So, why does it happen?

The riddle of Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.  Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.  Is he both able and willing?  Then whence cometh evil?  Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"  -Epicurus  

Clearly sarcasm isn't recognized here. 

It amazes me that this type of question is asked on this site. You're preaching to the choir. All of the regulars here already know that Christianity is rife with conflicting logic.  Besides, you don't really want an answer. Your mind is already convinced there is no consistent answer. Or at least one that you would like.

Here's an answer. There are no bad things. There are no good things. Things just happen.

Here's a different answer. God allows bad things to happen so that good people can be separated from bad. It is easy to behave with honor towards god when things are going well. It's when bad stuff happens that the real test begins.

Here's another answer. Most things that happen are a mixture of good and bad. What appears to be bad can sometimes turn out good (getting cancer and while being cured meet a a nurse, fall in love and get married). Sometimes good things turn bad (winning a lottery and ending up divorced because of arguments over the money). So only god knows the outcome  of  events that in our limited vision we label as good or bad.

So there's three different answers, I suspect none of which you will find satisfactory. Which is the real crux of the matter. You have already decided that no answer is satisfactory and have a loaded gun, ready to send out a barrage of counter claims and arguments. And you will gain no insight for yourself and convince no Christian of your position. 

Why do bad people happen?
Did man have to make poos before the fall?

Two questions

1) Is this for real?

2) Has these questions been on any earlier posts?

They are quite common and  I don't want to jump in without reading previous posts. I don't want to waste time on discusions by running over old stuff.

I will not answer all 10 at the same time. I believe it would be to many points to read, argue or defend at one time.

Question 1) why doesn’t God heal amputees?

From what I have read and believe these kinds of arguments are clearly illogical and even silly, although commonly used I believe intelligent atheists have dropped these kinds of arguments long ago. Saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically impossible things is stupid. God does not turn truth into a lie or will he lie and tell the truth at the same time. God will not create a rock He cannot lift.

Now I know how atheists feel when Pascal’s wager is introduced.

The truth is - We never know how much of any healing is truly miraculous, and how much is "ordinary". It is like most health studies… You can never answer the questions: How many would die or survive if they were not in the study? Statistical analysis can only give you odds on this, not truths.

So... why won't God heal amputees, again?

Because if you try to say that healing an amputee is illogical, then I've got no idea what's to say about ex nihilo creation....

Do me a favor and stop assuming you know mine or anyone else's views.

Me, I'd take it as proof if God would heal my right eye - it's been written off as useless for 43 years and I have films of the dead retina floating in the vitreous and the huge cataract that is my lens.

If God wanted to do something that only he could do, don't you think he could eliminate natural explanations from the equation? 

How about aatheist? 

If my eye was healed with no medical intervention and no other way of explaining it naturally - that would go a long way to restoring my belief.

Thanks for your concern and sharing your war (surgery) story. Fortunately, the left eye is 20/25 after cataract surgeries so I'm doing well overall.

The only reason I brought up my eye is because you brought up atheists blowing off a healed amputee as having a natural explanation. 

Fair enough. A couple of problems that I think people may be having with me is that I am interested enough in the consistency of arguments that I will switch sides and play devils advocate at the drop of a hat. I also have enough exposure to fundamentalism that I know pretty well alot of their arguments so I can fill in the blanks even if I don't adhere to the ideas myself.

A bigger problem is that much of what I believe is very fluid. But alot of what happens on this site revolves around a pretty rigorous use of language and a pretty strong common understanding of terminology. I am still working on "translating" what is banging around in my head so that it can be effectively debated. A good example of this is the phrase "intelligent design". Logically, If god is intelligent and god designed the universe then it follows that we are the product of intelligent design. But the phrase "intelligent design" has specific meaning in this culture and on this site that invokes Christian fundmentalism. So in all practicality, "intelligent design" is reduced to an oxymoron.

Another problem is that if I don't claim anything I don't have to prove it. While I'm being a little tongue in cheek, I'm not inclined to state something if I don't feel I have some way to back it up. So for now I don't say most of what I'm thinking. An example of this would be for me to offer something up that is essentially a restating of the god of gaps. That idea is regularly refuted here and it would be pointless to go there. So unless I can offer a new wrinkle on the god of gaps then I just let it lie.

So my advice to anyone that wants to know what I think is to ask good questions. A good question in the sense that it pushes me to think about an answer and formulate a clear response. I consider the question that started this thread a really poor one. It can only take the conversation in about a thousand directions with little chance at a net increase in understanding. 

LoL wave...

It wouldn't be logical to ask questions of someone who admits he doesn't have answers, now, would it?

Seriously, I think I understand, and I wish the word "agnostic" didn't cause such a furor here, because its common connotation seems to fit you pretty well.

I've said before that I think you sometimes get so caught up in semantics that you forget what you're discussing, and I still think that's true, and I suspect sometimes that your own uncertainty gives your arguments a rather schizophrenic sound from time to time, which may reflect on you in an unnecessarily negative way.

In any case, personally, I think metaphorically you have missed the forest for the trees... and are they really trees, or are they woody protuberences... and if they are protuberences, from whence did they protube...

Protube? I thought it was youtube...

Anyway, for now, I think you might be stuck with the theist badge, but if I think of anything suitably moderate and non-confrontational, I'll run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.

lol...

No.  Voices in your head do not exist because they are not material.  (Materialism v. Dualism XXI, live on pay per view)  Since they do not exist, you are not hearing them.  If god does ever talk to you, you can be sure he doesn't exist.

I don't assume that what we consider a moral obligation is also what god should. I suppose some define god that way, but I certainly don't.

From what i gather, Mjolnin suggested that God wouldn't heal an amputee because such a thing is impossible, in other words God is bound by nature. The thing is that God can't be bound by nature or miracles and people hearing Gods voice wouldn't exist.

You've got to see knowledge as a giant puzzle with all the pieces missing, we've found a lot of them and every day we find more, but that little God section of the puzzle, well noone will ever find that piece so it would be stupid to commit to what shape you think it is by carving your own piece and putting it down, yet theists seem to always be carving their own pieces to fit the holes rather than searching for pieces.

 If you've already commited to God or no God then you have already lost the debate for truth.

 True enough.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of trying to follow and worship a God that regards us only as animals and playthings for his amusement.

Is that the God you're describing? 

So in other words, God only heals where its possible that the person could have been healed anyway?

 Sounds to me like God is applied to healings after the fact. Amputees can't regrow their own limbs (though they certainly could if only a few genes were re-activated, but that's nothing for a omnipotent God, right?) But cancer patients can go into remission, people can become immune to viruses, can fight off bacteria, regrow skin and hair, and overcome a coma. So why are these people given "miracle" status? Why are there no healed amputees?

I can garuntee you that no matter how faithful amputees are, they will never have their limbs regrow. Not even if they were Jesus freaking Christ. And why? Because there are no miracles, no miraculous healings, no God. You might as well pray to an invisible pink unicorn, a flying spaghetti monster or a jug of milk to heal you and you will get the exact same results.

Good point, however, from a Christian perspective, in which god is imagined to be all-powerful, there should be no limits upon its capabilities, i.e. god can achieve any end by any means. There should be no requirement that if god wants to 'make you stronger', he would have to use suffering. Ultimately, we are still left with the conclusion that god wants us to suffer.

Repeted from earlier "Can a God create something out of nothing is not the point of the answer or the question. It is why doesn’t God do it. "

God is bound by his nature not ours. To say God must act against our nature to prove himself is silly. This sounds like you expect the God of gaps to prove himself. But a God can't because it is illogical for  science to identify something that can not be explained and call it a work of God.

"theists seem to always be carving their own pieces to fit the holes"

In this discusion the hole has been shaped by the atheist question, not the theist answer. In order for there to be any God... God must fill this  puzzle hole.

Can you not see how your logic follows the illogic of the theist?? Or is it your illogic and theist logic??

Yes. It is not a nature to do the ridicules.

You are rightwe should all aspire to be as much like god as we can be. We should create our own universe and decide what the rules are and sit back and listen to our creations rationalize our existance.

I am not the smartest but I believe we are to aspire to follow Christ's life. That in and of itself has the ability to spin in any direction.

Because we do not have the ability to create the rules. I am not 100% dominant anywhere, home, work, playing sports or sitting by myself and watching TV. There will always be rules that we are stuck with.

Why not ask - Why doesn't my boss follow the same rules I do... Or why doesn't things go my way...

 I don't have a college degree, nor do I need one to answer the ten questions.

1. AMPUTEES

Your question is based on the assumption that no amputees have ever been healed. I would like to know where you derived this assumption? Have you personally spoken to every amputee that has ever lived? I see your statement as a huge generalization. Second, I would also assert that God heals/rewards people according to their faith. We find this in the New Testament where Jesus chose not to do miracles in places where their faith was week, such as Capernaum. Most people today do not have the kind of faith and commitment to God that is required for that kind of miracle.

2. WHY STARVING PEOPLE

Because we live in a fallen/cursed world. God will and does see to it that justice prevails, but not necessarily in this world.

3. DEATH OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

First, your question is based on the assumption that they were innocent. My question to you is: how do you know they were innocent? Perhaps God knew something about them that you don't? Ever think of that? God is actually merciful by not damning us all to hell right now. He is Holy and cannot tolerate sin.

4. BIBLE-SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE

You assumed without any evidence or basis that the events in the Bible never occured. That was your premise, and it is not warranted. In reference to the 6 days of creation, there are two schools of thought among Christian theists. 1. God created the world in 6 literal days. Now, do you have proof God could not do this, or are you only assuming He can't? 2. Others hold to the view that the days are symbolic of eras. It would seem that the first four days are longer periods of time, and the last three days were 24 hour periods.

5. SLAVERY

You have to understand that if God does not exist, there can be no objective moral values. Therefore, since you are an atheist, your appealing to the principle of objective morals (absolute right and wrong) is a violation of your own worldview.

6. BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE

Again, you are assuming to know who is or is not good. God does not see as men see. He has absolute intelligence and wisdom and just might happen to know more about people than you do. Second see my comment on 6. SLAVERY. Third, this world is fallen. God deals with each and every person according to their own spiritual condition. A condition YOU know nothing of. He does what is best for everyone. Suffering is actually a good thing for the soul. That' why bad things happen to good people. For bad people who never suffer, it simply means God has withdrawn His grace from them. They have no chance of salvation so He's given them up.

7. JESUS MIRACLES LEFT NO EVIDENCE

Why should he? What would you consider evidence? I would submit that the existance of all the saints he left refutes that. The life changing power of Jesus' teachings has produced countless thousands of saints.  Also, the Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher where Jesus was burried produces the miracle of the Holy Fire every Easter without fail.

8. JESUS NEVER APPEARS TO ME

Again, have you spoken to every person within the last 2,000 years? Or are you just assuming he hasn't?  Christ appeared to many saints. He even appeared to me when I was 16. I heard his voice clearly speaking to me telepathically as I awoke from sleep. He was there and I could not move. He told me some things about my future. His voice was more real and wonderful then anything you could imagine. One thing he told me was that Christianity is true and that he is alive. And I Don't have a history of hallucinations.

9. EATING HIS BODY AND BLOOD

Well, the history of the saints has shown that the eucharist sanctifies souls. Your arguments are not logical or rational. They are simply personal emotional arguments.

10. CHRISTIAN DIVORCE

This is true in modern times, and the Bible predicted it. I would submit that the majority of today's American Christian's are largely phonies.

Basically, you just said that to expect anything from your God is ridiculous. Not sure that's a selling point for your god.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't believe in the god of christianity. Christians claim that their God has promised certain things to them in the Bible (forgiveness of sins, a glorious afterlife, etc.) so they have an expectation of those things.  

Did those best things come:

1) When you prayed to your god

or

2) When you prayed to your god and then did something about it yourself? 

Can you attribute it to God if you did it yourself or sought help on your own?

It sounds like so many testimonies I've heard. "I had a cancerous tumor. I prayed to God and went to the doctor and had surgery to remove it. God healed me." 

That's giving God credit he doesn't necessarily deserve. 

No, I'm just saying if you went through the job interview and got the job, you shouldn't give God credit for what you did on your own merits. 

Why give God credit for what you got by busting your ass?