Marshall Brain's Website - Needs To Be Seriously Looked Into

[Believer]

Well, Marshall Brain's website is a convincing read, but is it really...? From the prayers, Bible, Jesus, etc...

[August]

J.P. Holding has already written a reply to this claim here. In summary: God is not a gumball machine.

The Holding reply you cite is not a refutation of what Brain is saying. Brain's claim that amputees do not get their prayers for new limbs answered is demonstrably true.

And that proves what? Has Mr Brain spoken to every amputee, dead or alive, ever and everywhere? Does he know all of them? How does he know what they pray for? How does he know that their prayers have not been answered?

You and the other Marshall Brain supporters have to show how you can make logic statements and truth value arguments to begin with, what the premises of your experiment are, how you arrived at those premises, what axioms are presupposed to make those premises true, how you translate the conclusions from that experiment into the sort of absolute truth claim that you seem to be making, on what moral basis do you and the other Brain supporters make value judgements, provide a complete contextual exegesis of the Biblical passages that you quote, preferably in the original languages and then maybe someone will take it seriously.

Until then, it is a merely personal, biased opinion fraught with logical fallacies and poor theology.

[mick]

Here is a typical site where fundamentalists claim that the Bible is the perfect word of God:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bi ... ration.php

Your point? That's an entirely different claim from the one Brain tries to refute. See below.

Fundies most certainly claim that the Bible is the perfect word of God. It is believed to have been "dictated" by God. . .no one says God took a pen and paper and wrote it down.

For instance, perhaps if he had ever taken an ancient history course at any point of his life, he would know that slavery in the ancient world had important differences from American slavery in the 1800s. If he actually read from the Bible itself and not just quotes from other skeptics, he would know that ancient Israel had a "year of Jubilee" every 7 years in which all slaves were freed. I've actually just scratched the surface in terms of immediately obvious errors in this part of Brain's work, but I don't see the point in writing a substantial refutation of a work for which the author has obviously done too little homework.

That was big of them.

I guess another obvious error worth mentioning is that Brain completely ignores passages in the New Testament about how the law no longer applies to Gentiles. We can safely ignore parts of Old Testament law which were only applicable to ancient Hebrew culture. Reasoned study is needed to know when this is the case. A library of peer-reviewed theological journals can be found at many Christian seminaries, and would be a good source for further information.

Such as slavery? Slaughter of children? Capturing women for sex? Stoning someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

I guess these were only part of the ". . ancient Hebrew culture. . " and they were not directed by God.

[mick]

J.P. Holding has already written a reply to this claim here. In summary: God is not a gumball machine.

The Holding reply you cite is not a refutation of what Brain is saying. Brain's claim that amputees do not get their prayers for new limbs answered is demonstrably true.

And that proves what? Has Mr Brain spoken to every amputee, dead or alive, ever and everywhere? Does he know all of them? How does he know what they pray for? How does he know that their prayers have not been answered?

He doesn't claim that, obviously.

This from Brain's site:

No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing will happen. The legs will not regenerate. Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. You can read all the medical journals ever written -- there is no documented case of an amputated leg being restored spontaneously. And we know that God ignores the prayers of amputees through our own observations of the world around us. If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day.
Isn't that odd? Christian inspirational literature is full of thousands of stories like Jeanna's and Marilyn Hickey's. But God does not restore the legs of amputees. Whether you are a Christian or not, the situation here appears to be most peculiar.

Do you agree with the statements above in bold?

[jerickson314]

I guess another obvious error worth mentioning is that Brain completely ignores passages in the New Testament about how the law no longer applies to Gentiles. We can safely ignore parts of Old Testament law which were only applicable to ancient Hebrew culture. Reasoned study is needed to know when this is the case. A library of peer-reviewed theological journals can be found at many Christian seminaries, and would be a good source for further information.

Such as slavery? Slaughter of children? Capturing women for sex? Stoning someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

I guess these were only part of the ". . ancient Hebrew culture. . " and they were not directed by God.

Why must you misrepresent my words? The laws were given by God, but they were directed towards the pre-Messianic ancient Hebrew culture. I did not say that the laws were created by ancient Hebrew culture. The New Testament talks about this in several places (Romans discusses the issue extensively, for example) if you actually take the time to read the Bible for once. Theologians have also written much on the topic.

In short, parts of the law do not apply to Gentiles (non-Jews) living under the New Covenant (God's plan with Christ). A fixed price of 30 coins for a slave would certainly be an ancient Hebrew cultural necessity, whereas a prohibition against lying reflects an underlying moral truth that still applies. J.P. Holding has a decent article here.

Why do you bother to attack positions you do not understand?

[August]

And that proves what? Has Mr Brain spoken to every amputee, dead or alive, ever and everywhere? Does he know all of them? How does he know what they pray for? How does he know that their prayers have not been answered?

He doesn't claim that, obviously.

Then how does he presume to make an absolute statement that no limbs have ever regenerated if he has not empirically verified it to be true for all cases?

his from Brain's site:
Quote:
No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing will happen. The legs will not regenerate. Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. You can read all the medical journals ever written -- there is no documented case of an amputated leg being restored spontaneously. And we know that God ignores the prayers of amputees through our own observations of the world around us. If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day.
Isn't that odd? Christian inspirational literature is full of thousands of stories like Jeanna's and Marilyn Hickey's. But God does not restore the legs of amputees. Whether you are a Christian or not, the situation here appears to be most peculiar.


Do you agree with the statements above in bold?

Has Mr. Brain read all the medical journals ever written? And he is begging the question in his statement that we know God ignores the prayers of amputees. Furthermore, he is just asserting a limited personal opinion since he is basing it on his own limited investigation, since, like you admitted above, he has not spoken with all amputees. He follows that with an unjustified premise, that God would restore lost limbs in answer to prayer.

No, I do not agree, obviously.

I answered your questions, how about you answer mine?

[mick]

Why do you bother to attack positions you do not understand?

I am not "attacking" anything, honestly.

Why must you misrepresent my words? The laws were given by God, but they were directed towards the pre-Messianic ancient Hebrew culture. I did not say that the laws were created by ancient Hebrew culture. The New Testament talks about this in several places (Romans discusses the issue extensively, for example) if you actually take the time to read the Bible for once. Theologians have also written much on the topic.

I guess I don't see where I represented your words, but if I did or if I misunderstood you, please clarify for me. For example, I don't claim that you said "the laws were created by ancient Hebrew culture".

[jerickson314]

I guess I don't see where I represented your words, but if I did or if I misunderstood you, please clarify for me. For example, I don't claim that you said "the laws were created by ancient Hebrew culture".

What did you mean when you said:

I guess these were only part of the ". . ancient Hebrew culture. . " and they were not directed by God.

[mick]

What did you mean when you said:

I guess these were only part of the ". . ancient Hebrew culture. . " and they were not directed by God.

Ill-fated attempt at sarcasm, I guess. Sorry.

[mick]

Then how does he presume to make an absolute statement that no limbs have ever regenerated if he has not empirically verified it to be true for all cases?

Just for the record, I never even heard of the guy until about a week ago, so I am in no way trying for "vouch" for him. I'm just discussing what he wrote and what he seems to be saying.

There's no doubt he makes a broad statement. I would actually be interested in his response if someone could or does produce an example of a case of spontaneous regeneration. Seems like his position is like throwing down the gauntlet. He apparently is challenging anyone to prove him wrong.

I answered your questions, how about you answer mine?

I hope I answered some of them; I tried to. If not, ask away.

[August]

[
Just for the record, I never even heard of the guy until about a week ago, so I am in no way trying for "vouch" for him. I'm just discussing what he wrote and what he seems to be saying.

So if you are not vouching for him, is he wrong?

There's no doubt he makes a broad statement. I would actually be interested in his response if someone could or does produce an example of a case of spontaneous regeneration. Seems like his position is like throwing down the gauntlet. He apparently is challenging anyone to prove him wrong.

The point is that since he is making an absolute statement, the burden of proof is on him. His premise and conclusion is that since he's never seen a limb grow back, God does not exist. But his premise is flawed if he has not investigated every amputee ever, so how can his conclusion hold true?

[mick]

So if you are not vouching for him, is he wrong?

The point is that since he is making an absolute statement, the burden of proof is on him. His premise and conclusion is that since he's never seen a limb grow back, God does not exist. But his premise is flawed if he has not investigated every amputee ever, so how can his conclusion hold true?

Again, I'm not vouching for him; don't know the guy. His conclusion is either true or false.

As for his investigative methods and his premise and conclusion, someone should ask him. Just noticed he's got a Forum on that site for Q&A.

[August]

Again, I'm not vouching for him; don't know the guy. His conclusion is either true or false.

As for his investigative methods and his premise and conclusion, someone should ask him. Just noticed he's got a Forum on that site for Q&A.

I'm asking what you think. You said I should ask away. Surely you hold an opinion since you wanted to discuss it.

I read most of his book. I'm really not all that interested in debating this much further, unless some of the logically prior questions are answered. I clearly stated what the basic requirements would be for this to be a compelling case to discuss.

[mick]

OK. I think he's correct that no one has ever given a credible account of a limb being spontaneously regenerated.

Also, for the sake of argument, assume that he said he employed hundreds of researchers over the past twenty years that looked at literally every medical journal ever published, and none could find an example of this. It would be very easy to refute; all one would have to do is produce a single good example and his conclusion goes down the tubes.

Additionally, what would happen if a very devout Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim et al were "put on the spot"? What if they had to defend their belief system as being "true" if someone asked them if they had researched every single religion since the beginning of time?

Is it OK to ask them how they know they shouldn't be a Taoist if they've never studied it? Or a Druid or a Mormon or a Christian Scientist?

[Zamis1]

And that proves what? Has Mr Brain spoken to every amputee, dead or alive, ever and everywhere? Does he know all of them? How does he know what they pray for? How does he know that their prayers have not been answered?

The case of amputees is quite interesting, as the author points out. It would be difficult for the author to interview every amputee on earth, true. However, we can create a reasonable proxy for that. We can search all known medical journals, and we find that there are no documented cases of amputated legs spontaneously regenerating.

Since we are intellingent people, we can also note that we have never heard of such a thing. If an amputee's legs were to spontaneously regenerate, it would be reported on every news outlet in the world, because it would be a miracle. We would all have heard of it. Even a grilled cheese sandwich with an "image" on it makes huge headlines. Imagine if there were a spontaneous limb regeneration.

And we should be seeing this sort of spontaneous regeneration happening every day, not just once or twice. If God is answering millions of prayers for other Christians each day, what reason would God have not to bless amputees on a daily basis as well?

What Mr. Brain is pointing out is simple. God never answers the prayers of amputees to regenerate lost limbs. We know that. We also know that God does not ever answer impossible prayers. We never see mountains relocating, for example, in response to prayer.

The question is: why does God act this way? As Mr. Brain asserts, if we assume God to be imaginary, all of this makes sense. If we assume that God exists, we have to create convoluted explanations for God's behavior. Therefore, why would anyone assume that God exists?