What’s a better theological response? Serious answers only please.
It is possible that:
First assumption: God does heal amputees.
1-A But there are no records.
1-B there are records but you or me do not have them .
2nd assumption: god does not heal amputees.
2-A There’s an inscrutable reason behind his reluctance to do so.
2-B There’s an intelligible reason behind his reluctance that we’re not aware of
2-C there’s a reason we’re aware of but we do not appreciate its persuasiveness.
I take it that you’re reasonable enough to see that even if one or all of them are unlikely, in your opinion, they are still possible.
But let me address something more fundamental , is this an argument against the existence of God?
Well, this is a response I wrote elsewhere. people were fighting about whether this or that miracle was valid and whether it helped to stablish the “case” of god’s existence. This is what I wrote, don’t know if that’s what you’re looking for.
******
Does god heal amputees?
Catholics, stop taking the bait when asked the question. You will give an example of this or that putative miracle and will engage in a fruitless debate about the “weight” of the evidence. Or you will take the “there might be miracles out there we don’t know about” approach which will not pass the skeptic’s criteria, or you will take this or that approach , etc.
The question is a red-herring, the skeptic that asks the question wants you to go along with his assumption that existence of god is like a scientific theory or a matter of fact. We measure the “evidence” or lack of it to see if the “hypothesis” of god is likely or not. And then we measure and calculate the available evidence to “disconfirm” the God hypothesis.
Since the evidence is lacking or flimsy, in the skeptic’s opinion, then the God hypothesis is likely wrong.
But this is completely false.
God is not a hypothesis or a matter of fact. If god exists
he necessarily exists, if god does not exist** he is impossible**.
Take a triangle; what sort of evidence would decrease the probability that a triangle has three sides?
Take a married bachelor, what sort of evidence would increase the probability of there being married bachelors?
Is 2+2+=4 probable or improbable? What evidence needs to be marshaled to raise or decrease the possibility of the result being 4?
This and other related questions are irrelevant, non-sequiturs that
confuse matter of facts with necessary truths.
God is a sort of necessary truth; he is perfect, an unmoved mover, the greatest being that can be thought or the ground of all being or pure actuality,** nothing can prevent it from existing**. Now, if god does not exist it is because he’s logically impossible. There’s something in the concept of god that is incoherent. It is impossible for god to come into existence.
Now, we’re in a position to address the argument, does god heal amputees? dunno but, it is irrelevant to the question of whether god exists or not.
1-If god exists, he necessarily exists. (and conversely If he does not exist he’s impossible.)
2- And since he’s necessarily omnipotent he can heal amputees when he wants to, that is, if he has not done it already.
Put the ball in his court and let him prove that the concept of god is impossible, when he does so, then we can certainly conclude that god does not heal amputees.Before then, keep Challenging his implicit assumptions, do not play by his rules.
