(April 17, 2017 at 12:35 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote:(April 17, 2017 at 9:31 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Not at all. I'm saying that the strident skeptic, the one that wants to exclude the possibility of miracles, always does so by appealing to the "laws of nature". The pretense of the skeptic is that his current understanding of those laws exhausts all possibilities. The history of human inquiry has shown otherwise. In fact we have no reason to suppose that scientific inquiry can ever, even in theory, fully explicate the world. The stance that miracles didn't happen because miracles cannot happen, is not even reasonable. As Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy." Indeed.
You don't know what a skeptic is. Or, since you can't produce any objective, testable evidence for your beliefs, you twist the definition to make you seem open minded. Since a miracle has never been proven to occur)or even passed the first phase of inquiry), and many so-called miracles have been shown to be false/faked, there is no reason to believe they happen anywhere but in the mind. If one can be proven, then I'll change my mind.
Historical events cannot be replicated and therefore cannot be made testable. It is true that no miracle has been proven to the satisfaction of all people. That is to be expected. I cannot think of any idea so crazy that no one believes it nor any idea so incontrovertible that someone somewhere won't doubt it. The various items presented by Christians as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ may not be sufficient for you to move from skepticism to belief. I accept your incredulity without attributing your skepticism to stubbornness or willful ignorance.
Faith is not something people reason to; but rather, something they reason from. That does not make faith unreasonable. Often upon being presented with the Gospel message and various testimonies from contemporaries and historical sources, the Holy Spirit prompts some people to faith that its message is true and relevant to their lives. If is does, their faith is justifiable. If after coming to faith, they weigh the various objections, are of sound mind, and have made a reasonable effort to determine the truth, yet still find the possible defeaters unconvincing, then their faith is warranted. That is where I stand. I heard the Gospel. The Holy Spirit moved me to assurance. I considered the objections. No compelling defeaters have come to my attention. And what I have since learned seems to reinforce the truth of the Gospel.
YMMV.
