The Ironic Bankruptcy of the Atheistic Amputee Argument
Why the Question, "Why Won't God Heal Amputees" Proves Theism, Not Atheism
If God heals people from cancer and all sorts of diseases, then why won't God heal amputees?This is a question that has puzzled many thinkers over the years. Some, like Marshall Brain, seems to think this question on it's own is enough to prove that God doesn't exist. He says that since God, in his observation, doesn't heal amputees, then there are two options: God hates amputees, or God does not exist. But as I am about to demonstrate, he presumes the theistic world view to start off in order to even ask the question. Here's how a typical conversation between a theist and atheist goes when asking this question.
Joe: "Do you believe God answers prayers?"
James: "Sure I do. God has answered many of my prayers."
Joe: "Do you believe that God answers prayers of healing from disease and ailments?"
James: "Of course. God healed me of cancer."
Joe: "Then why doesn't God heal amputees?"
James: "Because it's not his will to do so."
Joe: "So God answers the prayers of people with cancer, but not with amputations?"
James: "Right, because that's not his will."
Joe: "Well, that's not fair to the amputees."
That last statement by Joe is where we will stop for now. Joe the Atheist says it is "not fair" that God heals one group of people and not another. In fact, this is the point on which the question itself is based. The question itself has an assumption of fairness and justice behind it. They wouldn't even ask the question if they thought it was justified that a hypothetical God would heal one group, but not another. They believe that there is an inconsistency here, one that reveals a glaring contradiction about God's very nature.
|
|



