I guess I'm felling my oats tonight. Over at Why Won't God Heel (mispelled word purposely) Amputees, you can read about all sorts of "reasons" why God isn't real. You can read about why prayer is worthless, and why answered prayers are nothing more than "coincidence".
It is with great hilarity that I take issue with the authors of that website, should they ever have enough balls to name themselves.
I am Tom Reindl. I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ. I will give you all sorts of reasons in the future (and have done so in the past) why I believe. What I will never give you is bad logic followed up by bad english...and then not give you my name. I will remain known, never anonymous, because I, like most people, realized long ago that the "power" in anonymity is merely an illusion.
You will never catch me ripping someone else's beliefs, and not giving my name. You'll never watch as I state "facts", and hide behind my anonymity. If I say something is fact, right or wrong, I'll admit to it.
However, I could say, anonymously, that the other day, I was run over by a unicorn, therefore, unicorns must exist. Such is the tripe you will read at Why Won't God Heal Amputees.
Obviously, my first problem with the website (have you guessed it yet?) is its anonymity. But it doesn't end there.
We live in a completely cause and effect universe, yet Why Won't God Heel Amputees "scientifically" tries to prove that "answers to prayer are nothing more than a coincidence".
Who here sees a problem with that logic?
For every cause, there is an effect. For every effect, there was a cause. There are no coincidences, unless you actually use the definition of the word "coincidence" correctly. Coincidence equals two separate incidents seemingly having something to do with one another, but not necessarily. Or, to get "old english" on this, merely, more than one incident, usually two, happening simultaneously.
In those definitions, there is nothing about cause and effect, nothing about "coincidences" meaning more than a term used to describe several incidents, neither benevolent nor malevolent. A Coincident cannot be the cause of an effect. It, therefore, cannot used to describe or define the reason behind an event, nor can it be used scientifically to prove that God does not answer prayer, as if by the mere use of the word "coincidence", God has been replaced by a perfectly "logical" reason. Reason dictates that for every effect, there was a cause, and reason also dictates that "coincidence" had nothing to do with the effects witnessed.
Two incidents. Several times, (actually more than several) the website mentioned above uses phrases such as "It's just a coincidence" as citing some well known "fact".. Not only is that phrase not provable, it's just plain bad English. But if it is provable beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I ask the wonderful authors of that website to display their unquestionable proof, which is what evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt is all about. And while you are at it, why not display your names? My name is Tom Reindl...what's yours?
Did I say "just plain bad English"? Of course I did. You never say "It's just a coincidence" and walk away unharmed. Okay, maybe I am exagerrating a little bit. But you certainly don't say "It's just a coincidence" and walk away believing you have solved the mystery of prayer, much less used good English. If you really wanted to use the word "coincidence" in a sentence, you'd have to pluralize it, and say something like "They were just coincidences", because a coincidence can never, ever, ever, be singular. By rule, a "coincidence" requires at least two separate incidents, and thus, is always plural.
English books away, please. Now take out your science books. In a cause and effect world, "coincidences" can never cause something. Nor can they be used to explain the cause of something, as Why Won't God Heal Amputees is well in the habit of doing. It would be like me saying, the light turned green just as you ran through the intersection by coincidence. On the surface, that sounds intelligent, but it's not. You ran through the intersection when it was green because the intersection before didn't hold you up long enough for you to have to stop on red, or you weren't side swiped while passing through two previous intersections. Both of these might be reasons, or causes, why you ran through an intersection just as it passed into green, but "coincidences" would never explain why you did what you did, or why something happened the way it did.
Let me state this simply: "Coincidence" is just another word for an excuse or an attempt to try and explain away something you haven't researched enough, or do not have enough scientific information to "explain" in any other way. Sadly, "coincidence", as stated above, can never be used as an explanation or a definition. It can't really even be used to philosophically explain why you do or don't believe something, such as the authors of Why Won't God Heel Amputees seem to be doing.
But, if you insist, we can at least allow for your bad English, and grant that "it's just a coincidence" that you think you have offered a scientific explanation for why God won't heal amputees when all you've really done is both misuse an overused word, and used it improperly in a sentence. Now those are coincidences, (Note the proper English), and as such, they are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with God or prayer at all, or any other form of scientific endeavor toward "disproving" the existence of God and answered prayer.
I am Tom Reindl, and I state, for the record, that IT is merely a coincidence that I wrote this post several days after reading Why Won't God Heal Amputees, or at least, several days after reading as much as my stomach could handle before vomiting voluminously. Two separate incidents, but do they really have anything to do with each other?
I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. It is, after all, only done in good fun.