What Are Miracles...

[Consilius]

What DOES happen is that, in those rare moments that good is manifested in the universe, it hints at an ultimate good that exists. Those are the miracles.

No. It hints at the fact that sometimes, unlikely things happen.

Mothers surviving cancer happens because of doctors and encouraging family members and strong-willed women, but when things like those happen, they can also be attributed to pure chance. Or so some would say. But it cannot be denied that surviving cancer is a good thing, and will forever be. That leads to the notion that good is unchanging and works in the lives of people.
That is the best miracle you can ever hope to get. Nobody is helping you cross oceans any time soon.

I don't consider it a miracle that a mother survives cancer. It is a good thing, but it is not the benevolence of God, who could have never made cancer possible in the first place.

The label on which we put the good in the universe IS God.
The imperfection in the world is the result of the imperfection of human beings in general. But a thing about the bad in the world is that those who come out of it, physically and/or mentally, do so as better people. Those who don't refuse to accept the good in the world, or God.

When similar conclusions are reached in isolation, they are more likely to be valid.

There are thousands of different conclusions reached in isolation, many of which are explicitly exclusive of all other beliefs. You don't have similar conclusions, you have similar characteristics, and most of them were derivative anyway.
[/quote]
If we are still referring to other religions, if they follow similar rules as each other because of their similar beliefs, then the objective reached by any of them, as with the rest of them, will be the same, and the exclusivity required will not deprive anybody of anything.

As does mine.

This is a belief which defies reality. When science and magic compete, magic never wins.
[/quote]
No response.

Your excuse for something that you cannot prove is that it will be proven in the future. Atheists can be saying this 100 years from now.

It's not an excuse. I make no excuses for not having an answer today. It is honest to admit ignorance. It is dishonest to point to a god and say "I know he did it all" unless you can prove it.

Your excuse for something you cannot prove is circular logic: "I know the truth, but you can only experience it if you assume it's true in the first place and a/s/k", and you'll be saying it forever because you cannot prove your claim.
[/quote]
You are referencing the certainty expressed and the exclusivity of evidence believed by some.
Survivng cancer will never be cold hard fact of God's existence. But it will always hint at it. I can only speak on science terms up to this point. God is a emotion. Chrisitanity is emotion. I will never be able to advertise the evolutionary benefit of having a faith, because if I did, dissent in the Church would be impossible. Free will is about the ability of dissent to exist, a fact that we take advantage of every day. That is what this forum is about.
I don't believe because I'm sure, and I can see why you don't, but I believe because I think it comes through in the end.

Nope. We cannot pinpoint God's geographical location, or calculate how many virtues get you a new car. Besides, the debate which is going on between theists and atheists about the origin of the universe is purely theoretical. And as far as that goes, neither argument has been definitely proven true.

Your argument can't be proven true. That is the nature of an assertion designed to avoid scrutiny. That sort of assertion doesn't really mean anything.
[/quote]
Nobody is going to get at you for scrutiny. I haven't seen a Christian-atheist debate where somebody has proclaimed that Christianity condemns those who ask questions. That's why the debate exists in the first place.

I am going to drop that specific argument because it presumes you believe in a soul or an unchanging form of your existence, which you don't.
Let's put it this way. There could have been a miscarriage. You could have died in infancy. Many do. You could have a life-threatening genetic disease and be on life support in a hospital right now. You could have been killed in a domestic accident or a natural disaster. Who do you ascribe to being where you are right now?

I ascribe it to not being miscarried, not having died in infancy, not having a life-threatening genetic disease, and not having died in a domestic accident or natural disaster.
[/quote]
You are heading in a circle. I can't tell whether or not you are doing it on purpose. But, according to science, all these things are due to chance and you are just a stat that keeps the infant mortality rate down.
My claim is that certain people exist, and get to live however long, because their births, lives, and deaths play a critical role in what happens on earth.

You resorting to sarcasm shows how you refuse to accept the equality of both sides.

I don't accept the equality of both sides. Your claim is remarkably inferior. It has no substance and cannot be demonstrated. I think absolutely nothing of it.
[/quote]
Again, no response.

You just said that it is impossible for Christians to give a logical argument. Now say you did. You wouldn't listen to them because you have already mentally defeated every theoretical Christian that comes to your door.
The thing about logic is that it does not require being checked. If you drew on the faces of hospital patients, they would probably be mad at you. Is my answer invalid because I haven't experimented with amputees?

I could make the logical argument that they probably wouldn't be mad. All I have to do is make an assumption that they wouldn't be. I don't have to check, and I don't have to demonstrate, so why question this logic?
[/quote]
Logic is more than coming to the conclusion you feel like because you don't have to check.
The way I see it, people don't like having things done to them without their permission.
To do such for the reason that they can't retaliate or reverse your actions deepens the offense and it ranges from annoying to immoral and infringing on rights.
Therefore, it is only logical that they would be angry.
Logic takes on pieces of fact and applies them to different situations where they have not been applied together.