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

[Believer]

Is it a requirement that a person or persons that has a spontaneous regenerated limb(s) contact press/media? It can't be local? Surely, a lot of people that have had something wonderful happen in their life that can't be explained by science, but by something divine, isn't reported. Should I go and tell the press/media of things that supernaturally happened to me? Should I bother? No, because they will decline the story as hogwash, they simply won't believe it, so media coverage wouldn't occur. Just like U.F.O.'s, people keep asserting that they know for a FACT that they don't exist, whether by some other intelligent life force or satan's deception to the world. We have many believers of it that have claimed they have seen it up close and personal, but nobody buys into it. Just because it isn't real to most people doesn't make it unreal to the person who experiences it. In this case, Mr. Brain shouldn't be so quick to say nothing like this has ever happened throughout history. Also, I have to say, if this man, Mr. Brain, was such a big impact on the world or the nation with his work, wouldn't you expect to see much media littered all over the internet telling us that he is right and we believers are flat out wrong and we should stop believing because of him? And why does he only choose the Bible, the God of Christianity? From making my rounds of spreading his website for review, I have gotten negative reviews of his website, and these reviews come from respected people. The fact is, people are still getting their prayers answered. Studies on prayer have been tested in more than one location than what he has described on his website, an so I can safely say that all tested locations were not hoaxes, unless there is a conspiracy going on which I highly doubt. My dad being a medical doctor and receiving medical journals, he knows as well as my family that prayer DOES work. He has told me that during the testing, two sick groups of people were separated, one group was not prayed for, the other was by very strong believers, both groups were ZERO percent aware of what they were in for exactly. The whole group of sick people that were prayed for got significantly better than the whole group that was not prayed for. I obviously do not believe this was by coincidence or chance. And I also don't believe that very strong non-believers that were either raised in a believing family or not that come to God somehow and have a wonderful fulfilling life is coincidence or chance either.

[mick]

Should I go and tell the press/media of things that supernaturally happened to me? Should I bother? No, because they will decline the story as hogwash, they simply won't believe it, so media coverage wouldn't occur.

The example is a regrown limb, not a garden-variety eerie experience; every news organization in the world would beat a path to the door.

Just like U.F.O.'s, people keep asserting that they know for a FACT that they don't exist, whether by some other intelligent life force or satan's deception to the world. We have many believers of it that have claimed they have seen it up close and personal, but nobody buys into it. Just because it isn't real to most people doesn't make it unreal to the person who experiences it.

Are you saying it is only in their heads?

My dad being a medical doctor and receiving medical journals, he knows as well as my family that prayer DOES work. He has told me that during the testing, two sick groups of people were separated, one group was not prayed for, the other was by very strong believers, both groups were ZERO percent aware of what they were in for exactly.

Do you have a citation?

[Believer]

Should I go and tell the press/media of things that supernaturally happened to me? Should I bother? No, because they will decline the story as hogwash, they simply won't believe it, so media coverage wouldn't occur.

The example is a regrown limb, not a garden-variety eerie experience; every news organization in the world would beat a path to the door.

I know what the example is as you seem to have a love for Marshall Brain's "work", I am saying that it is NOT fact that media would cover such things like the supernatural or even this example, why would anybody believe them unless THEY saw it for themselves? The media could simply think that the people were making it up, so why bother with a story?

Just like U.F.O.'s, people keep asserting that they know for a FACT that they don't exist, whether by some other intelligent life force or satan's deception to the world. We have many believers of it that have claimed they have seen it up close and personal, but nobody buys into it. Just because it isn't real to most people doesn't make it unreal to the person who experiences it.

Are you saying it is only in their heads?

No I am not saying "it is only in their heads". Yes, some people do have delusion due to problems they may have such as schizophrenia, but there have also been cases that 2 or more people experienced the same event at the same time with the same story. Just because you don't believe it, does it automatically make the person or persons experience(s) void? Do you have proof that they are wrong and you are right?

My dad being a medical doctor and receiving medical journals, he knows as well as my family that prayer DOES work. He has told me that during the testing, two sick groups of people were separated, one group was not prayed for, the other was by very strong believers, both groups were ZERO percent aware of what they were in for exactly.

Do you have a citation?

Here's a start my dad is familiar with (and no, he has never been to this website, or any other God related websites) - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html. In addition, my dad gets secular medical journals with more information on the positive effects of prayer (as I have said), and no, I do not know the website, but you can choose to believe or not believe me.

[August]

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

You are dodging the question, is his conclusion based on that, that there is no God correct? And you do vouch for him, since you accept his premise.

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.

I don't know what this hypothetical will show. For Mr. Brain to reach an absolute conclusion, he would have to show there there has never been a single case, ever.

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?

I don't see how this follows, or what it has to do with Marshall Brain. You seem to want to deflect the discussion here away from the topic. Religious beliefs are deductive, not inductive like the process Mr. Brain follows. He wishes to look at arbitrary and circumstantial evidence, and draw absolute conclusions from that. I don't speak for other religions or believers, but my Christian beliefs were not reached in that way. As a scientist, Mr. Brain should also know that all knowledge and conclusions are not reached in the same way, even in science.

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?

Sure it is, but again that has nothing to do with whether Mr. Brain had looked at all the evidence, everywhere, for him to reach his conclusions. He chooses to emperically disprove the existence of God, and therefore he should show all the evidence. As Christians, we are instructed to defend our faith, which we do, and so do other religions. Are you saying we should not ask people why they are atheists either, since this is what Mr. Brain is? But he makes very clear absolute statements around the existence of God, and he defends those statements with what he thinks to be compelling arguments. Why is it ok for him to attack Christianity, but he does not have to defend his conclusions, just like he is asking Christians to do?

[August]

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.

That does not establish a proveable premise. Has Mr. Brain searched all medical journals, ever, everywhere? How does he know that all medical cases, ever, everywhere have been recorded in medical journals? What about the times in history where there were no medical journals? How about places in the world where there are no medical journals?

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.

Have you heard every account, of every real or imagined miracle ever? Just because you, or Mr. Brain, have not heard of something, does not mean that it forms the basis of a premise used to reach an absolute conclusion.

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?

Back to begging the question. If we saw millions of these happening every day, what would that prove? It would not be the sort of miraculous proof that you and Mr. Brain seem to be searching for. All it would show is that limbs are like hair or fingernails, and it still would not convince you or Mr. Brain that there was a God.

Additionally, how many real Christian amputees did Mr. Brain speak with? How does he know what they pray for, and that those prayers are not answered? Do you perhaps have a reference for where his interviews are recorded? Did he speak with every Christian amputee? I work with a few (in fact, one passed away during this week), they have never heard of him, and also, they don't pray for limb regeneration. The understand that man has a mortal body, and that happyness and salvation is a state of your soul, not your body.

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.

I would strongly argue that you are engaging in wishful thinking here. Neither you, nor Mr. Brain, has proven beyond doubt that there has never been a miracle of that sort. We don't know that, because unless you can conclusively show it, neither you nor Mr. Brain have looked at all the evidence. You are reaching conclusions based on unproven premises. How do you define impossible, for example? If something is by definition impossible, then nothing can make it possible. God does what is in His nature to do.

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?

Act what way? Begging the question again....

Let's see if we can break this down: Mr. Brain asserts that there has never been limb regeneration by amputees, without showing any proof that he has looked at all the evidence. He also assumes that Christian amputees are praying on a daily basis for limbs to regenerate. He then quotes Scripture out of context to reach his conclusion that God is not answering the prayers of amputees, and since that does not happen, God does not exist.

Here is his list of premises on this topic:
1. There has never been a case of limb regeneration. (Unproven)
2. All or most Christian amputees pray for limb regeneration. (Unproven)
3. God promises to answer all prayers, regardless of what is asked for. (Not shown to be the correct interpretation)
4. No prayers of Christian amputees have been answered. (Unproven)

Any conclusion reached on those premises would be questionable at best. But since you and Mr. Brain want the premises and conclusions to be true, you keep on dogmatically asserting that "intelligent" people "know" that God does not answer these prayers, and therefore God is imaginary.

Also, you have still not shown how you and Mr. Brain can arrive at value judgements, logical conclusions and truth statements, which you and him make in abundance.

[mick]

I don't know what this hypothetical will show. For Mr. Brain to reach an absolute conclusion, he would have to show there there has never been a single case, ever.

Proving a negative is a tall order. However, his premise is falsifiable. All one has to do is produce a single case to discredit him. If you tell me there's no Santa Claus, would you be able to "prove" it? Or would you have to make do with a litany of reasons why you think there's no good reason to believe in Santa Claus?

Are you saying we should not ask people why they are atheists either, since this is what Mr. Brain is?

Where do you get that from?

[Zamis1]

Is it a requirement that a person or persons that has a spontaneous regenerated limb(s) contact press/media? It can't be local? Surely, a lot of people that have had something wonderful happen in their life that can't be explained by science, but by something divine, isn't reported. Should I go and tell the press/media of things that supernaturally happened to me? Should I bother? No, because they will decline the story as hogwash, they simply won't believe it, so media coverage wouldn't occur.

I think that we can safely say that if a double amputee (who is rolling around in a wheel chair one day) were to suddenly sprout two new legs (and be walking around normally the next), that someone would notice that. A family member, a friend, a co-worked, an aquaintance, a store keeper at a store he frequents, the wheelchair salesman... SOMEONE would notice that, and say, "oh my god, he spontaneously grew two new legs last night!", and the rest of us would hear about it. A story like that would be broadcast worldwide in less than 12 hours. Everyone with a TV, a radio or a newspaper subscription would know of this miracle within a day. How would an amputee hide the regeneration of two legs from the rest of us?

[August]

Proving a negative is a tall order. However, his premise is falsifiable. All one has to do is produce a single case to discredit him. If you tell me there's no Santa Claus, would you be able to "prove" it? Or would you have to make do with a litany of reasons why you think there's no good reason to believe in Santa Claus?

So the burden of proof conveniently shifts away from you and Mr. Brain. Why does he not show, beyond doubt, that it has never happened? That is not proving a negative, it's providing evidence for his assertions.

Where do you get that from?

I understood (maybe mistakenly), that you implied it was unfair of us to expect others to defend their views without them having investigated all alternatives, or seen all the evidence.

[Believer]

Is it a requirement that a person or persons that has a spontaneous regenerated limb(s) contact press/media? It can't be local? Surely, a lot of people that have had something wonderful happen in their life that can't be explained by science, but by something divine, isn't reported. Should I go and tell the press/media of things that supernaturally happened to me? Should I bother? No, because they will decline the story as hogwash, they simply won't believe it, so media coverage wouldn't occur.

I think that we can safely say that if a double amputee (who is rolling around in a wheel chair one day) were to suddenly sprout two new legs (and be walking around normally the next), that someone would notice that. A family member, a friend, a co-worked, an aquaintance, a store keeper at a store he frequents, the wheelchair salesman... SOMEONE would notice that, and say, "oh my god, he spontaneously grew two new legs last night!", and the rest of us would hear about it. A story like that would be broadcast worldwide in less than 12 hours. Everyone with a TV, a radio or a newspaper subscription would know of this miracle within a day. How would an amputee hide the regeneration of two legs from the rest of us?

Do you have proof to back up this assumpion of yours? You make the assumption(s), but never back them up, but with your opinion. I would like to see documented proof that media is REQUIRED to report anything and everything they hear about but do not see no matter what it is from every corner of the world.

[Zamis1]

Do you have proof to back up this assumpion of yours?

At this point, I believe that we have sufficient evidence to convince any normal person. We have enough credible evidence to stand up in a court of law. Here is the proof:

1) We can search medical journals electronically and find no reported instances of miraculous regeneration of amputed legs.

2) We can scan credible news sources like CNN and find no reported instances of miraculous regeneration of amputed legs.

3) And we can look at the world around us and note that there are plenty of amputees, but when we pray for them nothing happens. If God were answering prayers for amputees like he were for other Christians, we would see dozens of amputees having their limbs restored in the U.S. each day. Yet we do not see that happening.

From this evidence we can say, conclusively, that God does restore lost limbs.

There have been a number of rather interesting statements made in the course of this discussion. For example, in the Nov 13, 2005 2:18 am post there was this remarkable statement:

Has Mr Brain spoken to every amputee, dead or alive, ever and everywhere? Does he know all of them?

That is a rather strong demand -- speaking to all dead amputees as well as living. Then there was this on Nov 13, 2005 3:04 am:

Has Mr. Brain read all the medical journals ever written?

I doubt it, as that would be impossible. However, there is no need to because we can electronically search for article citations in seconds. And there was this on Nov 13, 2005 2:36 am :

he would know that slavery in the ancient world had important differences from American slavery in the 1800s.

It would appear that the argument is being made that slavery as practiced in the old testament, complete with beatings, separated families and mutilation as described in the Bible, was somehow "OK". Also, an all-knowing God would know that slavery in the 1800s was coming, yet Jesus said nothing to end slavery.

The question that I would ask is the same one that Mr. Brain is asking. In order to maintain the belief in God, you are willing to take on absurd positions like these. Why? What do you gain from the absurdity? If we assume, instead, that God is imaginary, all of the absurdity dissappears.

What are you gaining from your belief in an imaginary god? What would cause you to willfully accept such absurdity?

[August]

The question that I would ask is the same one that Mr. Brain is asking. In order to maintain the belief in God, you are willing to take on absurd positions like these. Why? What do you gain from the absurdity? If we assume, instead, that God is imaginary, all of the absurdity dissappears.

What is absurd is your, and Mr. Brains contentions that God does not exist based on arbitrary and poorly researched premises. neither you nor him have even showed a limited research effort, yet you want us to believe the conclusions. Since you are now at the point of directing personal insults at us, I have to assume that I was correct in my assumption that in fact the research is incomplete or non-existant, and that you merely wish to express a personal wish that God does not exist.

What are you gaining from your belief in an imaginary god? What would cause you to willfully accept such absurdity?

Neither you, nor Mr. Brain, has proven to anyone that there is no God. Therefore your position is the absurd one, you want to make your opinion the truth. What do you gain from making poor and unsubstantiated truth claims?

All of your other statements have been addressed before.

[jerickson314]

It would appear that the argument is being made that slavery as practiced in the old testament, complete with beatings, separated families and mutilation as described in the Bible, was somehow "OK".

Nice use of charged language and loaded questions, both logically fallacious. "Slavery" as practiced in Old Testament times bears almost no resemblance to slavery of the 1800s. Start by reading from someone who has actually studied some history, seemingly unlike Marshall Brain. Start here.

With regards to your particular claims:

Beatings: the beating of slaves was no different a custom than the beating of children. It's how discipline worked in the Ancient Near East. Somewhat like spanking today.

Also note the passage about getting special privileges in terms of eating, equal with the family but above guests. In other words, slaves were treated as beloved members of the family. Not exactly heinous.

Separating from families: If you actually read the passage, the separation was only allowed to occur with the consent of the slave. Slaves had not one but two alternatives:

1.) They could stay in slavery, and stay with the family.
2.) They could marry either before or after the enslavement, rather than during it. To marry during enslavement was to knowingly consent to either staying a slave forever or leaving your family with the master.

Where do you get the "mutilation" claim from?

Also, an all-knowing God would know that slavery in the 1800s was coming, yet Jesus said nothing to end slavery.

This argument is simply ridiculous. By your logic, God also must not exist on account of the fact that He didn't mention computer hacking. You also forget about God's ability to speak to believers in their own times, as I believe He did to those in the abolition movement. Many slaveholders who mistreated their slaves simply had hardened hearts and were not willing to listen to God.

The question that I would ask is the same one that Mr. Brain is asking. In order to maintain the belief in God, you are willing to take on absurd positions like these. Why? What do you gain from the absurdity? If we assume, instead, that God is imaginary, all of the absurdity dissappears.

It seems to me more that in order to attack belief in God, you must avoid using scholarly sources. Why would this be?

OK, that may not always be the case - but it does seem to be the case with Marshall Brain.

[Zamis1]

Where do you get the "mutilation" claim from?

It comes from Exodus Chapter 21. Here is what God says in the Bible:

"Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. "

Boring through a person's ear with an awl on a doorpost is... Well, it is absurd. This entire passage is absurd. And it is also mutilation.

This is the thing that we are discussing here. Any normal, rational person looks on this passage with repugnance. The idea of slavery is repugnant. The idea of boring through a man's ear is repugnant. The idea of using a man's children as blackmail to force him into a lifetime of slavery is repugnant.

This argument is simply ridiculous. By your logic, God also must not exist on account of the fact that He didn't mention computer hacking.

The argument is not ridiculous for this reason: God is supposed to be omniscient. This is exactly the point that Brain makes in Chapter 17. An all-knowing God would know that people in 2005 would be reading this book and seeing its repugnance. As Brain says:

"Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a book written by God leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator or the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight?

Instead, opening the Bible inevitably creates a feeling of dumbfoundment. Have you ever noticed that? Instead of brilliance, much of the Bible contains nonsense. The topics of the previous several chapters, where we discussed the Bible's advocacy of slavery and animal sacrifice, the Bible's misogyny and so on, are excellent examples. But they are just the tip of the iceberg. You can open the Bible to almost any page and find nonsense instead of wisdom. Here are several examples..."

He lists dozens of examples.

He also says:

"why doesn't God use the Bible to explain metallurgy, chemistry, biology, physics, manufacturing, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. to these primitive people so they can dramatically accelerate their development?

Why, in other words, is the Bible so useless? Why does the author of the Bible, who is supposed to be God, who is supposed to be all-knowing, know so little? Why is the knowledge of the author limited to the knowledge of the primitive men who wrote the book? If you think about what you are reading in the Bible in the context of an all-knowing God who supposedly wrote it, none of it makes any sense. But if you think about the Bible as being a book written by primitive men like you would find in the remote regions of Afghanistan today, it makes complete sense. "

[jerickson314]

Boring through a person's ear with an awl on a doorpost is... Well, it is absurd. This entire passage is absurd. And it is also mutilation.

If that's so unethical, you should write letters to all the major earring manufacturers. If piercing of ears is unethical, then all these people are encouraging innocent young women to mutilate themselves! OK, it was probably somewhat different in the Ancient Near East. I still don't see how it would, from a moral perspective, be any different from an earring or a tattoo. It is voluntary, after all.

This is the thing that we are discussing here. Any normal, rational person looks on this passage with repugnance.

Unless the normal, rational person actually takes the time to do a bit of research, actually. After all, when reading a book that is thousands of years old, it's quite easy to misunderstand what is said.

The idea of slavery is repugnant.

Slavery as implemented in the modern world, yes. The concept of slavery referenced in the Bible, no. I guess you didn't bother reading the article I linked to. Afraid of scholarly sources, are you?

The idea of boring through a man's ear is repugnant.

If you really believe that, you need to go to the mall and start protesting all the places that pierce ears.

The idea of using a man's children as blackmail to force him into a lifetime of slavery is repugnant.

The use of a "loaded question" fallacy in an argument simply shows a lack of education. Your statement is flawed on so many levels, because it makes false assumptions. False assumptions I have already addressed numerous times, but I guess you're just not reading my arguments.

The argument is not ridiculous for this reason: God is supposed to be omniscient. This is exactly the point that Brain makes in Chapter 17. An all-knowing God would know that people in 2005 would be
reading this book and seeing its repugnance.

Your point? I see that history isn't the only class you need to take. Try taking a course in basic writing or speaking. Any basic communications course, for that matter. When writing a work, it is necessary to take into account several factors, including purpose and, importantly, audience. 21st century readers are a secondary audience; the ancient societies in which the works were written were the primary audience. As a general writing technique, one should not put into works ideas which will merely confuse and alienate one's primary audience. J.P. Holding has a more detailed article, but you don't bother reading linked articles, so I won't waste my time finding it unless you ask.

Instead, opening the Bible inevitably creates a feeling of dumbfoundment. Have you ever noticed that? Instead of brilliance, much of the Bible contains nonsense. The topics of the previous several chapters, where we discussed the Bible's advocacy of slavery and animal sacrifice, the Bible's misogyny and so on, are excellent examples. But they are just the tip of the iceberg. You can open the Bible to almost any page and find nonsense instead of wisdom. Here are several examples..."

It is stupid to interpret works intended for an ancient audience as if they were written for a modern audience. Only the most fundamentalist of Christians and the most fundamentalist of atheists do so. You would probably be in the latter category.

"why doesn't God use the Bible to explain metallurgy, chemistry, biology, physics, manufacturing, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. to these primitive people so they can dramatically accelerate their development?

Holding actually has some interesting comments on this very question. I'd provide a link if there was actually a chance you'd read it. It was similar to what I was saying above about audience and purpose, though.

Why, in other words, is the Bible so useless? Why does the author of the Bible, who is supposed to be God, who is supposed to be all-knowing, know so little? Why is the knowledge of the author limited to the knowledge of the primitive men who wrote the book? If you think about what you are reading in the Bible in the context of an all-knowing God who supposedly wrote it, none of it makes any sense. But if you think about the Bible as being a book written by primitive men like you would find in the remote regions of Afghanistan today, it makes complete sense. "

It also makes sense if you realize that it is usually good practice to write a book with its audience in consideration. There are also some interesting insights in the Bible, which in fact are amazing, but I don't have time to go into details right now and you won't read a source I just link to.

[mick]

Proving a negative is a tall order. However, his premise is falsifiable. All one has to do is produce a single case to discredit him. If you tell me there's no Santa Claus, would you be able to "prove" it? Or would you have to make do with a litany of reasons why you think there's no good reason to believe in Santa Claus?

So the burden of proof conveniently shifts away from you and Mr. Brain. Why does he not show, beyond doubt, that it has never happened? That is not proving a negative, it's providing evidence for his assertions.

I see what you're saying, but he is making what amounts to an inductive argument. It is therefore tentative. Inductive arguments have a mighty hard time trying to be absolute.

However, an inductive argument can be "sound" or "strong", based upon the evidence presented.