This argument is an internet sensation, but I find it utterly unconvincing for a few reasons:
1. This objection assumes that God has never healed an amputee. However, how can one
know that God has
never healed any amputee
ever in human history?
2. It is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for not healing amputees. Since this is at the very least
possible, this objection fails.
As philosopher J.P. Moreland has pointed out, it is
possible that:
"God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know He's there and yet hiding His presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore Him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free."
For more on this, please see Pt. 2 of this post entitled
"Why Won't God Heal Amputees" Revisited.
3. Even if God has never healed an amputee at any moment in human history it still does not follow that He doesn't exist. One still must deal with the positive evidence that suggests God
does exist.
4. I believe the person making this objection is operating under a false assumption. Let us imagine that an amputee prays to be healed and wakes up the next morning with their once missing limb fully in tact. I could easily imagine those who would
still search for a naturalistic explanation for how the limb returned in spite of the evidence that a miracle had occurred. This objection
assumes that the problem is intellectual. However, it could be that the objector is suppressing the truth simply because they do not want to be accountable to God. In other words, it
could be that their problem with God is not an intellectual one, but a moral one.
You can read in-depth replies to this common objection
here,
here,
here or see our
follow-up post here.
Checkout our other responses to common objections
here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad