Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Aroura]

Couldn't get past step 1.

D- 

---

Not sure why I bother; but anyways…

1) Think about the core mystery of your religion.  (Okay, I'll break "think about" down for you; I realize you may be a little out of shape.)  Whatever it is that you think of as supernatural, consider how it is that anyone ever found out about that stuff.  I mean all of the priest class agrees you can't detect it with an instrument of science nowadays.

---

 The usual story is that the mystery itself reached out to some ancient scribe, possessed his body and wrote out everything He/they/it wanted known about itself .. and then went back into hiding.

---

At this point you have to decide whether your faith is in the core mystery of your religion or the claims of some ancient scribes. …

There are a couple of ways to address this.

First, the naturalist would have others dismiss all miracles as impossible based on his own indefensible metaphysical commitment to physical causal closure.
Next, the core mystery of the Christian faith is the resurrection. The scriptural records of Resurrection are not based on the personal ecstatic visions of a revered mystic; but rather, purport to be historical testimony of observed events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

First, naturalists don't dismiss all miracles as impossible, just like atheists, there simply has been no evidence that there is anything beyond the supernatural.  You've listed a number of miracles, which have all had natural explanations provided to you, yet you continue to state that it is we who have closed minds and are ignoring the evidence.
In this case, since there are no (valid) historic documents to back it up (including the one making the claim in the first place), there is literally no difference.
Hence why you had to use the word "purport".  They claim to be historical testimony, but with no contemporary corroboration (seriously, I know you know this), and no it could just as easily be the former with Paul.
Joseph Smith also claimed to have historical testimony of observed events. Why aren't you a Mormon? I could claim I saw a UFO, and aliens took me up and mind rape me.  With no corroboration, this claim is meaningless.
I have more to say on this topic, and this was a bit disorganized, but I don't have endless hours to argue the same points over and over.  I've got a child to teach how to think, not what to think.