Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Bad Writer]

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?

Who? The Romans, the Pharisaic Jews, and any other Gentile nation that might have been a contemporary of that man. The so-called eyewitnesses are too close to be unbiased, so we have to discount their evidence and move on.

BTW, the Vatican requires non-believer doctors to examine the evidence and confirm there is no natural cause for healing.

Unknown causes for healing are observed all the time outside of Church settings. The Vatican's practice of bringing in secular doctors to observe the aftermath of a "miraculous" healing falls apart as evidence due to this simple fact.

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.

The Bible would have to be a history book for their accounts to be considered historical.

I have been posting about miracles, such as the Resurrection, that I do believe happened.

Saying that something happened doesn't make the occurrence true. If I told you that I rode into work every day on a blue dragon, does that mean I'm telling you the truth? You telling us that there was a resurrection is the same kind of claim as my dragon.

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.

For some, maybe. Science makes no absolute assertions. Could it know everything some day? Possibly. Do we know that for certain? I'm okay with saying that we don't and can't know that.

Science can seem dogmatic in some way, but I assure you that it and religion are very different. While one is concerned with facts and evidence, the other is concerned with fairy tales. Science says not to put faith in its findings, but to try and understand it through reason and logic. The other asks you to put logic aside, and instead to trust your feelings and to put faith in things that aren't seen, to hope for something that you can't know exists.

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.

As far as we can observe it, it is a closed system within this universe. You must first prove that a theistic framework even exists before you can make claim to miracles and how they work. So 1. Prove there is a god 2. Prove there is magic. ...Aaaaaand...Go!

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

Telling someone they are assuming something, when, in fact, it's you doing all the assuming (i.e. there is a god, there are miracles, etc.) then you are only projecting your own flaws onto the person that was calling you out on them. If you can own up to mistakes you've made, then the debate will not be so heated.

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

This the argument from ignorance. For example: you are visiting Disney World,and you see a Japanese family visiting too. You assert that they flew a plane to America from Japan and are tourists. You could be right, but not necessarily. There are a number of things that could actually be the case: they may actually live in America; if they are actually from Japan, they could have taken a boat; you could be mistaken about their heritage, and they are in fact from Taiwan or some other far east country. It's fine if you make assumptions, but you must be prepared for counter-arguments if it's made out of ignorance.

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.

This is a continuation of your argument from ignorance. We know that a building has a designer and an architect because of evidence, because of facts, and because we have experience in the creation of buildings.

We see natural things come about all the time: the births of babies, the cooling of magma pools, the pollination of flowers, supernovae, and other such things that can be observed in nature. To assert that there must be a creator is fallacious on so many levels.

Speaking of proving creation wrong, perhaps you should look up Lawrence Krauss, a scientist that can actually explain in details that the common man can understand how a Universe can come from nothing. To further things along, you should also do some reading on Abiogenesis. I'll just spoil the ending right now and tell you that scientists have proven that life could have come about naturally on this planet. They don't know how it happened on earth because no one can recreate the conditions that existed back in earth's early days, but they know for a fact that it's possible.