A [Muslim] friend once said that his mother had cancer, the family preyed and it went away. To which i retorted, go to any hospital, you will find the same amount of Muslims, Christians and atheists suffering and dying, no?
On a side note, someone i knew had a lump on her breast, the doctors looked worried that it may be cancer. Upon probing the lump to get a sample, the whole thing burst, the liquid drained out, it turned out to be non cancerous and the doctors were relieved and quite shocked at the simplicity of the operation, pop and it was virtually gone. Just saying that sometimes lumps aren’t cancers, and sometimes the body fights it off etc.
Seriously, if God exists, why would he choose to save some and not others? Especially [in religious terms] those of a different religion/denomination, but one which also believes in God.
I am only human and sometimes an asshole, but I would choose to save anyone. So surely a divine being would be at least as benevolent as little ole me. If not i’d question if this being is divine et al.
The problem of evil, again.
This time, the problem of death and disease.
You end up refuting all kinds of human guess work.
If a ‘god’ had limited power, ancient humans would
probably still worship it. If it could cure disease,
or nuke cities, to them, it would be a god or a demigod.
Even the people directly healed or resurrected, they died later.
Technology is getting to the point where it can do things that oldies would think were only possible in the case of gods.
Yes, though more a problem with what would be a stupid god ~ if he chose.
The point was an attempt at showing the obvious, the reality/mathematics of numbers; people of all types end up in hospitals and die, its the same for anyone.
OK, but you didn’t actually prove that, you just asserted it. Maybe Christians or Hindus or people who pray or whatever really do benefit from miraculous seeming healings more than other groups. Do you know? I don’t think miracles are a particularly good source of evidence one way or the other, but since you brought it up we may as well acknowledge the reality that miraculous healings seem to happen just about daily, and the studies I’m aware of say prayer actually has a positive impact.
Save them from what? Save them for what?
The prayers are silly, and made from an ignorant, puny-life-form perspective. To a god, a live human and a dead human are worth the same - either all are precious or all are disposable. He’s made them all mortal, and he lives forever.
If they are all precious to him and he’s prepared an afterlife for the souls, then their mortal life on earth seems like a brief wait for the real thing: eternity, and death is no problem. If he doesn’t let his creations live forever but destroys them like paper dolls, three years or 80 years wouldn’t seem all that different to him - an instant in eternity - so what’s the big deal?
To doctors and nurses, patients are all precious and the most important thing in the world is to prolong these fleeting little lives. When, with enormous effort and dedication, at the expenditure of copious amounts of energy and the use of ingenious tools, teams of people with a great deal of professional training in just such matters manage to save a critically ill or injured patient, the religious go “It’s a miracle! Thank God!” . If they fail, they can be sued. Gods can’t, though they fail a lot more often.
As for the reality of miraculous healing, I have seen no such evidence - at any time intervals - that wasn’t faked.
As for the benefit of prayer, it works like any other method of meditation or self-soothing technique. It’s like boiling water used to be for childbirths: unnecessary, but keeps the husband busy and out of the midwife’s way. The one who believes that prayer has a real effect feels that he or she is doing something, which makes them more optimistic, less frustrated and helpless, while the repetitive and focussed ritual slows the heartbeat, calms the adrenals, unclenches the muscles and controls panic.
It does nothing whatever for the patient - unless the patient is a believer and knows that he’s being prayed-for, in which case it might help him get through painful procedures with less wear and tear on his psyche. No use if he’s bleeding out from a torn aorta, or riddled with secondary tumours.
Uccisore
You are asking me to prove the unprovable, when there is no evidence to the contrary, ergo the onus is on those who believe to find proofs. Mine is a philosophical point asking [the title was speaking figuratively/metaphorically] if it is wisdom to chose some over others!
I agree prayer can help if for no other reason than you think you are getting help or someone is listening. The problem is in the adjective that you or your religion are the reasons why the prayer is working, a wise God would surely be equally concerned with atheists/anyone. There are a great many issues is the world derived from people thinking they are special because of their religion. Then duality being what it is, where there is a perceived benefit there is also a deficit, and we see this where one group [e.g. ISIL] considers itself to be the beneficiaries of Gods singular response, and others would thus be in deficit.
humunculus
Wouldn’t you care if your children suffered ~ the same for God. The after-life may have certain requirements, but remember than Christians for example believe in the resurrection, which denotes living a good life and God would hence be wanting us and the world to be better ~ i would imagine.
There is a difference between my feelings for my creations and my children. If a story I’ve written or a picture I’ve drawn falls short of its purpose or my standards, I simply throw it away. If those inadequate creations convinced themselves that I’m their loving parent - too bad; they still get tossed. My children, on the other hand, are independent adults now. I would help them if they asked and it were in my power, not overly onerous, and within my ethical boundaries. When they were dependent on me, I was prepared to do a lot more for them - as long as it was in their best interest. I would not help them to do anything wrong [counter to the laws by which I abide] either then or now.
What the creation believes is irrelevant. The god has his own point of view. If he values souls more than bodies, he doesn’t care when you die. If he values bodies, he’s failed to make them particularly efficient or durable, so he can’t be very surprised when they break down. If he wanted the world to be better, I would have expected him to make it better. If the god is all that the xtians say, then this is exactly how he wants it. If he’s something else, we have no way to know what he wants, or what he’s able to do: prayer won’t change either his mind or his competence.
In any case, whatever happens, God let it happen.
But God is a parent and not an artist. Secondly when the resurrection comes our bodies will be durable. A better world would mean making it and us different, and we would have no opportunity to learn. If God > his creation isn’t something other than he wanted, and a world without teachings would be pointless. We may live one life then exist on the future post all-death earth, which imho would be wiser than to just be born perfect and in a perfect world where we don’t truly know what its worth ~ or anything.
How do you know? The same people who call him “father” also tell the story of creation. The people who were “chosen” by that creator-god didn’t call him father, btw. Only the Christians do - I can only surmise because they identify with Jesus, who [legitimately… ?] called him “father”. How do the children/creations know what their god thinks?
You asked how I would feel and I suggested two alternatives. Can both of these be true at the same time? If so, I can’t imagine how a god would feel toward his mud-puppies.
Then what’s your problem with leaving the damaged or defective one you’re wearing now? Why pray to keep it alive longer than the god intended?
Then, that is exactly as the god intended - including the illness and injury such a world inflicts on his creatures: suffering, presumably, is learning.
I ask again: If god set up the test-course for a divine reason, why ask him to change it when we’re tested?
The Hebrews? The ot calls him father but I don’t know if the Torah does bth. To your last point, I think the idea is that god told them, talks to some of them.
I don’t believe in God btw
I have learned many lessons, and assume there will be more. Some people are loved and love, one tends to stick around for them, and because dying generally hurts. …and we don’t know for sure.
Read the above replies; my complaint is at the idea that some are better than others, some should be saved via miracles and others aren’t. The rest is to keep my mind open philosophically, if God then etc.
Since they contradict one another, and often kill one another over the disagreements, I have a hard time believing any of them, or choosing the most likely story.
True - that is the most unlikely story.
You’re second-guessing a god? If he’s ready to take you, your education is finished.
Lots of times, living hurts more. People of faith should not begrudge their loved ones blessed relief.
Aha. So… “Please, God, let this person live some more, just in case you don’t exist.” Right! How could he resist granting your wish?
Gods have the prerogative of choosing. They’re never fair. You’d think after 2000 years with this one, the Christians would have figured that out - especially seeing how he let them roll the Jews. The Muslims have only had 1400 years with the same god, so I guess they’re still hoping they’ll be new favourite.
No matter how you pose the question; no matter how you imagine an omnipotent god’s attitude, it makes no sense to ask him for special treatment.
I’m asking you to prove your assertion that dying/hospitalization plays out the same for everybody regardless of faith. If you weren’t prepared to defend it, why say it? Anyway, you recanted it when you acknowledge that prayer has a shown benefit, so we can move on from that.
Why? Is that assertion one you’re going to provide support for, or are you gonna shift the burden of proof onto me again?
So we should stop believing things that ‘cause issues’? Personally, I want to believe the things that are true, and find other ways to solve ‘issues’ besides accepting lies. That’s unpalatable to me as a philosopher.
Anyway, the point is, miracles DO happen in hospitals, in fact that seems to be where almost all of them happen these days. Miracles DO seem to affect people who pray for them more than those who don’t. Does this conclusively prove anything? Of course not, but you can’t just say the opposite of these facts based on nothing and try to build an argument around it.
I have a strong suspicion, a very strong suspicion, that you have not travelled the world looking into cases of miraculous healing and coming to the conclusion that they are all faked. I also know for a fact that there are a shitload of alleged miracles that aren’t faked and there’s no reason to think they are- a person simply ceases to have some terminal condition, they and their loved ones thank God, and that’s it. Now, it may or may not be a miracle, but nobody ‘faked’ anything.
Is there some research that concludes this, or are you just saying it?
Didn’t claim to. Just said I have no evidence for any. Remember, the onus is on the extraordinary claim, not on the skeptic.
You many know this for a fact; I do not.
Many touted miracles have been debunked; many charlatans have claimed miraculous healing powers to get money from gullible people who died as a result of not seeking real medical help. That is sufficient reason to question so-called miracles.
Spontaneous remission - howbeit very rare in terminal diagnoses - is in a different category from miracle cure. I would like to see the five-year survival stats.
Yes; there is quite a lot of research.
“The largest and most scientifically rigorous study of prayer’s efficacy, the 2006 STEP project, found no significant difference whether subjects were prayed for or not, except some negative effects among those who knew they were receiving prayers.”[2]…“According to a study by Centra State Hospital, “the psychological benefits of prayer may help reduce stress and anxiety, promote a more positive outlook, and strengthen the will to live.”[15] Other practices such as Yoga, T’ai chi, and Meditation may also have a positive impact on physical and psychological health.”
All rhythmic, repetitive, rote performance can relive stress. This is why people with autism and OCD and panic attacks usually have a set of personal rituals for times of high anxiety. Ritual is also a standard form of bonding, in mated pairs, in families and in communities. This has been so for about 300,000 years; it’s hardly a new idea.
Well, no, that’s a poor defense. Yes, when they assert that it was a miracle, they get an onus to support their statement. (in a context where such onuses are accepted by the parties involved) When you make assertions - and you did - then you get an onus. (and you are definitely in that kind of context) If you simply said you were not convinced - something we can in fact take you word for - there is no onus. However once you make claims than you also get an onus.
Why should you get a pass when you make assertions about reality?
It is a clever rhetorical move to label the thread such that an assertion is assumed as true - that miracles do not happen in hospitals - and then arguments or further assertions anyway are built on the assumption. But you do go ahead a make the claims, and by the same criteria that theists gain an onus when making an assertion, you gain an onus.
Because my assertions are based in derivative informations from the known world. Though I admit, that I would add the world of qualia to that, In which case ideas in the mind can to a degree change and select from the body of informations it has at its disposal. A positive attitude at the deepest level of belief, may have an effect. I still think hospitals would statistically contain the same proportions of all religions and atheists.
A miracle is merely a resolution to something that appeared hopeless. They happen all the time. The fact that someone can look at it in retrospect and figure out how it happened hasn’t anything to do with whether it happened.
Would you turn down what you thought was a miracle in a hospital merely because you later discovered how it happened?
To “pray for a miracle” means to seek any means for hope for a resolution, whether mere accident, doctor’s revelation, neighbor’s contribution, or pharmaceutical’s innovation.
Every time something gets fixed or improved more than you expected, that was a degree of miracle for you. The more a person knows of the exact details of a situation (aka “better he knows God”) the fewer surprises he gets and thus the fewer “miracles”. To expect a miracle is to accept that there are positive things happening at times when you don’t know it, so don’t give up.
To reject miracles is to encourage yourself and others to give up sooner … on everything, gloom and doom, and thus cause failure and depression more often. The promotion to hate hope is the promotion to not merely subdue society, but to destroy its people (so as to replace with preferred people).
So the whole idea that miracles don’t happen is both dumb and foolish.
A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (God or gods), a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.
Something happened. When you have an explanation - i.e. it becomes explicable - it ceases to be a miracle and joins the ranks of mundane events.
No. It means to ask for divine intervention; a supernatural resolution. All human agencies operate without resorting to prayer. Doctors and pharmacists get paid and sometimes thanked. Quite often, though, the doctor does the work and God get gets the credit.