RE: How does "Science prove that the miracles of the Bible did not happen" ?
November 2, 2016 at 3:59 pm
(November 2, 2016 at 3:16 pm)Emzap Wrote: Thank you everyone for your input!
I'm really not here to debate the topic. I'm really just interested in understanding the argument I've been given to consider. It sounds as if most of you agree that science cannot and does not try to disprove Biblical miracles. That was the main thing I was looking for. I was struggling to come up with examples for your side of the argument, but its not the argument that needs to be debated.
The real element of debate would be science doubting miracles or giving alternate explanations that do not include an all powerful God, not disproving them.
You seem to have a big misunderstanding of what science does.
Science can only observe the natural world. It is bared from examining the 'supernatural', because there is nothing observable and repeatable to test.
While science does not specifically try to disprove "miracle' claims from ancient texts, they tend to get disproven as a byproduct of science's investigation of the natural world.
There are almost always better explanations for 'miracle' claims in the Bible, that are completely natural, so it becomes unnecessary to appeal to the supernatural to explain them.
By the way, what do think about miracle claims in the religious texts of other religions? After all, people of other religions offer the same reasons for believing the miracles of their religious texts as you do for the ones in the Bible.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
