Corollary 1: Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?
Corollary 1. Why Doesn’t God Heal Amputees? or Why Doesn’t God Do Miracles?
Although there are documented miracles that defy scientific explanation, all the evidence in the world will not be convincing to someone who is so sure they are right that they reject out of hand the idea that miracles are possible. Just as there are none so blind as those who will not see, it is pointless to try and present any of these incidents to someone who is bound and determined to reject them as a possibility. Evidence will have no effect on someone who BELIEVES that miracles don’t exist. You cannot shake a person’s faith who is already set in his beliefs. What is that old line? “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.” So, I won’t try to make the case for miracles. I will take the contrary proposition: So what if there are no miracles? The apparent lack of miracles is not a counter argument to the existence of God. If we follow from the primary argument, that an atheist cannot make an assumption as to the character or nature of God, then it follows that the existence of God is not determined by whether God chooses to act supernaturally or not. If God is not concerned about human life, and is allowing natural selection to be part of the evolutionary process, then healing the sick only allows the weak to continue and undermines the health of the human race. Better to let the weak die off so as to preserve the fittest among men and women.
Again, the idea that God is a loving God who works among men to heal and make whole is the product of a Judeo-Christian worldview, but the atheist has no right to assume these values in making a case for the existence or non-existence of God or of a god. The atheist must consider the possibility that God is not involved in the day to day affairs of such small and insignificant creatures on this dust ball planet. And therefore, if God is such as this, there is no reason to assume he would be doing miracles on this earth, and if not, the lack of miracles says nothing about the existence of God. God can exist and not do miracles because he has no desire to do miracles. The lack of miracles is not a positive evidence against the existence of God. It is an argument from silence and uses the unspoken assumption that God must be such and such as the Christians describe.
The primary evidence for miracles is perhaps life itself, whether evolutionary or not. The improbability of spontaneous creation of life has led even noted atheists such as Richard Dawkins posit that life was created on earth by an alien civilization. The problem with this theory, in terms of logic, is that it is only begging the question. If life was not possible through natural processes here, how could it arise elsewhere in the universe spontaneously? The conclusion is that these two supposed proofs of the non-existence of God are based upon assumptions as to the nature of who or what God must be like... an assumption based more upon a Judeo-Christian worldview rather than an evolutionary empirical worldview. These arguments fail because they are both:
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") -- A fallacy that occurswhen someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false. Common Examples: "No one has ever proven that UFOs exist. Therefore, they don't exist." (Something can exist despite the absence of confirmation. Lack of proof is justification for caution or even skepticism, but not dogmatic assertions.) "There is simply no proof that God exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist." (God might exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it.)