If you say so, but a short stint in prison for something you didn't do is still injustice, and a "short" life of living without a hand the same.

Is it fair to say that you don't think that god either could, or should, replace missing limbs in this life?

(June 5, 2020 at 6:00 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(June 5, 2020 at 2:10 am)WinterHold Wrote: Not necessarily. The delay of this life is short compared to the next life.

---

Life behind bars is not "merciful" or "has a better side"; it's halting the inmate's life for years and wasting precious years from it that he could've lived with one hand outside bars.

Freedom; that is. Taking it off is a living hell, even with 2 hands.

---

Kids are not included in the sentence; one has to be old enough to realize the weight of their action.

Yes.  Nine years old.  You would chop off the hand of a nine year old girl for stealing a piece of candy.

Try answering a direct question:  Have you ever been in prison?

Boru

No; I made myself clear when you used the same argument in another topic:

Quote:https://atheistforums.org/thread-61009-p...pid1976065

WinterHold said:

To approve a punishment, the condemned needs to satisfy the age and the mental capability to realize their crime.
A child is not mentally capable of realizing the consequence of their actions.

-and yet children's hands are cut off.

Should or could god be merciful and restore those children's missing hands?

(June 5, 2020 at 9:47 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(June 5, 2020 at 8:40 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Don't believers expect God to do good with his superpowers?

Not necessarily. Deists, like their god, don't care. Then there are those theists of the metaphorical type.

I've been debating theists long enough to know that when they are retreating to Deism that they are losing the argument.

(June 5, 2020 at 11:45 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(June 5, 2020 at 9:47 am)Grandizer Wrote: Not necessarily. Deists, like their god, don't care. Then there are those theists of the metaphorical type.

I've been debating theists long enough to know that when they are retreating to Deism that they are losing the argument.

But I am not talking about theists who believe in a non-deist type of god but then retreat to deism when convenient. I mean actual deists.

Works just as well on a deist god. Deist non-intervention was proposed as a way to explain the apparent lack of a gods intervention - but it might be the case that a gods ability and willingness to intervene are important attributes of divinity. That a god who can't or won't intervene is not a god, but something else.

The deist god is unlike all the others, in that regard, and that's a self imposed distinction of the position. The others...theistic gods, transactionary agents down to the last little godling. I suppose it's up to the reader to decide whether or not every other god is a poor example of the set, and that the term properly refers to the distinct set with just the one representative, instead.

Either way, can or should a deist god heal amputees? It doesn't, by definition, but that's not the item in question. There's no ground for retreat here. It's the same ground.

(June 6, 2020 at 10:04 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Either way, can or should a deist god heal amputees? It doesn't, by definition, but that's not the item in question. There's no ground for retreat here. It's the same ground.

Isn't deism, or at least modern deism, pretty much invention of post industrial revolution people of 18th and 19th centuries who clang to growing scientific explorations of the natural phenomena which pushed away God but wasn't yet able to explain the very beginning of the universe, so they just left that moment to God while rejecting all other later godly implications? They even rejected holy books, including the Bible, and rejected religious mysteries and miracles.

So with the coming of even more modern revelations in science like evolution and big bang, Deism is redundant if not completely nonexistent. I mean do you really think that Thomas Paine would have been a deist today? Or Ben Franklin? They would be agnostics or atheists.

Not really, no. It got popular in our current culture that way. The idea that there were divine forces which accounted for our world but no longer interacted with it, or us, is as old as gods are.

There's a compelling argument that deists of the past were agnostic atheists. They just lived in a time where you couldn't say as much without risk. Yes, though, evolutionary biology and physics have made the deist god a bit redundant.

(June 3, 2020 at 11:30 am)Jehanne Wrote: It happened before, supposedly:

Wikipedia -- Healing the ear of a servant

Is it wrong for an amputee to pray for such a healing?  By the way, I will convert to Christianity (or, whatever religion the healed person claims to believe in) today if such a bonafide miracle can be documented this day.

This question makes sense only if you presuppose that the point of life is to be happy.

No, lol. That's just want you feel comfortable arguing about.

We can assume that the point of life is to be miserable, and it suggests an easy answer as to why god doesn't heal amputees. He wants them to be miserable.