St. John the Evangelist - Ancient Faith, Modern Relevance

I was recently asked an interesting question.  "Why doesn't God heal amputees?"  It turns out that this question has some "chatter" going on the Internet, including one web site that has dedicated quite a few words to the topic, in order to prove that God doesn't exist (see whywontgodhealamputees.com).  And one has to admit that there is a certain kind of gut level impact in this question.  Without even thinking about it too long, the question reverberates in our minds: "Yeah, why DOESN'T God heal amputees?  If he can supposedly heal cancer patients, then why not amputees?"

I'll admit that this question gave me pause for a few hours, until I began to ask myself: "what is the underlying POINT of this question?  And what is the underlying logic in assuming that if God doesn't heal amputees, he must not exist?"  So – let's look at this logically.

It seems that the embedded or implied idea behind the question is this: If God has fails to do a certain observable thing that He's supposed to be able to do, then He must not exist.  Is this statement logically necessary?  That is, is the logic implied in the statement correct?

I'm no expert in logic - though I did teach informal logic on a high school level.  So in thinking this through, I did what any self-respecting scholar would do, who needs to brush up on some academic topic.  I went to Wikipedia!  If one uses a syllogistic approach (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism), it's kind of like math: A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.  Here's an example.

• Major premise: All deeds are possible for God.
• Minor premise: All cases of healing amputees are a deed.
• Conclusion: All cases of healing amputees are possible for God.

So far, so good, right?  At least at one website (the one mentioned above: whywontgodhealamputees.com) tries to use a similar kind of logic - or at least it SEEMS that way.  But if you look at this site, what are they really saying?  If you look at this web page (whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm), you'll see this statement: "It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them."

So their logic is something like this:

• Major premise: All prayers are answered affirmatively by God.
• Minor premise: Some amputees pray for healing.
• Conclusion: Some amputees' prayers are answered affirmatively by God.

And because there are NO cases of amputees being healed (they assert), therefore there must be no God.  The problems with this whole approach (logically) are manifold.

• Not all prayers are answered affirmatively by God.
• Not all diseases are healed by God.  I've never heard of a miraculous healing of leishmaniasis, for instance.  Nor for lung or liver flukes.  Nor malignant mesothelioma - for which the median survival period is only about 6-12 months! On the other hand, because I can find no evidence for such healings, does not necessitate the conclusion that such healings have not occurred, right?  Beside, we know of at least one case in Biblical history in which the healing of an amputation did take place - see Matthew 26.51 and following.
• An assumption made by the above mentioned web site is that everything that God CAN do, He WILL do.  But that assumption has a significant flaw.  If God exists, He CAN presumably cause the earth to cease to exist.  Since the earth still exists, there must be no God, one might thereby reason.  That's not great logic - not to mention a little dangerous for the future of humanity, if God DOES exist!
• And the kind of logic the above-mentioned web site uses is similar to this kind of syllogism.  The Inland Taipan is supposedly one of the most deadly poisonous snakes in the world (it's true! look it up!).  However, there are no known cases of a human fatality from this snake.  Therefore, the snake isn't really poisonous.  In point of fact, the explanation given by Wikipedia is "Although highly venomous, it is a relatively timid snake, provided that it is left alone. Even so, if it is suspected that a bite from this snake has occurred, medical attention should be sought immediately. Although known as the most venomous land snake in the world, there have been no documented human fatalities. All known bites have been treated using antivenin."
• One's ignorance of God's reasoning for not healing amputees (or malignant mesothelioma sufferers) doesn't mean that there is no reason, nor no God.  It simply means we don't know.  I refer the reader to Job 40.3-9.

One more analogy; we know that God almost never permanently heals death (remember, Lazarus died again, at least of old age).  The only exceptions that are documented in Scripture are Enoch and Elijah.  That's two out of many billions of people.  Does that mean there is no God, or that there is only an infinitesimally small chance for the existence of God?

Bottom line: the argument put forward by such web sites as whywontgodhealamputees.com are grounded on bad logic and worse exegesis (interpretation of Scripture).  This latter problem has so many examples on that web site that I don't even want to start talking about that!

It argues from emotions and DEMANDS that the web site's author get to tell us what God has to be like.  I suggest that if we get to create God, then WE are the creators, and not He.  That's definitely backwards!