Why won't God heal amputees?

[Belacqua]

Here's a common way to think of it: I know what I would do if I were God. And since nobody's doing that, it's proof that there's no God. 

But here's another way to think of it:

Look at it this way. If there were a God, what would it be for? Obviously, the only thing a God would be good for is making people like me happy. Because otherwise it would be worthless. 

Now you and I are Internet atheists. We come on the Internet to talk about atheism. And what is it that makes Internet atheists happy? Judging from this forum, it makes us happy to go on line every now and then and demand to know why God doesn't heal amputees. Do a search on the Internet and see how many times the same question has been asked.

So if God started healing amputees, it means that people like me would lose something that makes us happy. We couldn't ask our question any more. 

So clearly, the fact that God doesn't heal amputees proves there is a God.

Bel?

You have seriously jumped the shark.

There is just so much fekked with the above that I'm just going to say 'Fek it' and move on.

Not at work.

I'm teasing two ideas that some atheists use when arguing against God.

1) I know what I would do if I were God and nobody's doing it, therefore there is no God. And

2) If there were a God his job would be to make us happy. 

The amputees thing relies on these. But I see no reason to assume that a God would be that way.