After his introduction, our atheist moves into his first question:

"Here is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about: As a Christian, you believe in the power of prayer. According to a recent poll 3 out of 4 doctors believe that God is performing medical miracles on earth right now. Most Christians believe that God is curing cancers, healing diseases, reversing the effects of poisons and so on. So here's question #1: Why won't God heal amputees? It's a simple question, isn't it? We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God. If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that this is an interesting question. On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles. How do you deal with this discrepancy? As an intelligent person, you have to deal with it, because it makes no sense. In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life. You might say: 'Well, God must have some kind of special plan for amputees.' So you invent your excuse, whatever it is, and then you stop thinking about it because it is uncomfortable."

Immediately after this last statement, the video moves on into "Here is another example..." and question #2. The advantage that our video maker has is that he doesn't actually ALLOW you to think about one question before he moves on to the next. I don't fault him for this; he couldn't very well put 15 minutes of dead space between each question to let you ponder. But we need to be aware that the form in which the question is raised (fast moving video) to a great extent shapes the emotional impact on the viewer. It is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy: he says you are uncomfortable and stop thinking about it, then he leads you to stop thinking about it. You are left with the gnawing sense that he made a good point, but you don't have time at that point to unpack it and deal with what he says. So let's take time now to analyze his argument statement by statement.

As a Christian, you believe in the power of prayer. This seems like a fair statement. I can't imagine holding to the basic beliefs of the Gospel without also believing that God hears and answers prayers.

According to a recent poll 3 out of 4 doctors believe that God is performing medical miracles on earth right now. Here's where he starts to get a little off track. It's fine to use this stat (no citation, though--what is the source?) to establish that certain people have certain beliefs and expectations, but he is basically using this to build up a straw man he can later tear down. (A straw man is when you portray your opponent's position in such a way that their argument is easily defeated, rather than dealing with their actual argument the way they would frame it.) "You believe God works in this certain way? Well what about this idea, which brings that into question? It makes more sense to believe that God doesn't exist!" In fact this statement used this way is what is called a false appeal to authority. What doctors believe about God doesn't impact His existence! (Remember, this video is not designed to convince you that you misunderstand God, but that you are wrong to believe He exists.)

Most Christians believe that God is curing cancers, healing diseases, reversing the effects of poisons and so on. This is probably true; again there is no citation to back up his claim about "most" Christians. But let us assume for a minute that it is accurate. Our atheist apparently doesn't realize that he has so far not described a single "miracle." Believers understand that God works in different ways. Two relevant categories for this discussion are miracle and providence. A miracle is when God works in ways that defy the laws of the universe that He put into place in the beginning. Walking on water, turning water into wine, raising a man from the grave after he was dead four days--these were actual miracles. Providence is when God works WITHIN the laws of the universe. Sick people getting well, enemies being reconciled, even the hole in the clouds over Lakebottom park the day of the play--these are all examples of God's providential work. Providence can be surprising, amazing, confusing, difficult to believe, impossible to explain, and still not qualify to be called miraculous. Why is this important to us here? Because our atheist is about to demand a miracle from God and point to what he believes is inconsistency.

So here's question #1: Why won't God heal amputees? Here he takes his first shot at our faith. It appears he thinks this is the strongest weapon in his arsenal, because he has named his website (to which he invites the viewer) whywontgodhealamputees.com. He believes he has found a chink in our armour or faith in prayer--and by extension, faith in God.

It's a simple question, isn't it? Yes, but it's also a red herring. A red herring is a question or argument that doesn't really refute the point it is supposedly employed to argue against. Keep reading to see what I mean.

We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. I have three separate but overlapping issues with this statement. (1)With all the millions of amputees that are in the world today and even more that have lived through history, how can you say that God has never regenerated limbs? I imagine our atheist would reply that an event that amazing would be published far and wide, so that everyone would know about it. Perhaps that is a fair enough assumption, but I would like to point out that it IS an assumption. It is certainly possible that God has regenerated limbs occasionally throughout history and we are simply unaware of it. (2)It seems that our atheist is actually making the point that if God is performing healings all the time, why don't we see, not just ocassional amputee regenerations, but frequent healings of this kind whenever prayers are lifted on amputees' behalf? This is kind of like asking why aren't rare jewels more common. If limbs regenerated all the time, then that process would become part of our understanding of the laws of the universe, and it would not, in fact be a miracle. This leads to issue number (3)Asking why we don't see this kind of miracle implies that we do see other miracles around us. As I alread indicated above, the usual kinds of healing that takes place when we pray is not actually miraculous. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a single miracle. I don't know any blind people who spontaneouly got their sight. I don't know any deaf people who spontaneously got their hearing. I don't know anyone who has walked on water, or fed thousands of people with one sack lunch, or come back from the dead after days in the ground. Do you? My guess is that you don't. Why? It seems that God isn't doing many miracles these days. In fact, it seems that in the Bible God's use of miracles was rather limited. Think about the life of David, for example. God worked mightily in his life, but He did so providentially, not miraculously. Even with Mephibosheth, who was lame, and could sort of be considered a parallel to today's amputee, God gave no miracle healing, but worked through the kindness of David to bless him in spite of his lameness. Think back further to the Exodus. God sent ten plagues, for the express purpose of displaying His power on earth. Most of them were NOT miracles! The frogs, for instance. Awesome, yes, but providential. Now if God had made the frogs float through the air, or speak to Pharoah, or turn into bricks, that would have been a miracle. As it was, God providentially moved tons of frogs to show up in Egypt at the same time. (Some might argue with me on this specific point--I haven't analyzed the math of how many frogs there might have been and where could they have come from, but I hope you see my larger point that God does not always choose to work through miracles.)

Amputees get no miracles from God. Well, assuming this is true, it seems like hardly anyone does, these days. Why? I don't honestly know. God chooses to work in different ways in different times. Right now does not seem to be an age of miracles, at least as far as I can tell. Does this make me think God is unfair to amputees? No. Does it make me think there is no God? No. I have seen Him at work in other ways. Would I love to see honest-to-goodness live miracles before my very eyes? Absolutely. But this entire argument about amputees falls absolutely flat in terms of demonstrating that there is some sort of inconsistency that demonstrates God is imaginary.

If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that this is an interesting question. Interesting? Yes. Strong argument? Not once you take time to dissect it.

On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. Actually, I believe He HAS performed miracles, but I don't think He chooses to do that very often today.

On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles. I don't know any such thing. I think God hears each sincere prayer and works in the heart, mind, and life of those who cry out to Him. I could pray for God to send Jesus RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, and the fact that I don't get what I ask for doesn't prove God completely ignores me. It's not time for the return of Christ, and it is apparently not time for many miracles to take place around us. It is still appropriate to pray, "Lord, come quickly," and it is still appropriate to pray for God to work in our problems, but we have to leave the miracle/providence decision up to Him!

How do you deal with this discrepancy? By showing that there really isn't one.

As an intelligent person, you have to deal with it, because it makes no sense. It makes no sense to our atheist because he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. He has confused the wonders of providence with that which is truly miraculous, and so has established a false dilemma.

In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. Here our atheist's bias shows through. He has in advance disqualified any argument that we make in opposition to his case as mere "rationalization." This is fine, I suppose. I mean, I expect him to have a bias in favor of his argument. I have a bias in favor of mine. But recognize this as rhetorical smoke and mirrors, and don't be thrown off by it. I could in similar fashion say that any argument he could make to explain the existence of the universe without a creator God (e.g., evolution) is just a rationalization.

You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life. Well, no. I instead demonstated that this "strange fact" isn't as factual as our atheist thinks it is. BUT WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT... Let's say for a minute that this guy's assertion were true, that lots of miracles take place around us, but none for amputees. We still don't have to "invent an excuse on God's behalf." If God exists, then His ways and His motives are for us to discover and understand (or not discover or not understand); they are not for us to make up on our own. If God hated certain people and only let those people lose limbs, for instance, that would surprise me, and I would have to change my understanding of God, but IT WOULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT GOD IS IMAGINARY. In fact, all those other miracles (in our hypothetical situation) would still serve to demonstrate that He does exist, even if He is not shaped by our fantasies of what we want Him to be.

You might say: "Well, God must have some kind of special plan for amputees." Yeah, or you might say we are all--aputees, blind, deaf, weak, foolish, sinful--in the same boat with few or no miracles in God's plan for this age.

So you invent your excuse, whatever it is, and then you stop thinking about it because it is uncomfortable. Here we are at the end of this discussion, and I encourage you to KEEP thinking about those things which make you uncomfortable. Pray and seek God's wisdom, search the Scriptures, and try not to be guilty of "inventing" excuses. Thanks for reading, and thank you, Mister Atheist, for challenging us in our understanding of God. We pray that you will one day have your rationalizations and excuses torn down, before you face judgment at the hands of the God you now oppose.