[X] My Assistant

Science can already create limbs. It's called prostheses.

Even if it's not the best thing we could imagine, it may still work decently as makeshift.

The wisest answer I ever got regarding the existence of God and Heaven: "You don't need proof. That's what faith is all about. If you believe, then it exists." Wisest here means no one can come up with a better explanation.

Faith is for transient people who have to cling on to something in order to live properly.

"If you believe, then it exists" is not an explanation. Technically speaking, that would make everything true. I believe in [i2.lulzimg.com] 2D girls who can come out of TVs and mobile phones because there was a [en.wikipedia.org] movie about it. It was a TV fiction, which you may compare to a teaching from a book. I don't think it exists, but I don't have proof it does not, either, because it could happen in the future or could have happened at some point in the past.

However, if the actual meaning was "You have the right to believe if that helps you think it exists and understand how it all started", then I can agree with this.

Even if it's not the best thing we could imagine, it may still work decently as makeshift.

Well, there are pros and cons. You can't expect science to be flawless because it is not godly.

This post has been edited by Mika Kurogane: Apr 21 2012, 13:32

I'd assume it's the same reason any deity wouldn't really do anything. If you, I don't know, justify suffering and the like with learning a lesson. This is just me but I kinda see it it as being actively evil or being a downright misguided dick. Misguided jackassery doesn't make you less of a jerk, just one with a more padded excuse.

If any higher power could heal an amputee then they wouldn't learn to live with the injury, pain, emotions, suffering, etc. Therefore you should do nothing and let them live through it. I feel like that's the same as saying a person is starving to death or dying from thirst and you could provide a meal or water, but why bother? Doing nothing albeit cruel makes them appreciate what they've lost more or learn to live without it right? If someone should die, then, well others learn from it.

To me that is the same thing with the amputee issue. Even if you had a magically valid reason to let someone suffer there is no result that justifies doing nothing. Lesson learned or no you shouldn't by inaction sit around and let others suffer to learn a lesson. It might not be intentional cruelty but it is cruel and wholly unjustifiable. Nothing is right about letting someone be harmed to learn a lesson.
"Well, I let him run out in the street and get hit by a car. Well no, if I did something to prevent it he wouldn't learn a lesson. No, medicine just lessons the pain of his mistake and the lesson he should learn."

I don't generally like child examples because their cheap but it's really the overall intent of what I said. Even if there was a message in there you lost any value in it by being an ass.

The wisest answer I ever got regarding the existence of God and Heaven: "You don't need proof. That's what faith is all about. If you believe, then it exists." Wisest here means no one can come up with a better explanation.

Christian and Muslim have different views on their God. That's why believing blindly doesn't make sense to me.

1. I assume OP must be banned, adult person can't ask such dumb questions.
2. There is no evidence of God healing cancer or whatever. But there are tons of examples when blind faith led sick people to death. Well, maybe it's just a form of natural selection, 'cause people who have more faith in uncertain promises of religion than medicine and reject the latter doesn't have any value for society.
3. I believe God exist. But God isn't some street magician or "blessed healer" (which are just fraudsters). God can give you power to move forward regardless of the life circumstances, but he can't wave around you with some magical wand and make you a motherfuckin' new leg.

adult person can't ask such dumb questions.

I got two comments to that statement:
1. I think you may be highly overestimating the intelligence of a large portion of the world's adult population.
2. There's no such thing as a stupid question, including the ones of this topic. The introducing statement is questionable, unless it's meant to be considered as a hypothetical statement.

In case somebody is not sure what statement I'm referring to as questionable:

If you pray to God with enough faith, he will heal people such as terminally ill cancer patients.

I got two comments to that statement:
1. I think you may be highly overestimating the intelligence of a large portion of the world's adult population.
2. There's no such thing as a stupid question, including the ones of this topic. The introducing statement is questionable, unless it's meant to be considered as a hypothetical statement.

1. I know, sometimes people still surprise me with their stupidity.
2. Well, maybe "stupid" is a little subjective definition. Let's just call it "childish" then.

Childish is acceptable. The human brain works pretty much like a bus - the electrical conductor, not the vehicle.

When in groups, humans tend to adjust their intelligence level to the lowest intelligence available in the group. If you connect multiple buses with different data transfer rates to the same device, all of them will use the slowest speed available (to make sure none of them goes out of sync, if I remember correctly).

Sorry for going slightly offtopic, and feel free to discuss the above statement.

This post has been edited by Mika Kurogane: Apr 23 2012, 10:57

The human brain works pretty much like a bus - the electrical conductor, not the vehicle.

When in groups, humans tend to adjust their intelligence level to the lowest intelligence available in the group. If you connect multiple buses with different data transfer rates to the same device, all of them will use the slowest speed available (to make sure none of them goes out of sync, if I remember correctly).

If the lowest intelligent member of this group would actually try to improve his intelligence trough this mean (to not end up straying behind too much), the overall group may end up improving at a high average rate. At least a "high average" relative to the situation where every member of this group would focus on improving their own intellect/abilities.
I seem to recall being taught something like that in the army.
I also learned the officers didn't like it when I fell asleep while standing at attention or while practising my aim with a gun at the firing range.

3. I believe God exist. But God isn't some street magician or "blessed healer" (which are just fraudsters). God can give you power to move forward regardless of the life circumstances, but he can't wave around you with some magical wand and make you a motherfuckin' new leg.

If you replace the word 'God' with 'believing in yourself', I'll agree.
Why call that God?

If you replace the word 'God' with 'believing in yourself', I'll agree.
Why call that God?

To improve your self esteem.

To improve your self esteem.

You mean, having your own personal Savior to imply that you're somehow more special than all those millions of other intelligent races in the Universe that were not Chosen?

You mean, having your own personal Savior to imply that you're somehow more special than all those millions of other intelligent races in the Universe that were not Chosen?

Sound quite accurate, yes.

Some religions do mention something about personal guardian angels if I recall correctly.

On a scientific basis, that would be closer to a Persona, except 1) [en.wikipedia.org] Freud has a different name for it, 2) it won't give you special abilities nor save you from certain death and 3) aiming at your own head and pulling the trigger will not summon it.

On second thought, unconsciously dealing with your inner self - or "dark side", in this case - could help you vanquish a few mental issues and qualify as a "miracle".

This post has been edited by Mika Kurogane: Apr 23 2012, 13:08

Some religions do mention something about personal guardian angels if I recall correctly.

On a scientific basis, that would be closer to a Persona, except 1) [en.wikipedia.org] Freud has a different name for it, 2) it won't give you special abilities nor save you from certain death and 3) aiming at your own head and pulling the trigger or dealing with your dark side will not summon it.

4) The passive/active abilities of your guardian angel won't change by fusing together cards.

Right. Copulating won't change your guardian angel. I forgot about that part...

If you replace the word 'God' with 'believing in yourself', I'll agree. Why call that God?

Who talks about replacing? Believing in some absolute force doesn't stop you from believing in yourself. God is not a fireman or rescue ranger - you must help yourself. And no, humans are not Chosen. That's just stupid. We're living on a little polluted planet on the backyard of the Universe.

I hate the word "God". It doesn't have any clear definition, so it's useless in any constructive debate.

I hate the word "God". It doesn't have any clear definition, so it's useless in any constructive debate.

Etymology

From Middle English, from the Old English god (“supreme being, deity”), related to Old High German got (“a rank of deity”), from the Proto-Germanic *gudan, from the Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰuto- (“that which is invoked”), from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰaw- (“to call, to invoke”) or *ǵʰew- (“to pour”).

The single deity of various monotheistic religions.
The single male deity of various duotheistic religions.
An impersonal and universal spiritual presence or force.
An omnipotent being, creator of the universe (as in deism).
The (personification of the) laws of nature.
(Wicca) The Horned God

Usage notes

God is often referred to by masculine pronouns, not necessarily implying that the speaker believes that God is male. He is also referred to by pronouns that begin with a capital letter, as a sign of respect, in many languages written in Latin script. In English, these would include He, Him, His and Himself. Many Jews follow a prohibition in their tradition against using it and other equivalents in writing (see G-d).

Granted, the definition is a bit vague. It can still bring useful debates when religious people who attend said debates aren't bigots who blindly stick to teachings without even thinking about them.

See also : fanatics and extremists.

This post has been edited by Mika Kurogane: Apr 23 2012, 18:13

The concept of it is way too vague. A "supreme being" could be anything.
If we want to have a constructive debate involving a god, we'd at least need to talk about the god as defined in a certain religion. Even that, however, may still be too vague, because the teachings in holy books are likely to be very loosely interpreted.