Perhaps you have heard this question posed by those who desire to show that God does not exist.

The rationale is this:

Since God answers prayer, certainly there has been a believer who has had enough faith to pray for healing (really re-growing) of an amputeed limb. Since there are not any recorded or verified instances of a person having a limb grow back, this shows that God doesn't exist. No limbs grow back, because God does not exist to grow them back.

In answering this question, we should realize that this is not really a test of God's existence, but rather a test of His character. God could well exist, but for various reasons not heal any amputees. This argument is putting the cart before the horse. First one should find out if God exists, then see how He acts. It's also not wise to set up unbiblical tests for God to perform to see if He exists. This is both highly problematic and subjective.

It's true that we never see this type of healing in the Bible and this is very interesting. In the Bible we see Jesus healing all kinds of people- the lame walk, the blind see and even a couple of people are brought back from the dead. But there is no record of any amputees' limbs being restored.

Why do we not see this type of miracle?

3 possible responses:

1. You could technically say that an amputated arm or leg is healed. The damaged or diseased part can be removed and what is left can be healed. So, in that sense the amputee may be said to be healed.

2. Miracles are rare. They are not the norm. For example, how many people are referenced in the Bible who have gone to Heaven without dying? Two. How many times does the Bible state that God created from nothing? Once. So again, miracles are by their definition rare.

Also, according to the Bible, there is a huge difference between God answering prayer and God performing a miracle in answer to a prayer. Biblically it is not correct to say that God answering prayers and performing miracles as being on the same level. Countless prayers are answered daily while true miracles are rare.

3. Just because you haven't heard of an amputated limb being restored, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. But, if there were evidence of such a healing, would that cause an atheist to change his or her mind about God?

Another problem with this line of reasoning is that it is illogical.

One logical fallacy that this question breaks is called the Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation): assuming there are only two alternatives when, in fact, there are more. In this case, assuming that since God has not healed any amputees (in the Bible or elsewhere to our knowledge.) God doesn't answer prayer and therefore doesn't exist. This is faulty reasoning.

The pattern goes like this:

1. Since God can do something, therefore God should do something.
2. Since God should do something, therefore God must do it
3. If God does not do something that He must do, then God does not exist.

or

1. Since God can heal amputees, therefore God should heal amputees.
2. Since God should heal amputees, therefore God must heal amputees.
3. If God does not heal any amputees, then God does not exist.

This is bad logic in and of itself. Just because God can do something, it doesn't mean that He should or must do something. God is a sovereign being. The Bible does not say that because God can do something, therefore He must do it. This is people putting conditions on how God must act, which is preposterous.

It's easy to set up a condition for God's existence and then if God doesn't meet the condition, conclude that He doesn't exist. In this particular example, the condition is: if God exists, then He must heal amputees.

But this is just one example, any could be used. Some are more intellectual than others. For example, you could say that if God exists, He should strike me dead in 5 seconds. According to the Bible, God has the right to take a person's life, so He wouldn't be unjust in doing so. 5 seconds pass, you are still alive, therefore God doesn't exist.

Or, I could say that if God exists, He should prove His existence by causing all the leaves on the bush behind me to fall off in 15 seconds. Now I could believe that God can do this and I could pray for this to happen with an open and honest heart. 15 seconds pass, the leaves are still there, so God doesn't exist.

Does it say in the Bible that God has promised to heal amputees, anyone? No. Does it say in the Bible that God must heal amputees to prove His existence or love for humanity? No. Does God say that He will perform any type of miracle or healing to prove His existence? No. Does God guarantee healing to anyone, even if they have a large amount of faith? No. In fact, some who were martyrs for their beliefs did so at a young age and had great faith.

Along with amputees, there could be any number of diseases or sicknesses which God has never miraculously healed. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, since no one is guaranteed of a healing or a miracle.

To perhaps get to the heart of the matter, let me ask, "Why should God jump through our hoops to prove that He exists? Does God have to perform every type of miracle or healing before one will believe in Him?"

What if there was a documented case of God restoring a limb? For the atheist, ask yourself honestly, would you then believe in God? Or would you just set up another hoop for Him to jump through?

This brings us to a larger issue. That is, the amputee and similar questions work on the following premise- "If I can think of a question that no Christian can adequately answer, then this means that God doesn't exist. Or at the least that Christianity is false, untrue."

4 brief responses:

1. What if the answer exists, but you haven't found it?
2. What if someone gives you a correct, pro-christian (biblical) answer, acim you don't accept it?
3. What if no one can answer the question now, but in 1 month or 1 year someone comes up with the answer? Then will you believe or just ask another question? Then when this gets answered, will you ask another question and it just keeps going?
4. What if the correct answer that you would accept isn't available now, but is given in 150 years? Long after you have died?

Even if this or another question is answered to your satisfaction, can I, you or anyone know everything about God or how or why God acts? Why does a three year old die of cancer? Why are Christians with strong faith struck with chronic pain for years? You don't know and I don't know. But what's wrong with that? Why does, "I don't know" have to equal "God doesn't exist."? That's too simple, too easy an answer.

When looking at Christianity, any thinking person will inevitably come across something that is difficult to understand, doesn't make sense, even seems contradictory at first glance. Given enough time, reading and life experience, this is inevitable.

Now, given that, we have two options when we run into something we don't understand:

1. I don't understand, therefore I won't believe.
2. I don't understand, but nonetheless I choose to believe. And as I read and talk to people and pray and grow in my faith, I hope to find the answer to my question. But I know that I may never know or never be told the answer to my question. If that is true, I will not stop believing in God or "loose my faith. I will decide to trust in a personal and loving God, despite my question or the reality of a horrible event in my life.

A danger in saying that, "I don't understand, therefore I don't believe" is that you or someone else can always think of a reason or excuse for not believing in God. That is the way God has set things up. He has given us enough evidence to believe in Him, yet He has also made it possible for people to reject Him and say that He doesn't exist.