On the website http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com an interesting question is raised—Why won't God heal amputees?  They claim that God doesn't answer prayer because God isn't real, he is imaginary.  They claim every supposed answer to prayer is better explained by a coincidence and they also claim that no prayers are answered in such a way that coincidence or natural means cannot be a possible explanation.  Their primary example of this would be the healing of an amputee.  If God would heal and regenerate the limb of an amputee and if coincidence or science could not explain it, then prayer (if it is the only remaing explanation) would be a viable explanation.  So their question, "Why won't God heal amputees?" is supposed to lead to their conclusion: God doesn't exist.

Their argument contains the following assumptions:

1. If amputees aren't healed, then God is imaginary and doesn't exist.
2. The Bible clearly commands us to pray for healing and promises that if we have faith and pray for healing, then God will heal.
3. God must use supernatural means to answer prayer.  ie) The laws of nature/physics/chemistry must be broken or else coincidence can be a possible explanation.
4. An amputee has never been healed or no limb has ever been regenerated.

Assumption #1: If amputees aren't healed, then God is imaginary and doesn't exist.

Everyone should see that amputees not being healed does not force the conclusion that God doesn't exist.  There are a number of possibilities explaining why amputees are not healed:

1. God doesn't exist.  (Their conclusion)
2. God exists, but he can't hear or can't heal amputees.
3. God exists, hears and has the power to heal, but chooses not to.
4. God exists, hears and has the power to heal, but people lack faith.

Lets disqualify the second conclusion that God is unable to hear or unable to heal amputees, since such a being is not God.  Lets also disqualify the forth conclusion that people lack faith because surely someone would have had the faith necessary to heal an amputee.  This may not be the case (that someone has had the necessary faith) but I'm removing it from the list of possibilities since the amount of faith a person has is subjective and who chooses who has enough faith?  God would.  So we're left with the same conclusion of the third, namely, that God chooses not to.

Assumption #1 Corrected: If amputees aren't healed, then God is imaginary and doesn't exist OR God chooses not to heal them.

Over the next series of posts, I'll look at the other assumptions to see if their argument holds.

PS. For those who would also disqualify my added possibility that God chooses not to heal amputees on the grounds that this would mean God is not a good God, and therefore not God.  Our definition of goodness cannot be applied to God and the question of evil will have to wait for another day.

Series continues here: Does James teach us that prayer heals?