Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[BettyG]

Esquilax:
I have been posting about miracles, such as the Resurrection, that I do believe happened. None of the responses, such as "Jesus didn't really die. He never existed. The Roman soldiers were bribed, etc are unproved conjectures that go against 2000 years of history, so then you deny that one can know history.

Do you often see historical records espousing on all the things that weren't present at any given time? "The year is 03 AD, and there aren't any dragons. Nor are there leprechauns. End communication."

On the flipside, what we don't see, are any historical records that noted that Jesus did exist...

Yes, you can always rely on the credulous to refute the stories that are only aiding their cause. That's absolutely true.

You would need to provide evidence of miracles in history. From non-biased accounts, for which there can be no better explanation.

You seem to assume that reports of miracles from those who experienced them are too biased to tell the truth. Who could provide better evidence than eyewitnesses?
BTW, the Vatican requires non-believer doctors to examine the evidence and confirm there is no natural cause for healing.

Also, who could provide better evidence the apostles who were eyewitnesses to the life and death of Jesus? If anything, they would be the most concerned with accuracy, more so than some outsider. To say otherwise is denying 2000 years of history.

Please, proceed to tell us more about the magic you believe actually happens.

You have to deny that God acts in this world today.

No, you have to demonstrate it.

You demonstrated that these things are logical... how?

I have been posting about miracles, such as the Resurrection, that I do believe happened. None of the responses, such as "Jesus didn't really die. He never existed. The Roman soldiers were bribed, etc are unproved conjectures that go against 2000 years of history, so then atheists here deny that one can know history.

When you remember that you just posted this on a device forged from scientific understanding, powered by a natural force that science discovered and learned the rules thereof, and transmitted through yet a third technology developed through science, all the while being alive because medical and agricultural science allows you to stay healthy and well fed, you will understand how ungrateful and myopic you sound when you dismiss science because it doesn't know everything yet.

You have to have faith that science will someday understand everything. You have no proof for that. It is an assumption. Science seems to be your religion.
You seem to be assuming that the laws of nature are a closed system, therefore, nothing can act on it from the outside, so then a violation of natural law is impossible. However, within a theistic framework, natural law is not a closed system; and so a miracle is not a violation of natural law. (New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 663.)
You have no proof that natural law is a closed system.

No no, you have to be honest enough not to profess absolute certainty in everything. You know what that's called? Keeping an open goddamn mind.

I hope your mind is open enough to realize the things you are assuming, but not so open that your brains fall out.

You have to believe that this incredibly complex universe is just an accident. This is totally irrational.

Which is why nobody but Mr. Strawman believes that.

So who created it? It seems common sense that a machine points to its designer and a building points to its architect. You observe a highly ordered universe. Who designed it? It would have to be a preexisting being that did not need to be created and on which all things owe their existence.