Jesus' imperfect miracles.

[Vicki Q]

Since an identifiable god does not exist in our realm of reality

I notice you state that as fact, rather than probability. Why is it a fact? If your argument is a priori, please give it, stating clearly any axioms used. If it is a posteriori, please justify not using a probability statement with an a posteriori argument.

For god to send a "sign" to anyone, he would need to not only be sentient (unevidenced)...

I would think a non-sentient God would be a contradiction in terms.

There is no difference between the two magic shows, except that "Signs" only use a pinch of magic sparkle fairy dust, whereas "miracles" use a whole handful.

Can I ask you to reread my description of the difference carefully, because the difference is not a matter of degree, but of process? Miracle requires a breaking of known scientific 'rules', signs point us to a better model of scientific understanding.


Signs are not magic tricks. They are the restoration of creation- the world aligning itself with God's purpose. As such, it is an entirely natural process.


And it means more than a better scientific model. To the first followers of Jesus, watching a blind man recover his vision after having spit in this eyes meant much more than the wonder of the cure. It pointed to God fulfilling His promise to restore creation, rescue his people and sort out the death thing.


It would take a lot more than a couple of “Miracles of a 1st Century Con Man” for them to unconditionally draw that conclusion, especially seeing as how he went and got died.