Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Esquilax]

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?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the issue here is that you already know that eyewitness accounts of miracle claims aren't worth anything: after all, you discount the accounts of miracles from all other gods but your own, don't you? Or are you a pantheist who believes in all the gods? After all, they all have miracle claims.

Taking eyewitness miracle claims as true just puts you in the position of having to believe every crackpot claim ever; there are people alive today who'll tell you about their experiences with Bast, the Egyptian cat headed god. There are people who'll swear up and down they've been abducted by aliens. Do you believe them? They're eyewitnesses!

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

I think you've shaped the language a bit, there.What you mean is no known cause for the healing, and that's not the same thing as a miraculous cause. What you're trying to have us believe is that if doctors- secular doctors - can't find the answer, then the idea that it was a miracle event is logical and, in fact, proven. That's an argument from ignorance: nobody else has an answer, and therefore it must be a miracle.

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.

If you actually go and look, you'll see that there's no extra-biblical accounts of Jesus that are contemporary with his supposed existence. At all. By appealing to the apostles, you're essentially appealing to circular reasoning: the book says he exists and I know he exists because the authors of the book wouldn't lie and the book says he existed...

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.

Jesus is just unproven conjecture too, unless you can provide a historical source unconnected to the bible that even mentions him.

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.

And you know that how? You know what I'm thinking?

I have knowledge and evidence that science is a self-correcting, honest and rational means by which we can discern truthful things about the universe. Knowing everything isn't even on the cards, since absolute knowledge isn't a useful concept, in fact it's almost an impossible one.

But please, keep doing what you're doing: the implication is that being a religion is a bad thing. Or, you're a hypocrite, and implying that being a religion is a bad thing only when it's applied to things that aren't 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.

And you have no proof of any extra-universal will reaching into the universe and altering them. The time to believe that natural law isn't a closed system is when there's evidence of something beyond it happening. Do you have any of that? Evidence, that can be tested, falsified, or verified?

Not just the writings of long dead desert tribesmen of questionable veracity recounting stories of a man they were never around to see in the first place?

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

Don't ascribe me motivations or thoughts. It's a bad look. You don't know me, you absolutely don't have the right to tell me what I think.

So who created it?

Whoa, let's not start poisoning the well this early, shall we?

It seems common sense that a machine points to its designer and a building points to its architect.

Do you know how we recognize design? No, really: have you thought about the processes your brain goes through to do that?

Let me tell you: you recognize design, like you recognize anything else, through contrast and comparison. You recognize design because you can compare it to natural things and see the difference, just as a person who has only experienced being cold all his life has no inherent idea of what warmth is.

In terms of the universe, you absolutely can't make that comparison, because first of all, you don't have another universe to compare it to.

You observe a highly ordered universe.

I observe a highly chaotic universe that is mostly hostile to life, constantly exploding, crushing other parts of itself, on fire, deadly cold, and filled with radiation. I also observe some theists that are willing to ignore this entirely because it doesn't fit into their narrative, regardless of the actual facts.

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.

How do you intend to demonstrate this need? Because that's what you need to do. Just asserting it means nothing. I can assert anything I like, that doesn't make it true.

Oh, and also, how do you intend to prove that this being is the specific god that you believe in, and not anything else? Because it could be an infinity of different things.