God, and by God I mean the judeo-christian God, is not limited.
That's our first problem, there is a whole class of Christians throughout the Catholic and Protestant denominations that call themselves "open-theist", saying God is limited in certain respects (the opposite of classical theism). For example, God was "sorry" that he made man (Genesis 6), yet nothing in the context indicates that this language is anything other than literal. If God knew the future infallibly, then, was he sorry he had made man before he made man? That's what follows from infallible foreknowledge (being unlimited). Finally, it doesn't matter if your God is not limited. What matters is whether you can put your money where your mouth is. If your God is not limited, what good does that information do us, if we cannot confirm it? Your God then becomes just another in a long line of those who have claimed ominipotence but predictably failed and continued to fail the acid test.
Nothing is too difficult for Him to do. He is God Almighty and can do anything. It is just as easy for Him to heal an amputee as it is to raise someone from the dead.
Can God save sinners who are too stubborn to admit that they need him? You know, like a stubborn child who refuses to get out of the street after mom yells at him...as the car speeds toward him. True love often VIOLATES the freewill of the loved persons to rescue them from their own stupidity. If God can save stubborn humans who refuse to accept him by reason of their freewill, he can save everybody and there's no problem. If human freewill gets in the way of God's salvific purpose, then God cannot do everything. And here's one you haven't heard before: If God can do everything, can he make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?
The bible has testimony of several miracles which were of a greater order than healing a lost limb, so why this particular case is noteworthy to atheists I have no idea.
Easy, because healing or not healing an amputated limb is the acid test. And it is precisely the acid test that religion so predictably and consistently fails.
If God did heal an amputee, would you know about it?
Not necessarily. But if your God can do anything, then he can heal amputees publicly. If God heals amputees privately, this truth does not benefit either side of this debate. We can't disprove it, and you can't prove it. In such a debate, all that counts is whether there is evidence for claims. If you claim God can heal and amputee, you must show that he has, or explain the lack of evidence for such. Our claim is simply that we have tested Christian claims and found them lacking. Christians constantly talk about God's ability to heal, so the natural question, which should lay the matter to rest, is whether God has ever healed an amputee.
Do you have a list of every amputee in the world and what happens to them? Why do you think God wouldn't do it? Do you think He can't do it?
I think out position as atheists is that the failure of your alleged God to pass this acid test is precisely why we say there is no god to speak of, hence, there are no "abilities" of any divine being to debate in the first place. We could just as well say that ghosts chose not to heal amputees, and then debate whether ghosts have this ability or not. It would be a waste of time. Meanwhile, children are raped and politicians become more corrupt by the minute on THIS earth. I'd say it wouldn't even matter if you won this debate. God's ability to heal amputees is so unreliable and sporadic, if at all, that we cannot go wrong to simply ignore the entire matter and devote our attention to other things that ARE capable of a solution that will bequeath real benefits to others.
You're going about this the wrong way, if you want to know anything about God. You're trying to deconstruct something you don't understand. It is literally impossible for an unbeliever to understand the bible.
You fundamentalists will read the same bible verse, even in the same version, and come up with contradictory interpretations. Does John 1:13 prove the Calvinist doctrine of total inability? Is Acts 2 a model for the modern church, or is it mere historical information about a dispensation that no longer applies? Why would you bother telling us unbelievers that we cannot understand the bible, when the contradictions among bible fundamentalists prove that some of you find it equally impossible to understand the bible? Why isn't the Holy Spirit opening the eyes of the incorrect fundamentalists, who in many cases have just as much bible education and prayer life and walking the straight and narrow as those who are correct? When God hears a Pentacostal and a Baptist pray about the meaning of Acts 2, does he just roll the dice to decide which faithful steward of his word that he will impart the correct interpretation to?
Personally, I haven't known many atheists who have ever tried. Most of them seem to memorize a few passgaes they think helps their arguments and that's it. Personally I think it's fairly ignorant to judge something you don't even understand yourself.
I agree, that's why I have studied the bible for many years and know it better than most of the Christians I have debated.
If you want to know if Jesus is real or not, put Him to the test. With a sincere heart, pray to Him like this:
Jesus, if you do exist I want to know about it and I want to know you. Please reveal yourself to me Jesus; show me that you're real.
If you you do that Jesus will show you that He is real and that He is Almighty God. Here is a word for you:
This is no test. If we do this test, and then report back to you that we got no answer, you will insist that we weren't sincere enough, or didn't pray hard enough, or there was secret sin in our lives, etc,. etc,. This is no "test", because everytime we get a result that doesn't match the answer YOU got, you automatically assume the test wasn't performed correctly. Well if I pray to Zeus whether he is real, and all I get for an answer is silence...may I safely conclude that is because there is no real god Zeus to answer me in the first place?
or should I assume that Zeus is all-powerful, and maybe has higher mysterious reasons for not answering me on my schedule?
Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest
That might have made sense back when Jesus was alive, but it ceased any function except as literary inspiration after he died. Right? Dead men do not give rest to the living, and religious frauds have been known to dupe large numbers of people for centuries, correct?
And Acts 21 proves that the originanl first-century church was prone to believing false rumors about the apostles, so that the resurrection of Jesus being a mere rumor embellished into full blown doctrine remains on the table of options, correct?