Miracles. Scientific Proof.

[F1fan]

People argue all the time. However the event was witnessed and documented. People may opt to not believe, but we do have records of the events.

There are no credible sources that assert this was a real event, and had actual witnesses. You seem to be mistaking the story as objective news.

This isn't a story about a guy eating a ham sandwich, which is believable. It's a series of stories with supernatural elements, and that makes them implausible and requires exceptional evidence to show they are true. There is none.

 

[idea]

Why would anyone believe an unevidenced anonymous claim, and one that defies known natural and scientific laws?

They believe it because it makes them feel "chosen", and allows them to avoid facing unpleasantries.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well they tend to be very subjective in what is published and often has more to do with political point than research methods.

I do not think what you think is correct.

 

[Tiberius]

Well like I've said many times people can opt to not believe it. but its very different from it not being there.

Utterly irrelevant. Any idiot can make any claim they want about anything at all. The fact that a claim has been made means nothing. The only thing of value is if the claim has evidence to support it. You claim has no such evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Ah yes the decent into mockery rather that addressing the issue.

I did address the issue. A claim that has no support from the real world is worthless. The examples I presented have no such evidence, just as yours has no such evidence. I was pointing out other claims that should be accepted if we were to accept your bible example.

 

[YoursTrue]

Happened with my father. His assistant was performing a simple appendix operation and cut some big vein causing the person to die. They hushed up the case. But unless some one speaks up, it is no case. You mean miracles may have happened but not reported or investigated? In that case, not acceptable. Science (or law) need proof.

No. I mean that evidently the account in the Bible is not good enough for some to believe. Because for one thing, they are not according to the common recognition of what happens generally. Even the disciples are recorded as not believing some things at first. But if God is supreme, over His creation which I realize you don't believe, but if you did, it is logical that He is greater than the natural laws and can overcome them when desired without adverse affect.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one has ever been evidenced to rise from the dead, this is usually a misrepresentation of someone being resuscitated after their heart has stopped.

Heal way faster than what? The statement makes no sense, are yougoing to insert miracles every time we can't explain something? That's the very definition of superstition. So all the times humans have done this, and then later those things have been understood as entirely natural phenomena, has taught some people nothing it seems.



There's nothing to deny, what exactly do you think no explanation means? If you're going to invoke the supernatural you'll quite obviously need something beyond "we can't yet explain it", it's astonishing how many people don't realise this is fallacious reasoning.

FYI the thread title says Miracles scientific proof, the hilarity of that statement is boundless. Firstly miracles are defined as defying scientific explanation, secondly proof are for mathematics and logic, not science.

We know natural phenomena are possible, we know science is very effective at explaining these. We have zero objective evidence that miracles or anything supernatural is even possible. So this sounds prima facie like Occam's razor applies. Before we get to the well evidenced antics of religions in lies and chicanery for this sort of claim.

"Splinters from the cross anyone, bargain at $100 each. Fake blood of Jesus only $20 dollars extra. Guaranteed to bring good luck and ward off imaginary demons."

You know what is interesting is that Jesus' opposers did not see him after his resurrection. Yes I find that interesting and relevant to your thought about miracles.

 

[Tiberius]

No. I mean that evidently the account in the Bible is not good enough for some to believe. Because for one thing, they are not according to the common recognition of what happens generally. Even the disciples are recorded as not believing some things at first. But if God is supreme, over His creation which I realize you don't believe, but if you did, it is logical that He is greater than the natural laws and can overcome them when desired without adverse affect.

The account in the Bible is not good enough because there is no support for it. There is no way to check that what the Bible says is true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But if God is supreme, over His creation which I realize you don't believe, but if you did, it is logical that He is greater than the natural laws and can overcome them when desired without adverse affect.

Existence of any God or Goddess, one or many, has not been proved. Yeah, I do not believe in existence of any God or Goddes.

Of course, once you believe in God/Gods/Goddesses, then everything is hunky-dory, all things are possible. The stone tablet that God gave to Moses, making Mary pregnant by breathing in, Mohammad and the Iranian being his messengers, elephant or monkey faced Gods, churning of the ocean, universal flood, souls and Satan, heaven and hell, deliverance and punishment, rebirth and resurrection, and what not. The list is unending.

 

[YoursTrue]

The account in the Bible is not good enough because there is no support for it. There is no way to check that what the Bible says is true.

Just like you figure that the difference of genes between gorillas and humans is just somehow missing...

 

[YoursTrue]

Existence of any God or Goddess, one or many, has not been proved. Yeah, I do not believe in existence of any God or Goddes.

Of course, once you believe in God/Gods/Goddesses, then everything is hunky-dory, all things are possible. The stone tablet that God gave to Moses, making Mary pregnant by breathing in, Mohammad and the Iranian being his messengers, elephant or monkey faced Gods, churning of the ocean, universal flood, souls and Satan, heaven and hell, deliverance and punishment, rebirth and resurrection, and what not. The list is unending.

Maybe you can talk to @The Hammer about this...

 

[Sheldon]

They believe it because it makes them feel "chosen", and allows them to avoid facing unpleasantries.

Yes that has been my impression, though I was hoping, against hope, for some sort of "epiphany" from the poster making the assertions that miracles and resurrection are real.

 

[Sheldon]

But if God is supreme, over His creation which I realize you don't believe, but if you did, it is logical that He is greater than the natural laws and can overcome them when desired without adverse affect.

It's not logical though, as you just violated a basic principle of logic, and used a known logical fallacy, using a begging the question fallacy to create a circular reasoning fallacy.

So irrational by definition.

Try demonstrating something beyond subjective assertion that a deity exists, or is even possible, then demonstrate it "reigns supreme" over anything you can objectively demonstrate that it created. You can't create rational arguments for a deity then make a string of unevidenced assumptions about that deity in the argument. Again then, that uses begging the question fallacies, and is by definition irrational.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not logical though, as you just violated a basic principle of logic, and used a known logical fallacy, using a begging the question fallacy to create a circular reasoning fallacy.

So irrational by definition.

Nope, sorry, you're the one that's being irrational, since I said IF...You said there is no God because you have no proof. Others say there IS a God because of what they see and reason on.
Meantime, please notice that I said IF God is supreme...so I think you're missing something in logic. I don't care how you categorize it -- you're still not being reasonable, rational, or logical. Since you do not see the logic. Anyway, it's been interesting so have a good one! IF you can...IF it's possible..

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes that has been my impression, though I was hoping, against hope, for some sort of "epiphany" from the poster making the assertions that miracles and resurrection are real.

IF a person didn't see it didn't mean it didn't happen. IF a person doesn't believe it also does not mean it didn't happen.

 

[The Hammer]

Maybe you can talk to @The Hammer about this...

No, I'll pass.

Me and @Aupmanyav understand one another. Even if our views differ.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I'll pass.

Me and @Aupmanyav understand one another. Even if our views differ.

lol ... ok ... whatever ... maybe you believe in evolution, too? Please talk to @Sheldon but maybe you don't want to "reason" with him. lolol...it's ok. thanks anyway if you don't want to or care to.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I'll pass.

Me and @Aupmanyav understand one another. Even if our views differ.

No explanations, reasoning, or backup needed I suppose on your part. Hey, that's the way it goes!!

 

[The Hammer]

No explanations, reasoning, or backup needed I suppose on your part. Hey, that's the way it goes!!

Uhmm.. yeah? Why is that a problem? You called me out?

 

[YoursTrue]

They believe it because it makes them feel "chosen", and allows them to avoid facing unpleasantries.

unpleasantries? As far as being "chosen," if I thought everyone who believes in a deity is telling the truth, I'd go with just about whatever they say. Same with some visions. If I thought everyone who hears voices or sees visions is telling the truth from God, as I said, I'd agree with them. (But -- you probably guessed it, right? I don't.)