The nature of evidence

[Wryetui]

Why they contradict everything we know about nature? In order for me to believe you, you cannot just make an empty statement.

By "everything we know about nature," I mean, we have a general and even detailed understanding of  physics to know that many of the miracles in the Bible, if they actually occurred, would be a violation of the natural order that is both well documented and available to anyone for subsequent observation.

Furthermore, there is no shortage of examples involving human beings making incredible, unbelievable claims, and countless others who are willing to believe them. As these often appeal to mutually exclusive occult powers, they can't all be true. As some are quite clearly false, and not a single one in the Bible is able to distinguish itself as categorically superior in rationale or evidence as the most fanciful, it's more likely that they all share a similar, less extravagant, and less "mysterious" explanation: people are ignorant of true causes, or dishonest.

I am glad someone actually tries to debate with me, instead of doing just pure unbased mockery.

"Would be a violation of the natural order". I do not find this correct. Miracles are supernatural works from God. By stating that miracles cannot exist because they "would be a violation of the natural order" you are stating that God is subject to the very nature He created, and this is incorrect. God is the Creator of nature and is not subject to it because the nature was created ex-nihilo, and God can do everything He wants with His creation. What we today call "natural order" is the behavior we observed that occurs in nature, and nature is subject to nature. It would be a contradiction if in the Bible were stated that a man worked miracles by His own powers alone, which is not possible, because all miracles came from God, either directly or with intermedieris that were mere "tools". After all, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)