The first two. I'll produce more in due course.
1) Try praying.
Now, one of the Christian rationalizations that you pointed you was "When Jesus talked about 'moving a mountain', he was speaking metaphorically. When someone says, 'it is raining cats and dogs,' no one takes him literally. Jesus was using a figure of speech rather than speaking literally..." Now, this was refuted by saying along the lines of ‘he would say what he means’. Not so. He most definitely did not speak in normal ways to avoid confusion. For instance, he used parables as a method of teaching, as opposed to simply telling those around him the point he was getting at. Why? Because essentially it sorts ‘the wheat from the chaff’; those who were against his ideas would not understand them those who had their ‘mind open to Christ’ would understand what he was on about. Now this seems perfectly reasonable no? I mean, it has worked 2000 years on hasn’t it? Not taking the bible literally is widely accepted, one example of proof being in the attitude Parishioners had towards evolution (which the site so kindly provided). On top of this, God does not always have to answer ‘yes to prayers’. He may answer it in several ways. Go to this page: http://executableoutlines.com/pray/pray_08.htm
: it will illustrate this point to you with scripture.
2) Statistically analyze prayer
I will try and answer this in several ways. The first being basic economics. If everyone prays, and everyone gets what they want, then the world degenerates very quickly; a hyper inflation of sorts. A different take is the sincerity of prayer. In a scientific experiment this is hard to achieve, especially with an independent Church group. Next, God does not answer all prayers with a 'yes'(as outlined in the link).
Whoops missed the obvious one (which to be honest, I did not understand until today):
'If god healed amputees, you could see it. You could walk up to the new, fresh arms and legs and touch them. You would know for sure that god exists. Religion would become less of an act of faith and more of a test of eyesight. God, by the definition given in the Bible, MUST be unable to be proven. Otherwise, faith is not requirement, and by proving the existence of god, you have simultaneously disproved his omnipotence.' This addresses why God will never allow you to PROVE that God exists.
And atheists have a cunning way of avoiding the prayers he does answer. You could label many coincidences… however world is awash with these ‘coincidences’. There are instances of people being inexplicably cured. For example, at Lourdes (the site that a little girl claimed she saw the Virgin Mary) people go there and pray and ask for their illnesses to be cured. After many reports of healing a medical council was set up and since then, there have been 67 (around that number) ‘healings’ that have baffled the medical group and their peers and been labelled ‘miracles’. There are books written about such matters (Healing Miracles
(1986) to name but one).
And what of the prayers that are not answered in the form of a miracle (there are various examples of answered prayers that do not break the laws of nature here http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2002/001/1.11.html
)? Surely if God created this world then he is not above nudging it in the right direction. I am not suggesting that all coincidences and unlikely occurrences are God’s work; no; however I am suggesting that it is a logical fallacy to rule out all coincidences and unlikely occurrences as God’s work without any sort of grounds.
Enjoy. This is my take and I doubt I speak for the entire religious community (if such a thing is possible).
Thanks for taking the time to read them.