Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[BettyG]

Me: 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?
To BadWriterSparty:
BadWriterSparty: 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.

Tacitus (55-120 AD, Annuls), Lucian of Samosata (later half of 1st century, Suetonius (Life of Claidius, 25.4), Pliny the Younger (112 AD), Thallus (52 AD quotes from Julius Africanus’ Chronography), Phlegon (quotes from Julius Africanus’ Chronicles), Mara Bar-Serapion (after 70 AD) all are non-Christian sources that, though they are biased against Christianity, never deny that Jesus existed. You can find these quotes in Josh McDowell’s book, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Check out "Ancient Non-Christian Evidence for Jesus Christ" - pt.2 at http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/histor...ljesus.htm
The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Gary R. Habermas.

Me: 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.

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

The New Testament has tons of historical facts that have been confirmed by archiological evidence.
For example, Luke in Acts 18:12, calls Gallio “Proconsul”, this was questioned by critical scholars but Luke was proven correct. When the Delphi inscription was found it verified some very specific history which before had been questioned. On the inscription it read:
“As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia”[1]

Me: 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 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.

God would not ask me to accept a relationship with Him on blind faith. Faith, in the Catholic view, is based on reason. Our separated brethern aren't always in agreement with that, namely young earth believers.
You believe in the fairy tale. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist.

Me: 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.
You: 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!

Scientists examine the facts that best fits the explanation before they come to a theory. My theory that God exists is a better explanation of the evidence than yours is. Yours is a circular argument that says, "If miracles are impossible, then the report of any miraculous event must be false, and thererefore, miracles are impossible." My theory explains the things that are beyond nature, while you beleive in the fairy tale that science will eventually explain it. These things are not magic. God intervened.

Me: 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.

Yiou: "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.

Check out a critque of Lawrence Krauss at http://www.reasons.org/articles/universe...ook-part-1 and http://www.reasons.org/articles/universe...ook-part-2

Throughout "A Universe from Nothing" Krauss keeps changing his definition of “nothing.” Almost all his definitions are not really nothings but actual “some things.” Who made the Higgs particle? Who made the laws of nature that make the Higgs particle do what it did?

BTW: I consider this to be a friendly dialogue about these issues, not a heated argument. No hard feelings here at all.