his future wife Jezabel would have commited? And since HE knew these events would have occured, why make the initial decision to appoint a horrible King and his insidious wife into a position of power? and then go back on that plan and make a new one he knew he would do?
@LoopQuantumGravity1 You obviously missed the point of this video. It was obviously not there to answer the original question, but to address the issue that many atheists ask questions in such a way to to provoke a specific answer, but then (like many fundies) change the conditions when the answer is given. Logically, since his goal was obviously not to answer the original question, put to point out a different problem, Jack definitely did a good job. Have a nice day.
When I clicked this video I thought it would be a sincear theist who was facing the common problem with internet debates, suborn ideots who refuse to 'play by the rules.' I was then disapointed to find it was achully one of thoughs ideots making the video.
He wasn't implying he didn't want an aweser. He was saying he didn't want some rediculus story that is completly unfalusable and only exists to alow the person to ignore the argument.
The fact that you can't rationally answer the question : "why doesn't god cure amputees" , demonstrates that "god" can't perform curative miracles that require clear verification. Which, in turn, demonstrates that any claim that "god" cures anyone, or indeed performs any intervention in human affairs is suspect, and more than likely a human fantasy. If a claim is supported by false claims, then the likelihood is even greater again that it is untrue.
TogetherforPeace, ToolTime was pointing out the exact point of the amputee question. There are some questions atheists asks that they want answers two, but that particular question is focused on making you do mental gymnastics in order to attempt to justify something, or make you end up saying "God works in mysterious ways" (i.e. I don't know)
If you want an example of mental gymnastics there's an episode of South Park where Cartman ends up thinking he's some hero after killing an ant.
Oh we want answers just not the answers that come from a book that was written by wondering bronze age herdsman. Oh we silly Atheist with our remote controlled robot on mars taking samples, and what not.
@jedah76 Even if the answer came from a bronze age book, if that answer is right, fine. But if you're going to give me mythology in which we have no way in testing, or some kind of "That's part of the plan" BS we're going to cry foul because 1. You don't know the plan and there is no foreseeable outcome of the plan beyond human destruction and suffering 2. its the equivalent of saying "I don't know" in the grand scheme of things so its not an answer.
@MysteriousAya Umm don't know what part of my post made you believe I was defending the bible. I thought the sentence " Oh we want answers just not the answers that come from a book that was written by wondering bronze age herdsman" Was pretty clear that I, the person writing this post did not want answers from the bible. Now excuse me I have to go take a shower because was mistaken for a Chirstian.
The point Jack misses is that in the scripture it clearly states that if you have faith and ask of your god, then there is no reason what you ask would not happen. Yet there has never been a single amputee who has gotten back an actual limb. Therefore what is stated in scripture simply does not hold up to reality.
@Relativisticism reality is what does not hold up to scripture. By faith, through His grace, is where an individual starts; this is a choice of the heart first, then the mind. And when the mind begins to know more, the more the individual finds we don't know, nor never will on this earth. "Now we see dimly as in a mirror, then we shall see fully and know fully, just as we are fully known" (by the Father). Cor. 13
For the "logical, rational" atheist, see Matthew Chap. 7, verse 7. live&love
@CWway08 "the more the individual finds we don't know, nor never will on this earth"
yeah a pretty typical comment coming from someone who undermines humanity. I guess medical advancements skip your line of reasoning? We have progressed and know more than we use to know, and sure there are things we may never know but that doesn't mean we should stop there and just assume something exists because of that. But I digress because that is not the point. Scripture is something invented by man.
@CWway08 "reality is what does not hold up to scripture."
That is because scripture was made by man during a time when they knew or understood very little of the workings of the world. We know more now and that reveals that the scripture is in error and should be abandoned. We are outgrowing the need for beliefs in gods to explain reality, yet there are still some of us who are dragging their feet, refusing to accept the reality that gods do not exist.
@Relativisticism What I said about knowing, I say in regard to Truth.
Your responses are good. However, examine your heart; they are come from the most common source of refusal to believe, read, or respect the Bible: Pride. Our human lack of humility is our bane today.
Again, I direct you to the book of Matthew, Chapter 7, verse 7.
(cont) ... i find in any way admirable or even useful. In fact in some ways just the opposite tends to be the case. A lot of what is in the bible is ignored by most christians who have either never fully read it or they refuse to acknowledge it. Let's face it, the scripture was written by men who liked the idea of a vengeful god who will bring havoc to anyone who doesn't obey. The bible does not reflect a loving and merciful god in any way, yet christians will always attempt to say otherwise.
@CWway08 "However, examine your heart; they are come from the most common source of refusal to believe, read, or respect the Bible"
I am not refusing to believe, I am accepting the fact that gods do not exist because my reality does not provide anything to base such a belief on. The bible is a very poor example of what I would consider to be something worthy of respect, you got that much right. Not because it talks about some god, but instead the actual stuff in there is not something that...
oh no... you are one of those people who answers every rhetorical question you hear, and then looks confused when people stare at you afterwards aren't you?
The point is to illustrate how many baseess assumptions and circular arguements it takes to come up with the answer - not nessecarily the answer itself. Why? For the same reason that you are asked to show your math on your final exam. It dosn't even matter if you guessed the right answer if your reasoning is wrong.
All i can say is for you to think a bit more outside the box and not answer questions that are Rhetorical you moron!!! and you really didnt make much of a case yourself good sir.
It's a waste of time trying to convince atheists, because they already have shown that they have chosen not to believe in the holy scriptures, and in Christ, therefore, they have already made up their minds. I am a Christian, however, I have come to the conclusion that, even if Jesus showed himself to the atheists, they'd still refuse to accept him. How do I know? becausethey do what they always do, deny anything they're told that represents faith. So, let God deal with them.
I love this guy. Even if I had did ask a rhetorical question that people on youtube would respond to, they want their first step of of knowledge or common sense to shine then they reply with such a comment and end it by jumping to conclusions of that person's thoughts.
Someone is convinced that Santa exists, and I ask him why all the arctic explorers haven't found Santa's workshop. He responds that Santa has an invisibility generator... The fact he can invent some unfounded explanation is not the point (anyone can do that for any irrational belief). The fact that irrational beliefs require mental gymnastics like this *is* the point. The more unfounded assumptions needed to make an explanation agree with observation, the more likely that explanation is false.
There's only so much apologetics that can be done.
When one claims god heals diseases, this should be expected to happen with the same probability among amputees.
Furthermore, does "anything you ask the father in my name shall be given to you" ring a bell?
We acknowledge you can rationalize anything away, and that is why we need data, not "stories" why god heals other things, but never amputees. As long as no amputee has been healed, all other claims of miraculous healing are null and void.
You see, atheists don't all HAVE to believe the same thing, just because one atheist says he's not looking for an answer. Literally ONE GUY does not speak for the rest of humanity. Meanwhile christianity is based on one guy, jesus, atoning for all of humanity til the end of time. Christians go to church because they need a pastor to connect with god, it's part of their faith. Still, that's one guy that is supposed to account for the entirety of the congregation. It's in your mentality.
Whats disturbing is that apparently you are OK with lots of people believing instead that a supernatural sky-daddy with created the universe and is particularly interested in cutting pieces of my penis off.
And you are of course completely wrong about atheists.
about stuff being created out of nothing, this is such a loaded sentence, i can't even reply to it. we're on different planets here. to be short, to me, as an atheist, the big bang theory and god never had anything to do with each other AND nobody (but christians) ever said stuff was created out of nothing.
yes atheism some atheists (like me) deconverted primarily because they didn't like religious people.
@brandisify but it is a common type of christian denial that you show. You seem to be unable to grasp that some people simply do not believe what you believe.
I think this attitude is childish, and you should get rid of it.
I believe you are a christian and you believe in god.
You should also believe that atheists aren't christians, and they simply don't believe in god.
Atheism is more than a fad, it's people returning to the normal, natural state of not believing in silly religious stuff.
It's called a rhetorical question dude. A question formed to make someone think. It's not about pointing and laughing, it's about disseminating an idea.
How do you know what the motive was? How do you know it was about laughing at you? Why does asking a rhetorical equate to mockery?
A lot of words, but you fail to answer the question:
"Why does your god never grow back a limb?"
Is it because he hates amputees? Is it because he's not powerful enough? Is it because he only specializes in internal diseases? Or can you come up with a bullshit story?
Are are you going to be honest? And say: "I don't know"
@henkvanderlaak actually diresgarding any bent on whther we're theists/atheists & trying to approach this dilemma from a "logical" viewpoint (not emotional). We would agree upon the idea that to even qualify as a "god" means to interpret that being as a super/supreme being. With that said it would ultimately make sense that this beings knowledge far outweighs our own or else it would be disqualified under that descriptor "god". Its then easy enough to say...God simply knows better than we do.
No, the point is to get a TRUE answer; since your superstition has no evidence behind it, you may as well be saying that "the magic pink unicorn doesn't heal amputees because he doesn't want amputees to be healed".
Because there is an equal amount of "evidence" for both magical pink unicorns and the imaginary "gods" of various cults, so there is no more reason to believe in one over the other.
That question is really just to demonstrate that faith healings are nonsense. It doesn't "disprove god" it just tells us that if there is one he doesn't heal people because the people he does heal tend to be far less in need of healing than some of the people he could heal.
I'm interested in how you actually responded to that question. Did you come up with some kind of justification? I've never heard one before the only explanation I can think of is god doesn't heal on request.
@AlexThomson1000 Yet who are we to put a yoke upon God's neck so that He may perform the tasks we want Him to? More the aggravation comes from the man who believes if he could just get God to do what he wants then all the world would be a better place. Interesting times come upon those who with little wisdom, can direct power beyond that which they can fortell its usage.
@hexusziggurat This is a big part of my point. I'm glad you see it this way. If I were to believe in god it is still ridiculous to believe that he'd go about healing people because a faith healer asked him. The theological implications make him a bumbling fool or a malicious bully. Ergo all faith healers are charlatans, frauds and deserve nothing less than incarceration.
Personally I just don’t believe in a god or faith healings.
It would be better to ask first if you think that a god heals people, because if you don't, then the question is unnecessary. The point is that people claim that a god heals them of certain maladies that can be healed by medicine or just go away on their own. The example of an amputee is specific to a malady that never heals, so it would be evidence of divine intervention. Here is what I think is a better question: Is there any evidence of any god healing anybody ever?
well after 3:53 of watching this im none the wiser.was that supposed to answer the critics? i would love to hear someone with intelligence answer the question "why does god not heal or create new limbs for someone that has lost one".....but i think this is the wrong place.
It gets on my nerves. Fellow atheists also like to talk about how bad god is, when they don't even think he exists.
Don't get me wrong I do believe Christians participate in mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs. But again you tube atheists in particular do like to acting like 5 year olds think about and making videos about things they don't even believe in.
@MirageScience "But again you tube atheists in particular do like to acting like 5 year olds think about and making videos about things they don't even believe in."
All the question is doing is simply suggesting that the statement "there is no god" is a much more reasonable explanation as to why god won't heal amputees. There are lots of cases where diseases are miraculously healed, but not a sinlge case of an amputated limb spontaneously regenerating. The question is meant to bring some doubt of god's existence to the table. It's just that some people, like this guy, see it as a cheap shot when it's really not.
You're right. This question is posed primarily as rhetoric. It's not one of the questions I normally use because it falls to close to the whole problem of evil thing which I've never considered a good argument. While I have heard some really good answers to the problem of evil though, I have never heard a good answer to why God won't heal amputees. Seriously, if God can cure cancer (a popular claim), why doesn't he heal amputees? PM an answer if you have a good one. I'd really like to hear one.
even as an agnostic who leans more towards athiesm. (i dont believe in god but i believe its possible) ill admit that wasnt a fair question to pose. its all to easy for people (theists and atheists) to fall away from a productive discussion of religion as a whole and go to childish methods like that. i rather enjoy having such discussions, but i dont let emotion get the better of me. you are 100% accurate in this video. take it easy
Boy... you STILL don't get the point of the question.... :)
In fact, I have never met a Christian who did get the point. I think that that is the inherent problem. If you were capable of understanding the point of the question... you wouldn't be a Christian in the first place.
even if it DID requite mental gymnastics, well what's wrong with that??? Sure not everyone's up for that but some of us who put in a lot of effort are. After all mental gymnastics is basically what philosophers do, am I right??
A friend of the cousin of my neighbor's son of law had the same story.
She prayed and prayed since she was like 14+ and, her tits are really nice, as of now. I saw them on my very eyes so no one can accuse me of making the story up.
That, plus she told me personally about her tits, while in church on Sunday morning, so she can't lie in the church - but of course.
Believing in god has such a powerful effect on our lives.
@MrJurekGG dude, even as a nonbeliever ill admit thats an unfair question. based on christian beliefs "god has a plan" and all that, it basically means its not for man to know or question Him. so there is no way they could possibly give a factual answer. ITS A LOADED QUESTION THAT DOES NOTHING TO FURTHER UNDERSTANDING OR CONVERSATION. its a childish attempt to hit them with something they cant answer so you can say "I WIN"
@MaNiAcaLunchBox is why doesnt god heal amputees an unfair question......if you think that is unfair you are really not an unbeliever..........nice try
Nonetheless, TFP has a point. It's kind of horse laugh to just pose a question or a problem for someone only to claim victory by saying how many excuses they have to make in order to answer it.
But what TFP isn't taking into account is that most people, even TFP does this. You may ask how can the universe come from nothing? Your intent isn't for an atheist to make you satisfied and give an answer assuming naturalism. Your intent is to attempt to point out the absurdity of an atheist.
@LanteanKnight "Science is always using mental gymnastics required to justify what 'it believes'."
So tooltime9901 is like a creationist saying the point of giving problems to evolution is not so you can answer it. The point is to see what kind of mental gymnastics required to justify it?
I would agree except I not so sure that TFP translated tooltime9901's words correctly. Isn't the point to make an argument always to show someone is wrong or absurd anyways not so someone can make up bs?
@LanteanKnight "That's how I defined 'mental gymnastics'"
I'm sorry i didn't see your earlier posts. I find it strange that you redefine the word when obviously it is inherently has negative connotations.
"What's the point you're trying to make, because it seems to me as if you didn't understand me well?"
TFP and tooltime9901 both ask questions and pose problems in order to show the absurdity of the opposite party, not to have their question solved. How is this issue any different?
The devestating argument against Christianity is the direct question: how can you justify your belief and faith. Everything you experience can be explained without invoking the supernatural. ;) Many of the other arguments are in fact rather stupid.
i;m an atheist and I totally agree with you!!! You didn;t miss the point
WWGHA is a strawman. If they want to misrepresent your beliefs, the question should be why do people die and why aren't prayers magic; e.g., they have to explain why nobody prayed to magically save stephen, why all those Christians were eaten by lions.
You have no idea what a rhetorical question is do you? They don't want an answer because they know you're just going to make stuff up.
How could you possibly answer that question for God? Unless you "know" why God doesn't heal amputees, you just making crap up to "explain it away using mental gymnastics".
The underlying point is that all ailments God has "healed" are things that might have gotten better anyway - unlike amputations.
and yet, you havent even attempted to answer the question...obviously you understand that there is no answer to that question that is even remotely acceptable, hence, atheists' reason for not wanting an answer...
From what you said, it seems to me the point was that the theist in question would answer the question and the atheist would go: "That's kind of convoluted and unnecessarily complicated."
lmao its not often i see a video w/more tumbs down than thumbs up..the god in the bible is a best deplorable, giving rule of the earth to "satan" for a peroid of time is like giving your child to a pedofile to have their way with. thumbs down for this video and thumbs down for the god of the bible!
well.. the reason he think tat you did not answer the question is because you did not answer the question. you told a little tale about something else and thaugt tha it would suffice. i think that the correct answer to that question is. "we dont know, because god works in mysterious ways" which itself is not much of an answer but you can use it for everything a sceptic asks.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I'm not an (atheis)t and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[150] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[126] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[151][152
@freethinker923 Indeed, let us embrace science - science accepting the "big bang" was a disaster for atheistic cosmology - there really was a beginning (uh oh). Shall we embrace reason? which tells us that the array of cosmological constants needed to set the universe in motion and sustain it could not possibly be accidental? Love, as a by-product of mind which is itself a mere epiphenomenon of matter, (atheistic worldview) can not have an objective reality (nothing to embrace). How sad.
@nottebaccio Sigh. This shows you know little about the "big bang" theory. Contrary to popular belief, it was an expansion of matter, not a creation event. Actually, "reason" has shown us that random combinations of different cosmological constants results in star formation 25% of the time, sometimes even exluding particular constants. Hardly finetuned. Your musings on love are haphazard at best. I'd prefer to let Shakespeare tell me about that. Nice try I guess...
@freethinker923 Actually I know what is known to be (accepted) about big bang theory quite well, I think you had better review the facts. The universe is incredibly fine tuned, from atomic structure to the formation of stars and star systems, none of it had to be as it is - and is actually extremely improbable (understatement). If my musings about love are incorrect from an atheistic perspective - tell me where I'm wrong.
@nottebaccio Sigh. Atheism does not equal nihilism. Just because there wasn't a sky daddy that placed a magic soul in us, doesn't de-value the concept of love any more to me. In fact, I actually find love to be more mysterious and intriguing now than when I was a theist. The only thing the universe does well and is fine tuned for is making black holes. The big bang does not state that anything was "created" out of nothing.
@freethinker923 Who said anything about a "sky daddy", or a "magic soul", oversimplifications that seem to be on a par with the rest of atheistic mental gymnastics. What certainly seems like magic to me is trying to avoid The First Law of Causality, and by extension it's direct implications. There of 5 lines of evidence that prove that the universe had a beginning (fact). For the universe to be eternal you also have to get rid of The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (no can do, it's the law).
@nottebaccio Give me a good reason why the cause for the BB should be explained by supernatural (god) rather than naturalistic means? (e.g. multiverse interaction) It's so transparent how you theists twist speculative scientific theories such as the BB because you desparately want it to support your views, yet disregard much more proven theories such as evolution because it contradicts them.
@freethinker923 According to modern cosmological evidence, the universe literally had nothing from which to emerge - time, space, and matter came into existence at the "big bang". This is accepted, well established science, you don't have to believe me. Since a cause cannot come after it's effect - natural forces cannot account for the "big bang". Physics and information theory exclude Darwinism as real science. These are established facts atheists must avoid.
@esprit1nu You conveniently left out ENERGY, which always existed, and is the foundation for time, space and matter. The 2nd law of ToE includes both matter and energy. #LOL , I love how you discount "Darwinism" by naming off two random branches of science. Unfortunately, fundamentalists like you won't listen to evidence so long as your holy book contradicts it, no matter how compelling it is. Your cause-effect premise excludes the cause of god, and is therefore inherently flawed.
@freethinker923 You are assuming that something other than God must have existed before the big bang only because the materialistic apriori assumption must exclude intelligence (God). The key issue for atheists is that something must have always existed - saying that energy existed as pre-matter is the same as saying that the universe is pre-eternal. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does apply to energy! The universe can't have pre-eternally existed as energy, it would have already been expended.
@esprit1nu You are assuming that I am a fundamentalist, (Christian?), and that I base the points I am making on a holy book? I might assume that you base your points on materialistic propaganda gleaned from "The Atheist Experience" - that would be a distraction at best. Thanks for giving me credit for the Law of Cause and Effect, I must humbly decline that honor.
@esprit1nu I went with the percentages and guessed you were a christian/hindu/muslim. Regardless, the fact that you reject evolution as verifiable science leads me to believe that you are a fundamentalist of some sort. I make my points based on observation, knowledge, and reason. I said it was your argument, not your "law". Perhaps you should watch that show sometime, you might learn something.
@freethinker923 Points of order - 1) believing in a super intelligence, does equate to a belief in the fundamentals of hard science, that is my sort of fundamentalism. 2) Darwinism isn't identical to evolution, evolution has not been empirically proven or disproven, Darwinism (undirected, non-intelligent evolution), died at the hand of information theory and the electron microscope.
@esprit1nu So you're saying that science is god now? Man you're all over the place. The fact that you don't acknowledge the empiral evidence that proves that evolution has occured shows either that you are a) ignorant of the evidence or b) that you choose to let your religious beliefs ovveride the evidence. Darwin's mechanism (natural selection) has been observed time and again in nature.
@freethinker923 God is responsible for everything we experience - even correctly applied empirical science. You still don't get it. Evolution is simply change over time- not speciation - no problem there. Darwinism (undirected, non intelligent evolution) cannot account for the incredible amount of highly specific information found in even the most rudimentary life. Yes - natural selection has been obseved! So what? Is it the mechanism for speciation? Absurd!
@esprit1nu You can say that god is responsible for science, but science does not empirically show that god is responsible. Show me why or how evolution cannot lead to speciation, and give me a better explanation for the gradual species transitions found in the fossil record. Show me why natural selection isn't the best explanation for how the majority of evolution (speciation) has occurred, and show me a better mechanism.
@freethinker923 You're still trying to think around what I am saying - nothing in the universe can exist apart from intelligence ( this includes the universe itself). The gradual transitions you are talking about don't empirically demonstrate non-intelligent speciation, honest evolutionists have even admitted this fact. A better mechanism for any increase in information, (speciation) is intelligence. Stop misquoting me, and start thinking.
@esprit1nu Intelligent design theory is based on nothing but gut intiution and is essentially an argument from ignorance. It seems complicated, so god must have done it. There is no method to test such a hypothesis, nor is there any objective evidence to support it. Your claim is nothing more than biased speculation, which is all that ID has to offer. Evolution is established science, ID is anti-science.
@freethinker923 I was going to drop this, but saying I.D. is "gut intuition" is an argument from ignorance. Information theory is much more empirically grounded than Darwinian evolution. It isn't just complexity - it's (specified) complexity, as in any language or code (DNA), that can come only from an intelligence ! Saying that the amazing degree of specific information found in DNA is the result of natural chemical and biological processes is willfully childish.
@esprit1nu You ignore the even more amazing degree of redundant and/or non-functional "information" also found in DNA. You say that someone who does not recognize a designer is "childish". That assertion is based on your intuition of a designer, not proof thereof. However, science is not always intuitive and rarely appeals to our instincts. I.D. relies on the ever-dwindling gaps in science to sustain their arguments from ignorance; that is, "I don't know how this happened, so god did it."
@freethinker923 Redundant or non-functional DNA? How do you know ? How do they know if it's really redundant or so-called junk DNA - and even if it is, does that in any way demonstrate the premise that non-intelligent chemicals accidentally created a super code??? If you find just one of these materialistic brainiacs that is smart enough to have created the DNA code in the first place I'll eat my bra. No let's go with reductionist argument from ignorance and call it science.
@esprit1nu When you look at human DNA, it tells a history of our evolution. For example, it shows viruses inherited by earlier ancestors and passed down to us, (e.g. HERV) and it also shows de-activated/mutated genes that once served a purpose in our ancestors (e.g. GULO gene). An artificial genome has recently been created from 4 basic chemicals and used to create synthetic life; check out Craig Venter's studies. The information is out there if you're simply willing to look at it...
@esprit1nu I think you need to review your basic thermodynamics. I don't expect you to be an expert on the subject, but you should at least google the law in question before making such a ridiculous claim. The 2nd LoT is about increasing entropy in a closed system which directly involves energy, and no, the universe does not violate this law. Your understanding of energy is very limited. The key for theists also is that something always existed; i.e. god. BTW, what is god, if not energy?
@freethinker923 I think you just shot yourself in the foot. "What is god, if not energy". The universe is a closed system unless it can be proven otherwise, and I have asserted nothing unsupported by science. Can you be specific? Thus far you are proving the thesis of the video - some atheists don't want answers.
@esprit1nu I'll face all the "answers" you provide me with, however until this point you have given me nothing. I'll give you another chance. So if god isn't energy or matter, then what do you think he is? If he is energy, then according to you energy always existed. If he isn't, then he violates his own laws of existence, and by definition, doesn't exist.
@freethinker923 Until this point I have given you nothing you want to honestly confront. Atheists are aware that it is impossible to traverse the infinite (time), that's why they are trapped into denying the implications presented by an ultimate beginning, even though the data demands a beginning. God is all that is - time, space, matter, - before the creation event - pure potential, unaffected by the laws that govern time, space and matter. This is in agreement with accepted cosmology.
@esprit1nu You think that the big bang is an established fact, which it is not. Second, you're interpretation of it is that it implies a creation event, which it does not. Time is one of the least understood properties in science. So if god is all that is, then I am god, since I am matter and energy. Cosmology knows nothing about god, and neither do you. You are merely attempting to use the boundaries of modern cosmology to fashion your particular brand of god so that "he" doesn't contradict it.
@freethinker923 I'll try to take your assertions in order. The big bang is established and accepted science - get over it. Logic used in tandem with the fundamental laws of science -which is what rational people work with - prove that the big bang was an act of creation. There was no-time before the big bang, because there was no material universe for it to exist in. Cosmology is a science, not an intelligence. Cosmologists use science and correctly applied logic to reach rational conclusions.
@esprit1nu The BB is the best cosmological model we currently have, but is it much more tentative and much less established than current evolutionary theory. Again, it implies that space-time is rapidly expanding, and that the universe was extremely dense at one time. This does not violate naturalistic explanation. Unlike you, I will not speculate what was before the big bang.
@freethinker923 You don't have to speculate from ignorance. Going with what science has empirically established, using the established laws of science, and structuring the thought process with correctly applied logic, leads to sound reliable conclusions. BTW Darwinism has 3, so far insurmoutable problems, cosmology does not, unless your philosopy makes you see super intelligence as a problem.
@esprit1nu Well perhaps then you should publish a scientific journal documenting these 3 insurmountable problems, because so far after 150 years of continual testing and analysis by hundreds of scientists (thousands?) none such "problems" have ever been documented.
Rant!
matthewtaylorbrown 2 months ago
So you like to make videos explaining how somebody owned you, yet speak in a sarcastic tone as if the opposite happened? You like personal shame or something?
trueleroix 2 months ago
@callingheyzeus /watch?v=oTrQYkxu1zA the first thing addressed is Josephus. This is not "documentation" its more hearsay than anything.
VENOM3RDUM 2 months ago
@callingheyzeus Well we're not talking about you and given the evidence and the lack thereof (esp. no witness account from the doctors that supposedly amputated the leg); the most reasonable conclusion is that it was a hoax to earn money as a beggar. There is also no documentation outside of the gospels and hearsay written much later that Jesus was buried and resurrected.
VENOM3RDUM 2 months ago
@callingheyzeus (cont) "Although this lack of a buried leg is often put forth as evidence that the story is true, it is actually a lack of evidence of anything."
And the paragraph that followed?
VENOM3RDUM 2 months ago
@callingheyzeus Did you miss:
"Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated — or that he was even treated at all — at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial. The trial did find that no leg was buried where he said it was at the hospital, but this is exactly what we'd expect to find if it had never been amputated."
VENOM3RDUM 2 months ago
@callingheyzeus
skeptoid(dot)com/episodes/4247
VENOM3RDUM 2 months ago
haha.....who is this guy? i love him, he's great....
razz44444 3 months ago
Your "God" us a psychopath, and if he actually did exist I think out reality would be as close to hell as anyone could ever imagine.
GnosticHumanist 5 months ago
God won't cure amputees for the same reason that Santa Claus won't bring toys to Jewish children. It's not that hard to figure out.
fallenone202 6 months ago
Okay, so I want an answer. A real answer to this question. "Why won't God heal amputees, except clear fakes with no documented proof, and always before a time when there could be scientific testing and proof positive documentation, and has clearly stopped healing them, if he ever did, in a modern era with modern witnesses. He can still according to faith cure cancer and Malaria, did he lose his touch?"
lebeaubastion 7 months ago
The problem is, when theist answer questions, they answer them like you answered the question....."what does apart from god mean"? i.e they don't give an answer. How can you be so deluded?
mylkTV 7 months ago
@callingheyzeus i said that age didnt disqualify it automatically, but considering the prevalence of christianity and the ease of fooling people at the time, it is hard for me to accept that the document would be completely accurate, especially because(unlike the documents you cited as examples) this a super natural occurrence. it is infinitely more probable that this was not in fact a miracle, but a ruse or misunderstanding. and if it IS true, why doesnt this happen more often?
UnstableNinja 7 months ago
@callingheyzeus no, age doesnt disqualify it automatically, if there is enough surviving proof that the document is factual and reliable
UnstableNinja 7 months ago
@callingheyzeus you'll understand if i dont take some random report from the 1600s as proof
UnstableNinja 7 months ago
it IS a retorical question, but tooltime said 'story', referring to how christians just throw the "god works in mysterious ways" bs out there. you would have to really think hard to justify god's actions, which begs the question, why are you trying to?
UnstableNinja 7 months ago
Jack poses an interesting question but he frames it wrong. It should read "Atheists don't want bullshit answers to legitimate questions." When an Atheist asks, what is the hard evidence to support the existence of a god, the christian shouldn't reach for the bible. There isn't a shred of evidence to substantiate the alleged events contained in the NT. It is a book of fiction. Jack will have to do better at creating a convincing argument instead of offering up the hysterical nonsense he uses now.
sailcat9 8 months ago
Most atheists are already convinced they're smarter than you, so they feel they don't have anything to learn from you. That's why they don't care if you answer their questions. It is the very definition of closed-mindedness.
stallion4life 8 months ago
You never actually answer anything, just more ad hominems. Atheists just do not want the dumb and easy answer, we actually want the truth.
PETEYPABLO1977 8 months ago
Ironic as it may be, whats the answer?
I get it, atheists dnt want truth yadah yah....
But Im an atheist and I want to know, why doesnt god heal amputees?
shandcunt 8 months ago
@1savedbyHisgrace
You said that I am a liar?!?
What did I lie about?
You are actually the liar, and you don't even know it!
You said "Jesus lives", that is a lie.
But I suppose if you are sadly delusional, and believe explanations of reality fabricated by ancient men who were intellectually immature, you are not really lying, you're just brainwashed into believing that a fairy tale is true.
It is not!
You need to watch some Richard Dawkins (PBUH) videos, and get you mind out of the Dark Ages.
legion1a 8 months ago
@1savedbyHisgrace I read your comment, which caused me to look at your channel.
I wondered what kind of person would say something like that.
You are the victim of a crime.
Teaching religious faith, the brainwashing of children is a crime against humanity.
You have gone from being a victim of that crime, to being a perpetrator.
Your ancestors became religious under the threat of death.
That delusion was passed down through the generations, and became your reality.
A delusion is a mental illness.
legion1a 8 months ago
Why doesn't God heal amputees?
Why doesn't God do anything at all?
God has not made an appearance in 2,000 years!
Is he on vacation?
The reality is that Atheists are correct.
Gods are an explanation of reality, fabricated by ancient people who had no real understanding of the world around them.
They were intellectually immature.
They had the hardware to be rational, but not the software.
Humans naturally know right from wrong, they created God's Law to enforce it, and found it gave them power.
legion1a 8 months ago
@TogetherForPeace That's not what he was trying to say but you of course, know that?
Pentagon1311 10 months ago
...(cont)...
Not just tell me in a third and more parties stories.
I haven't seen anything that science can't explain better than hocuspocus, Bronze age mentallity stories.
JemmetGK 10 months ago
I'm probably just repeating someone else but:
The pointe is; why can't you answer, to a non-believer, the question well enought that a non-believer would admit to being a plausible explanation. I'm very open minded but I have NOT YET heard a plausible explanation for why god won't heal amputees.
It's not that I'm not listening, I've read it all but it still doesn't explain it intelligently. The bible contradicts itself all around and that doesn't foster belief in me. SHOW ME the miracles.
JemmetGK 10 months ago
this is a very good explanation.
urbman29 10 months ago
Correct dumb arse, rhetorical questions. Now go fuck your sister. Christians are such lol.
Dandramere 11 months ago
i have just watched the ''RE: Some Atheists Don't Want Answers'' and he says it perfectly.
theUKatheist 11 months ago
Blah, blah, blah. Answer the rhetorical question, then, genius. Let's see you provide a reasonable answer in 1 comment box...
Good luck.
drgoldteef 11 months ago
If theists stop claiming that god cured their cancer I'll stop asking why god wont heal amputees.
RELIGIONmustDIE 1 year ago
You have never heard of rhetorical questions???
hexum7 1 year ago
In all of Gods omnipotence and all knowing grandure why did he choose Saul as king? and since GOD himself has ALL the knowledge. Past, present and future. Wouldn't HE himslef have known the atrocities Saul and his future wife Jezabel would have commited? And since HE knew these events would have occured, why make the initial decision to appoint a horrible King and his insidious wife into a position of power? and then go back on that plan and make a new one he knew he would do?
ZomBiezley 1 year ago
@LoopQuantumGravity1 You obviously missed the point of this video. It was obviously not there to answer the original question, but to address the issue that many atheists ask questions in such a way to to provoke a specific answer, but then (like many fundies) change the conditions when the answer is given. Logically, since his goal was obviously not to answer the original question, put to point out a different problem, Jack definitely did a good job. Have a nice day.
jimmo42 1 year ago
When I clicked this video I thought it would be a sincear theist who was facing the common problem with internet debates, suborn ideots who refuse to 'play by the rules.' I was then disapointed to find it was achully one of thoughs ideots making the video.
He wasn't implying he didn't want an aweser. He was saying he didn't want some rediculus story that is completly unfalusable and only exists to alow the person to ignore the argument.
DragonGreenFire 1 year ago
He said lots of stuff and danced around the question, but he never actually answered the question. I don't know would work.
pchtermino1 1 year ago
The fact that you can't rationally answer the question : "why doesn't god cure amputees" , demonstrates that "god" can't perform curative miracles that require clear verification. Which, in turn, demonstrates that any claim that "god" cures anyone, or indeed performs any intervention in human affairs is suspect, and more than likely a human fantasy. If a claim is supported by false claims, then the likelihood is even greater again that it is untrue.
Ergo, non belief in "god" is justified
Tobytrim 1 year ago
TogetherforPeace, ToolTime was pointing out the exact point of the amputee question. There are some questions atheists asks that they want answers two, but that particular question is focused on making you do mental gymnastics in order to attempt to justify something, or make you end up saying "God works in mysterious ways" (i.e. I don't know)
If you want an example of mental gymnastics there's an episode of South Park where Cartman ends up thinking he's some hero after killing an ant.
MysteriousAya 1 year ago
Oh we want answers just not the answers that come from a book that was written by wondering bronze age herdsman. Oh we silly Atheist with our remote controlled robot on mars taking samples, and what not.
jedah76 1 year ago
@jedah76 Even if the answer came from a bronze age book, if that answer is right, fine. But if you're going to give me mythology in which we have no way in testing, or some kind of "That's part of the plan" BS we're going to cry foul because 1. You don't know the plan and there is no foreseeable outcome of the plan beyond human destruction and suffering 2. its the equivalent of saying "I don't know" in the grand scheme of things so its not an answer.
MysteriousAya 1 year ago
@MysteriousAya Umm don't know what part of my post made you believe I was defending the bible. I thought the sentence " Oh we want answers just not the answers that come from a book that was written by wondering bronze age herdsman" Was pretty clear that I, the person writing this post did not want answers from the bible. Now excuse me I have to go take a shower because was mistaken for a Chirstian.
jedah76 1 year ago
@jedah76 Oh no no! I was just agreeing and expanding on your comment was all. No confusion. Sorry about that.
MysteriousAya 1 year ago
@MysteriousAya I'm sorry friend. I should read into replies better.
jedah76 1 year ago
@jedah76 Neh, nothing to be sorry about. It does start out as if I'm disagreeing.
MysteriousAya 1 year ago
Apparently 390 atheists don't want answers.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Or we want answers and wont accept mythology on the same level of science.
AKaudy 1 year ago
The point Jack misses is that in the scripture it clearly states that if you have faith and ask of your god, then there is no reason what you ask would not happen. Yet there has never been a single amputee who has gotten back an actual limb. Therefore what is stated in scripture simply does not hold up to reality.
Relativisticism 1 year ago
@Relativisticism reality is what does not hold up to scripture. By faith, through His grace, is where an individual starts; this is a choice of the heart first, then the mind. And when the mind begins to know more, the more the individual finds we don't know, nor never will on this earth. "Now we see dimly as in a mirror, then we shall see fully and know fully, just as we are fully known" (by the Father). Cor. 13
For the "logical, rational" atheist, see Matthew Chap. 7, verse 7. live&love
CWway08 1 year ago
@CWway08 "the more the individual finds we don't know, nor never will on this earth"
yeah a pretty typical comment coming from someone who undermines humanity. I guess medical advancements skip your line of reasoning? We have progressed and know more than we use to know, and sure there are things we may never know but that doesn't mean we should stop there and just assume something exists because of that. But I digress because that is not the point. Scripture is something invented by man.
Relativisticism 1 year ago
@CWway08 "reality is what does not hold up to scripture."
That is because scripture was made by man during a time when they knew or understood very little of the workings of the world. We know more now and that reveals that the scripture is in error and should be abandoned. We are outgrowing the need for beliefs in gods to explain reality, yet there are still some of us who are dragging their feet, refusing to accept the reality that gods do not exist.
Relativisticism 1 year ago
@Relativisticism What I said about knowing, I say in regard to Truth.
Your responses are good. However, examine your heart; they are come from the most common source of refusal to believe, read, or respect the Bible: Pride. Our human lack of humility is our bane today.
Again, I direct you to the book of Matthew, Chapter 7, verse 7.
CWway08 1 year ago
(cont) ... i find in any way admirable or even useful. In fact in some ways just the opposite tends to be the case. A lot of what is in the bible is ignored by most christians who have either never fully read it or they refuse to acknowledge it. Let's face it, the scripture was written by men who liked the idea of a vengeful god who will bring havoc to anyone who doesn't obey. The bible does not reflect a loving and merciful god in any way, yet christians will always attempt to say otherwise.
Relativisticism 1 year ago
@CWway08 "However, examine your heart; they are come from the most common source of refusal to believe, read, or respect the Bible"
I am not refusing to believe, I am accepting the fact that gods do not exist because my reality does not provide anything to base such a belief on. The bible is a very poor example of what I would consider to be something worthy of respect, you got that much right. Not because it talks about some god, but instead the actual stuff in there is not something that...
Relativisticism 1 year ago
oh no... you are one of those people who answers every rhetorical question you hear, and then looks confused when people stare at you afterwards aren't you?
The point is to illustrate how many baseess assumptions and circular arguements it takes to come up with the answer - not nessecarily the answer itself. Why? For the same reason that you are asked to show your math on your final exam. It dosn't even matter if you guessed the right answer if your reasoning is wrong.
TheStigma 1 year ago
All i can say is for you to think a bit more outside the box and not answer questions that are Rhetorical you moron!!! and you really didnt make much of a case yourself good sir.
hinojam134 1 year ago
It's a waste of time trying to convince atheists, because they already have shown that they have chosen not to believe in the holy scriptures, and in Christ, therefore, they have already made up their minds. I am a Christian, however, I have come to the conclusion that, even if Jesus showed himself to the atheists, they'd still refuse to accept him. How do I know? becausethey do what they always do, deny anything they're told that represents faith. So, let God deal with them.
songwriter4artists 1 year ago
@songwriter4artists
I care about truth.
I want to know the truth.
I want my beliefs to most accurately reflect the truth.
Arbitrary beliefs are unlikely t reflect truth since they have no basis in it.
If my beliefs shouldn't be arbitrary (without reason) then they should be with reason. (in order to more accurately reflect reality)
so I should determine beliefs with logic(reason or sound judgment) in order for them to more accurately reflect reality.
So, give me a reason to believe. Please
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
I love this guy. Even if I had did ask a rhetorical question that people on youtube would respond to, they want their first step of of knowledge or common sense to shine then they reply with such a comment and end it by jumping to conclusions of that person's thoughts.
dathip 1 year ago
is this satire? if not you really are missing the point.
shangerboy 1 year ago
Someone is convinced that Santa exists, and I ask him why all the arctic explorers haven't found Santa's workshop. He responds that Santa has an invisibility generator... The fact he can invent some unfounded explanation is not the point (anyone can do that for any irrational belief). The fact that irrational beliefs require mental gymnastics like this *is* the point. The more unfounded assumptions needed to make an explanation agree with observation, the more likely that explanation is false.
balios1 1 year ago
That's the problem with rhetorical questions. Someone might answer them.
qwexas 1 year ago
There's only so much apologetics that can be done.
When one claims god heals diseases, this should be expected to happen with the same probability among amputees.
Furthermore, does "anything you ask the father in my name shall be given to you" ring a bell?
We acknowledge you can rationalize anything away, and that is why we need data, not "stories" why god heals other things, but never amputees. As long as no amputee has been healed, all other claims of miraculous healing are null and void.
De4sher 1 year ago
You see, atheists don't all HAVE to believe the same thing, just because one atheist says he's not looking for an answer. Literally ONE GUY does not speak for the rest of humanity. Meanwhile christianity is based on one guy, jesus, atoning for all of humanity til the end of time. Christians go to church because they need a pastor to connect with god, it's part of their faith. Still, that's one guy that is supposed to account for the entirety of the congregation. It's in your mentality.
Jrezky 1 year ago
Well then answer the question you christian fuckwit, instead of questioning his logic that is unrelated to HIS beliefs
e2h2tony 1 year ago
I think atheism is just trendy right now.
NO one really believes that all matter just created and orginized itself.
I think it is more about not liking religious people and so they say they are athiests.
brandisify 1 year ago
@brandisify
Whats disturbing is that apparently you are OK with lots of people believing instead that a supernatural sky-daddy with created the universe and is particularly interested in cutting pieces of my penis off.
And you are of course completely wrong about atheists.
Phage0070 1 year ago
@brandisify yes, atheism is trendy right now.
about stuff being created out of nothing, this is such a loaded sentence, i can't even reply to it. we're on different planets here. to be short, to me, as an atheist, the big bang theory and god never had anything to do with each other AND nobody (but christians) ever said stuff was created out of nothing.
yes atheism some atheists (like me) deconverted primarily because they didn't like religious people.
however, i truly don't believe in god.
De4sher 1 year ago
@brandisify but it is a common type of christian denial that you show. You seem to be unable to grasp that some people simply do not believe what you believe.
I think this attitude is childish, and you should get rid of it.
I believe you are a christian and you believe in god.
You should also believe that atheists aren't christians, and they simply don't believe in god.
Atheism is more than a fad, it's people returning to the normal, natural state of not believing in silly religious stuff.
De4sher 1 year ago
TFP reminds me of Christopher Walken in this video.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
It's called a rhetorical question dude. A question formed to make someone think. It's not about pointing and laughing, it's about disseminating an idea.
How do you know what the motive was? How do you know it was about laughing at you? Why does asking a rhetorical equate to mockery?
TheJacolyte 1 year ago
im not surprised you didnt understand
xbetamaster 1 year ago
A lot of words, but you fail to answer the question:
"Why does your god never grow back a limb?"
Is it because he hates amputees? Is it because he's not powerful enough? Is it because he only specializes in internal diseases? Or can you come up with a bullshit story?
Are are you going to be honest? And say: "I don't know"
henkvanderlaak 1 year ago
@henkvanderlaak actually diresgarding any bent on whther we're theists/atheists & trying to approach this dilemma from a "logical" viewpoint (not emotional). We would agree upon the idea that to even qualify as a "god" means to interpret that being as a super/supreme being. With that said it would ultimately make sense that this beings knowledge far outweighs our own or else it would be disqualified under that descriptor "god". Its then easy enough to say...God simply knows better than we do.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Do we have an honest "I don't know" here then?
henkvanderlaak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@henkvanderlaak "Do we have an honest "I don't know" here then?"
what are you referring to as in "i don't know"?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
Comment removed
henkvanderlaak 1 year ago
No, the point is to get a TRUE answer; since your superstition has no evidence behind it, you may as well be saying that "the magic pink unicorn doesn't heal amputees because he doesn't want amputees to be healed".
StaceyC123 1 year ago
@StaceyC123 but magical pink unicorns are not being claimed to exist in anyone books. So why bring this comparison into the conversation?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
Because there is an equal amount of "evidence" for both magical pink unicorns and the imaginary "gods" of various cults, so there is no more reason to believe in one over the other.
StaceyC123 1 year ago
That question is really just to demonstrate that faith healings are nonsense. It doesn't "disprove god" it just tells us that if there is one he doesn't heal people because the people he does heal tend to be far less in need of healing than some of the people he could heal.
I'm interested in how you actually responded to that question. Did you come up with some kind of justification? I've never heard one before the only explanation I can think of is god doesn't heal on request.
AlexThomson1000 1 year ago
@AlexThomson1000 Yet who are we to put a yoke upon God's neck so that He may perform the tasks we want Him to? More the aggravation comes from the man who believes if he could just get God to do what he wants then all the world would be a better place. Interesting times come upon those who with little wisdom, can direct power beyond that which they can fortell its usage.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat This is a big part of my point. I'm glad you see it this way. If I were to believe in god it is still ridiculous to believe that he'd go about healing people because a faith healer asked him. The theological implications make him a bumbling fool or a malicious bully. Ergo all faith healers are charlatans, frauds and deserve nothing less than incarceration.
Personally I just don’t believe in a god or faith healings.
AlexThomson1000 1 year ago
It would be better to ask first if you think that a god heals people, because if you don't, then the question is unnecessary. The point is that people claim that a god heals them of certain maladies that can be healed by medicine or just go away on their own. The example of an amputee is specific to a malady that never heals, so it would be evidence of divine intervention. Here is what I think is a better question: Is there any evidence of any god healing anybody ever?
trueleroix 1 year ago
well after 3:53 of watching this im none the wiser.was that supposed to answer the critics? i would love to hear someone with intelligence answer the question "why does god not heal or create new limbs for someone that has lost one".....but i think this is the wrong place.
jamesjnr67 1 year ago
You know I'm and atheist and I agree 100%
It gets on my nerves. Fellow atheists also like to talk about how bad god is, when they don't even think he exists.
Don't get me wrong I do believe Christians participate in mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs. But again you tube atheists in particular do like to acting like 5 year olds think about and making videos about things they don't even believe in.
MirageScience 1 year ago
@MirageScience "But again you tube atheists in particular do like to acting like 5 year olds think about and making videos about things they don't even believe in."
Well spoken!
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
All the question is doing is simply suggesting that the statement "there is no god" is a much more reasonable explanation as to why god won't heal amputees. There are lots of cases where diseases are miraculously healed, but not a sinlge case of an amputated limb spontaneously regenerating. The question is meant to bring some doubt of god's existence to the table. It's just that some people, like this guy, see it as a cheap shot when it's really not.
CHamlin86 1 year ago
You're right. This question is posed primarily as rhetoric. It's not one of the questions I normally use because it falls to close to the whole problem of evil thing which I've never considered a good argument. While I have heard some really good answers to the problem of evil though, I have never heard a good answer to why God won't heal amputees. Seriously, if God can cure cancer (a popular claim), why doesn't he heal amputees? PM an answer if you have a good one. I'd really like to hear one.
jklarson66 1 year ago
I see doubt in his eyes
Malvisk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ummmm.... OK..... so answer the question then
KaitonsCorner 1 year ago
Bible ,the only answer for all questions.Why not Ashtavakragita?
sekulaadam 1 year ago
even as an agnostic who leans more towards athiesm. (i dont believe in god but i believe its possible) ill admit that wasnt a fair question to pose. its all to easy for people (theists and atheists) to fall away from a productive discussion of religion as a whole and go to childish methods like that. i rather enjoy having such discussions, but i dont let emotion get the better of me. you are 100% accurate in this video. take it easy
MaNiAcaLunchBox 1 year ago
@MaNiAcaLunchBox patsy
jamesjnr67 1 year ago
I am an amputee that was healed.
But it was Satan that healed me.
gd44 1 year ago
Boy... you STILL don't get the point of the question.... :)
In fact, I have never met a Christian who did get the point. I think that that is the inherent problem. If you were capable of understanding the point of the question... you wouldn't be a Christian in the first place.
fearguis 1 year ago
even if it DID requite mental gymnastics, well what's wrong with that??? Sure not everyone's up for that but some of us who put in a lot of effort are. After all mental gymnastics is basically what philosophers do, am I right??
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
Ehrr...If you don't mind, TFP.
Why god doesn't heal amputees?
Just answer, that's all. Why god doesn't heal amputees?
Thanks.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MrJurekGG He does. He healed the aunt of a friend of mine. Her big toe grew back, but of course you won't believe it.
Soul4JC 1 year ago
@Mr Jurek
I believe you entirely.
A friend of the cousin of my neighbor's son of law had the same story.
She prayed and prayed since she was like 14+ and, her tits are really nice, as of now. I saw them on my very eyes so no one can accuse me of making the story up.
That, plus she told me personally about her tits, while in church on Sunday morning, so she can't lie in the church - but of course.
Believing in god has such a powerful effect on our lives.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MrJurekGG dude, even as a nonbeliever ill admit thats an unfair question. based on christian beliefs "god has a plan" and all that, it basically means its not for man to know or question Him. so there is no way they could possibly give a factual answer. ITS A LOADED QUESTION THAT DOES NOTHING TO FURTHER UNDERSTANDING OR CONVERSATION. its a childish attempt to hit them with something they cant answer so you can say "I WIN"
MaNiAcaLunchBox 1 year ago
@MaNiAcaLunchBox
It's not for man to know...?
For whom, then ?
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MaNiAcaLunchBox is why doesnt god heal amputees an unfair question......if you think that is unfair you are really not an unbeliever..........nice try
jamesjnr67 1 year ago
haha tool time tooled!
zen699 1 year ago
The point was he didnt believe you could give an answer, and you still havent, just as you say I response.
LouisPlume 1 year ago
Nonetheless, TFP has a point. It's kind of horse laugh to just pose a question or a problem for someone only to claim victory by saying how many excuses they have to make in order to answer it.
But what TFP isn't taking into account is that most people, even TFP does this. You may ask how can the universe come from nothing? Your intent isn't for an atheist to make you satisfied and give an answer assuming naturalism. Your intent is to attempt to point out the absurdity of an atheist.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
The point is that god should heal them, and it doesn't.
That's a pretty much it.
Whatever tool or you said, the fact is that it should, and it doesn't, can't make more clear.
ChristianIce 1 year ago
Although I'm an atheist, I agree with you.
Science is always using mental gymnastics required to justify what 'it believes'.
The world isn't all that simple, sometimes long complex 'stories' are needed to 'explain things away'.
The only point in posing these kind of questions is to feel better yourself.
Like: Hey! I just owned a Christian!
LanteanKnight 1 year ago
@LanteanKnight "Science is always using mental gymnastics required to justify what 'it believes'."
So tooltime9901 is like a creationist saying the point of giving problems to evolution is not so you can answer it. The point is to see what kind of mental gymnastics required to justify it?
I would agree except I not so sure that TFP translated tooltime9901's words correctly. Isn't the point to make an argument always to show someone is wrong or absurd anyways not so someone can make up bs?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Your missing my point.
Like I said in my earlier comment; sometimes things are to complicated to say in one sentence, they need to be explained thoroughly.
That's how I defined 'mental gymnastics'.
What's the point you're trying to make, because it seems to me as if you didn't understand me well?
LanteanKnight 1 year ago
@LanteanKnight "That's how I defined 'mental gymnastics'"
I'm sorry i didn't see your earlier posts. I find it strange that you redefine the word when obviously it is inherently has negative connotations.
"What's the point you're trying to make, because it seems to me as if you didn't understand me well?"
TFP and tooltime9901 both ask questions and pose problems in order to show the absurdity of the opposite party, not to have their question solved. How is this issue any different?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
Oh I just felt that using the 'mental gymnastics' expression enhanced my argument.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, but I really can't follow you, what issue?
LanteanKnight 1 year ago
The devestating argument against Christianity is the direct question: how can you justify your belief and faith. Everything you experience can be explained without invoking the supernatural. ;) Many of the other arguments are in fact rather stupid.
truevoiceofsanity 1 year ago
i;m an atheist and I totally agree with you!!! You didn;t miss the point
WWGHA is a strawman. If they want to misrepresent your beliefs, the question should be why do people die and why aren't prayers magic; e.g., they have to explain why nobody prayed to magically save stephen, why all those Christians were eaten by lions.
truevoiceofsanity 1 year ago
I'm going to ask a question to the OP and I want an actual answer:
Why can god heal temporary and/or internal diseases but can't regrow fallen limbs?
littlteapot 1 year ago
You have no idea what a rhetorical question is do you? They don't want an answer because they know you're just going to make stuff up.
How could you possibly answer that question for God? Unless you "know" why God doesn't heal amputees, you just making crap up to "explain it away using mental gymnastics".
The underlying point is that all ailments God has "healed" are things that might have gotten better anyway - unlike amputations.
politicsthatmatter 1 year ago
and yet, you havent even attempted to answer the question...obviously you understand that there is no answer to that question that is even remotely acceptable, hence, atheists' reason for not wanting an answer...
thequesadilla11 1 year ago
li+, very manic, you make no sense.
johnjppa 1 year ago
alright well i will ask you TogetherForPeace why does god not heal amputees, and i do want the answer, even if its a lengthy story
ouellette666 1 year ago
From what you said, it seems to me the point was that the theist in question would answer the question and the atheist would go: "That's kind of convoluted and unnecessarily complicated."
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
You missed the point
robvidtime9000 1 year ago
lmao its not often i see a video w/more tumbs down than thumbs up..the god in the bible is a best deplorable, giving rule of the earth to "satan" for a peroid of time is like giving your child to a pedofile to have their way with. thumbs down for this video and thumbs down for the god of the bible!
youngn420 1 year ago
well.. the reason he think tat you did not answer the question is because you did not answer the question. you told a little tale about something else and thaugt tha it would suffice. i think that the correct answer to that question is. "we dont know, because god works in mysterious ways" which itself is not much of an answer but you can use it for everything a sceptic asks.
oskarkeyser 1 year ago
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
—Albert Einstein
DisasterUnknown 1 year ago
I'm not an (atheis)t and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
—Albert Einstein[92]
DisasterUnknown 1 year ago
selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[150] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[126] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[151][152
DisasterUnknown 1 year ago
HErpa DERP!
Pavelserboris 1 year ago
So did you answer the question? And you are jumping through mental hoops to avoid the true answer. Answer the question.
bp56789 1 year ago
Question remains, why doesn't he?
88gertjan88 1 year ago
I notice you didnt actually answer the question, I would of thought if you thought your belief was rational, then you would of stated your case.
lynus111 1 year ago
Why the vitriol ? I don't suppose it could have anything to do valid points being made? Atheists do seem to emote so easily.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
You're wasting your life! Embrace science, reason, and love!
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 Indeed, let us embrace science - science accepting the "big bang" was a disaster for atheistic cosmology - there really was a beginning (uh oh). Shall we embrace reason? which tells us that the array of cosmological constants needed to set the universe in motion and sustain it could not possibly be accidental? Love, as a by-product of mind which is itself a mere epiphenomenon of matter, (atheistic worldview) can not have an objective reality (nothing to embrace). How sad.
nottebaccio 1 year ago
@nottebaccio Sigh. This shows you know little about the "big bang" theory. Contrary to popular belief, it was an expansion of matter, not a creation event. Actually, "reason" has shown us that random combinations of different cosmological constants results in star formation 25% of the time, sometimes even exluding particular constants. Hardly finetuned. Your musings on love are haphazard at best. I'd prefer to let Shakespeare tell me about that. Nice try I guess...
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 Actually I know what is known to be (accepted) about big bang theory quite well, I think you had better review the facts. The universe is incredibly fine tuned, from atomic structure to the formation of stars and star systems, none of it had to be as it is - and is actually extremely improbable (understatement). If my musings about love are incorrect from an atheistic perspective - tell me where I'm wrong.
nottebaccio 1 year ago
@nottebaccio Sigh. Atheism does not equal nihilism. Just because there wasn't a sky daddy that placed a magic soul in us, doesn't de-value the concept of love any more to me. In fact, I actually find love to be more mysterious and intriguing now than when I was a theist. The only thing the universe does well and is fine tuned for is making black holes. The big bang does not state that anything was "created" out of nothing.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 Who said anything about a "sky daddy", or a "magic soul", oversimplifications that seem to be on a par with the rest of atheistic mental gymnastics. What certainly seems like magic to me is trying to avoid The First Law of Causality, and by extension it's direct implications. There of 5 lines of evidence that prove that the universe had a beginning (fact). For the universe to be eternal you also have to get rid of The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (no can do, it's the law).
nottebaccio 1 year ago
@nottebaccio Give me a good reason why the cause for the BB should be explained by supernatural (god) rather than naturalistic means? (e.g. multiverse interaction) It's so transparent how you theists twist speculative scientific theories such as the BB because you desparately want it to support your views, yet disregard much more proven theories such as evolution because it contradicts them.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 According to modern cosmological evidence, the universe literally had nothing from which to emerge - time, space, and matter came into existence at the "big bang". This is accepted, well established science, you don't have to believe me. Since a cause cannot come after it's effect - natural forces cannot account for the "big bang". Physics and information theory exclude Darwinism as real science. These are established facts atheists must avoid.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu You conveniently left out ENERGY, which always existed, and is the foundation for time, space and matter. The 2nd law of ToE includes both matter and energy. #LOL , I love how you discount "Darwinism" by naming off two random branches of science. Unfortunately, fundamentalists like you won't listen to evidence so long as your holy book contradicts it, no matter how compelling it is. Your cause-effect premise excludes the cause of god, and is therefore inherently flawed.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 I meant to say LoT (law of thermodynamics) instead of ToE.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 You are assuming that something other than God must have existed before the big bang only because the materialistic apriori assumption must exclude intelligence (God). The key issue for atheists is that something must have always existed - saying that energy existed as pre-matter is the same as saying that the universe is pre-eternal. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does apply to energy! The universe can't have pre-eternally existed as energy, it would have already been expended.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu You are assuming that I am a fundamentalist, (Christian?), and that I base the points I am making on a holy book? I might assume that you base your points on materialistic propaganda gleaned from "The Atheist Experience" - that would be a distraction at best. Thanks for giving me credit for the Law of Cause and Effect, I must humbly decline that honor.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu I went with the percentages and guessed you were a christian/hindu/muslim. Regardless, the fact that you reject evolution as verifiable science leads me to believe that you are a fundamentalist of some sort. I make my points based on observation, knowledge, and reason. I said it was your argument, not your "law". Perhaps you should watch that show sometime, you might learn something.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 Points of order - 1) believing in a super intelligence, does equate to a belief in the fundamentals of hard science, that is my sort of fundamentalism. 2) Darwinism isn't identical to evolution, evolution has not been empirically proven or disproven, Darwinism (undirected, non-intelligent evolution), died at the hand of information theory and the electron microscope.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu So you're saying that science is god now? Man you're all over the place. The fact that you don't acknowledge the empiral evidence that proves that evolution has occured shows either that you are a) ignorant of the evidence or b) that you choose to let your religious beliefs ovveride the evidence. Darwin's mechanism (natural selection) has been observed time and again in nature.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 God is responsible for everything we experience - even correctly applied empirical science. You still don't get it. Evolution is simply change over time- not speciation - no problem there. Darwinism (undirected, non intelligent evolution) cannot account for the incredible amount of highly specific information found in even the most rudimentary life. Yes - natural selection has been obseved! So what? Is it the mechanism for speciation? Absurd!
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu You can say that god is responsible for science, but science does not empirically show that god is responsible. Show me why or how evolution cannot lead to speciation, and give me a better explanation for the gradual species transitions found in the fossil record. Show me why natural selection isn't the best explanation for how the majority of evolution (speciation) has occurred, and show me a better mechanism.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 You're still trying to think around what I am saying - nothing in the universe can exist apart from intelligence ( this includes the universe itself). The gradual transitions you are talking about don't empirically demonstrate non-intelligent speciation, honest evolutionists have even admitted this fact. A better mechanism for any increase in information, (speciation) is intelligence. Stop misquoting me, and start thinking.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu Intelligent design theory is based on nothing but gut intiution and is essentially an argument from ignorance. It seems complicated, so god must have done it. There is no method to test such a hypothesis, nor is there any objective evidence to support it. Your claim is nothing more than biased speculation, which is all that ID has to offer. Evolution is established science, ID is anti-science.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 I was going to drop this, but saying I.D. is "gut intuition" is an argument from ignorance. Information theory is much more empirically grounded than Darwinian evolution. It isn't just complexity - it's (specified) complexity, as in any language or code (DNA), that can come only from an intelligence ! Saying that the amazing degree of specific information found in DNA is the result of natural chemical and biological processes is willfully childish.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu You ignore the even more amazing degree of redundant and/or non-functional "information" also found in DNA. You say that someone who does not recognize a designer is "childish". That assertion is based on your intuition of a designer, not proof thereof. However, science is not always intuitive and rarely appeals to our instincts. I.D. relies on the ever-dwindling gaps in science to sustain their arguments from ignorance; that is, "I don't know how this happened, so god did it."
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 Redundant or non-functional DNA? How do you know ? How do they know if it's really redundant or so-called junk DNA - and even if it is, does that in any way demonstrate the premise that non-intelligent chemicals accidentally created a super code??? If you find just one of these materialistic brainiacs that is smart enough to have created the DNA code in the first place I'll eat my bra. No let's go with reductionist argument from ignorance and call it science.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu When you look at human DNA, it tells a history of our evolution. For example, it shows viruses inherited by earlier ancestors and passed down to us, (e.g. HERV) and it also shows de-activated/mutated genes that once served a purpose in our ancestors (e.g. GULO gene). An artificial genome has recently been created from 4 basic chemicals and used to create synthetic life; check out Craig Venter's studies. The information is out there if you're simply willing to look at it...
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 An artificial genome was created using what ??? Intelligence !
You can dance around the truth - but who are you hurting?
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu I think you need to review your basic thermodynamics. I don't expect you to be an expert on the subject, but you should at least google the law in question before making such a ridiculous claim. The 2nd LoT is about increasing entropy in a closed system which directly involves energy, and no, the universe does not violate this law. Your understanding of energy is very limited. The key for theists also is that something always existed; i.e. god. BTW, what is god, if not energy?
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 I think you just shot yourself in the foot. "What is god, if not energy". The universe is a closed system unless it can be proven otherwise, and I have asserted nothing unsupported by science. Can you be specific? Thus far you are proving the thesis of the video - some atheists don't want answers.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu I'll face all the "answers" you provide me with, however until this point you have given me nothing. I'll give you another chance. So if god isn't energy or matter, then what do you think he is? If he is energy, then according to you energy always existed. If he isn't, then he violates his own laws of existence, and by definition, doesn't exist.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 Until this point I have given you nothing you want to honestly confront. Atheists are aware that it is impossible to traverse the infinite (time), that's why they are trapped into denying the implications presented by an ultimate beginning, even though the data demands a beginning. God is all that is - time, space, matter, - before the creation event - pure potential, unaffected by the laws that govern time, space and matter. This is in agreement with accepted cosmology.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu You think that the big bang is an established fact, which it is not. Second, you're interpretation of it is that it implies a creation event, which it does not. Time is one of the least understood properties in science. So if god is all that is, then I am god, since I am matter and energy. Cosmology knows nothing about god, and neither do you. You are merely attempting to use the boundaries of modern cosmology to fashion your particular brand of god so that "he" doesn't contradict it.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 I'll try to take your assertions in order. The big bang is established and accepted science - get over it. Logic used in tandem with the fundamental laws of science -which is what rational people work with - prove that the big bang was an act of creation. There was no-time before the big bang, because there was no material universe for it to exist in. Cosmology is a science, not an intelligence. Cosmologists use science and correctly applied logic to reach rational conclusions.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu The BB is the best cosmological model we currently have, but is it much more tentative and much less established than current evolutionary theory. Again, it implies that space-time is rapidly expanding, and that the universe was extremely dense at one time. This does not violate naturalistic explanation. Unlike you, I will not speculate what was before the big bang.
freethinker923 1 year ago
@freethinker923 You don't have to speculate from ignorance. Going with what science has empirically established, using the established laws of science, and structuring the thought process with correctly applied logic, leads to sound reliable conclusions. BTW Darwinism has 3, so far insurmoutable problems, cosmology does not, unless your philosopy makes you see super intelligence as a problem.
esprit1nu 1 year ago
@esprit1nu Well perhaps then you should publish a scientific journal documenting these 3 insurmountable problems, because so far after 150 years of continual testing and analysis by hundreds of scientists (thousands?) none such "problems" have ever been documented.
freethinker923 1 year ago