God is known to perform many miracles, healing many people of diseases, backaches and even blindness.
Some atheists argue that God doesn’t exist because He has yet to regenerate a lost limb after intercessory prayer – an argument which fails for several reasons.
Table of Contents
Reason 1: It’s ambiguous
It would be difficult to argue against God if He healed amputees; such a miracle would be empirically verifiable. Furthermore, it’s hard to imagine He would disregard amputees when He is healing thousands with cancer, heart attacks and diseases daily.
If you really want to test whether God exists, ask Him to heal an amputee and see if He answers. If not, that could be evidence that He doesn’t exist.
Arguments from miracles also don’t make much sense because they assume that the lack of miracles indicates that god lacked morally sufficient reasons to perform them, which may not be accurate; there could be many reasons for God’s silence which we don’t comprehend.
Instead of asserting there are no miracles, it may be more helpful to pose a question that probes into our expectations and beliefs about God rather than His abilities. If there is an almighty being out there who can restore lost limbs with ease, those expecting Him to do this are mistaken – similar to fools who listen to a madman while the wise person ignores him due to lacking any proof or evidence to back their claims or understand their beliefs might be mistaken.
Reason 2: It’s ambiguous
There are multiple reasons this argument fails. First and foremost is its flawed premise – assuming miracles can be distinguished from other healings in some tangible manner is false; there’s simply no principled way of distinguishing cancer remission from limb regrowth (or any other condition treated by modern medicine) with absolute precision.
Another flaw of this argument is its presumption of God as an obligation to answer our queries exactly in accordance with what we feel they should. Doing so would require Him to serve as our human laboratory rat – something He would likely prefer over being subjected to unwarranted experimentation from us! It is reasonable to expect a loving and sovereign God would shirk from submitting Himself to such scrutiny.
Finaly, this argument assumes that God holds an animus against amputees. Yet the Bible provides many examples of God using imperfect people such as David as well as Esther and Joseph (both slave queens) to fulfill His purposes – so no matter who has an amputee limb they should be grateful. God does not harbor any animus against anyone – including amputees! Instead He uses them in ways neither they nor us can comprehend; for which they should be truly grateful.
Reason 3: It’s ambiguous
One major weakness with the argument that “God won’t heal amputees” is its vagueness; it suggests that though He is powerful, He does not answer prayers by healing people in ways they expect Him to. But this assumption is false: God has indeed healed many people in ways they didn’t expect, including reversing amputation effects, healing cancer patients, backache sufferers and many other medical conditions.
Proof that an individual was healed due to divine intervention can be hard. Proving miracles does not come as easily, therefore any theist who makes this claim must admit they have failed in proving the God of the Bible exists.
One could speculate that God does not choose to heal amputees because it would reveal something about Himself that He does not wish to reveal. This assumption can be very dangerous as it implies that He cannot always be trusted to act rightly in every circumstance – something inconsistent with scripture which speaks of a sovereign God who answers no one but Himself (including atheists ), as well as church history where unlikely people like harried ex-slaves have fulfilled God’s purposes through unlikely means such as David becoming King or Joseph becoming Queen respectively.
Reason 4: It’s ambiguous
There is an increasingly popular website and viral YouTube video which asserts that God never heals amputees. Their claim rests on an argument that miracles may have supernatural causes as well as modern medicine explanations; therefore since God cannot be held responsible for healing someone of missing limbs, therefore He does not exist.
But this argument is flawed since healing miracles don’t always correspond with traditional understandings of amputations. Cancer, heart attacks and disease may all be seen as acts of God; yet modern medicine often provides treatments. Also injuries caused by car accidents or stroke can be blamed on Him; yet these injuries do not constitute true amputations.
The Bible contains much suffering, yet also records numerous healing miracles performed by Jesus, such as healing lepers and restoring an individual with severed ears. Furthermore, resurrection and eternal life are mentioned throughout. So why doesn’t God heal amputees as well? Simply because He sees their condition as part of humanity and creation’s curse due to rebellion and sin; unfortunately this doesn’t satisfy critics who need evidence before trusting in God.
Reason 5: It’s ambiguous
There may be various reasons for why God may choose not to heal amputees, one being that doing so would make it harder for people to believe in Him. According to Scripture, suffering is part of life and essential for growth; amputees too must suffer as part of human nature – but this doesn’t necessarily indicate He won’t intervene and heal them!
God may also not heal amputees for other reasons: to teach us something. He wants us to trust in him even when he seems absent, because in time we’ll understand that He’s good – this is key in faith. Furthermore, the New Testament shows how Jesus healed various physical ailments such as leprosy and missing limbs – evidence that He can and possibly does heal amputees as well.
However, if God is sending a message through healings, it should be evident. That God has not healed every amputee who asked for one is evidence that there may be deeper reasons at work here. Since the Bible often uses ambiguity as part of its teachings and literary devices to make its pages more compelling, making us imagine ourselves within their narrative and spark debates over religious beliefs that differ from our own, ambiguity should not come as a shocker.
Reason 6: It’s ambiguous
The main difficulty with the argument is its vagueness: God can be many things to us, often showing up unexpectedly – from healing blind people or restoring crippled hands, all the way up to raising dead people back from the graves. And yet many believe He never heals amputees because this belief rests on a false assumption: that miracle healings must always correspond with conventional ideas of “healing”.
God does occasionally intervene and heal some people of cancer, back pain, MS and other medical ailments – though this usually involves modern medicine; therefore it cannot be directly attributed to Him as evidence for His existence. If an amputee were healed through intercessory prayer then this would constitute clear proof of divine intervention and demonstrate His existence as well.
But why would God ever heal amputees? If we could understand why He does it or doesn’t do it, perhaps we could persuade those who doubt Him that the Bible is an inspired text and give it another try. However, this argument can be difficult as nobody expects a miraculous limb transplant miracle to take place, yet numerous Christian apologists have provided refutations for these claims on a website known as “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees”.