Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Miracles Cant Be Explained By Natural Science

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 10:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, just doing a quick google search of the definition of "miracle", here are two of the first and most popular definitions that came up:

1) an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause (from http://dictionary.reference.com......)
2) A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

But if an event is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all.

So I find that miracle claims in theism present a bit of a paradox to rational/moderate theists (which is most of them; contrasting with extremist literalist fundamentalists who will say something like "you just have to have faith"):

If a miracle was done through a suspension of the natural order and is outside the boundaries of science, God does not necessary operate within the parameters of the nature that he created, and miracles can never be scientifically proven. (This is admittedly not self contradictory or refuting, it simply poses a problem to those theists who would try to prove "miracles" through science/natural explanations.)

If it is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all. By the definitions I brought in above, such an event would simply not be a miracle. It's simply part of nature/science. Sure, you can say God engineered it to happen at that exact moment, but most theists believe he does the same thing with the sun rise, hurricanes, and other natural disasters since he is actively governing the whole universe.

In short, to claim a natural event that happened within scientific parameters as a miracle would be to equate literally every aspect of nature with something miraculous... Which totally defeats the point of what theistic miracles are supposed to be. Really, to claim it as a miracle would require one to totally change the definition of a miracle so that the word could apply to just about anything.

To all theists reading - which position do you take on miracles, and how do you respond to the potential problems I mentioned that come with that position?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 10:23:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, DUH!

Thats why there miracles......herpaderp.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 10:40:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 10:21:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
So, just doing a quick google search of the definition of "miracle", here are two of the first and most popular definitions that came up:


1) an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause (from http://dictionary.reference.com......)
2) A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

But if an event is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all.

So I find that miracle claims in theism present a bit of a paradox to rational/moderate theists (which is most of them; contrasting with extremist literalist fundamentalists who will say something like "you just have to have faith"):

If a miracle was done through a suspension of the natural order and is outside the boundaries of science, God does not necessary operate within the parameters of the nature that he created, and miracles can never be scientifically proven. (This is admittedly not self contradictory or refuting, it simply poses a problem to those theists who would try to prove "miracles" through science/natural explanations.)

If it is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all. By the definitions I brought in above, such an event would simply not be a miracle. It's simply part of nature/science. Sure, you can say God engineered it to happen at that exact moment, but most theists believe he does the same thing with the sun rise, hurricanes, and other natural disasters since he is actively governing the whole universe.

In short, to claim a natural event that happened within scientific parameters as a miracle would be to equate literally every aspect of nature with something miraculous... Which totally defeats the point of what theistic miracles are supposed to be. Really, to claim it as a miracle would require one to totally change the definition of a miracle so that the word could apply to just about anything.

To all theists reading - which position do you take on miracles, and how do you respond to the potential problems I mentioned that come with that position?

Funny how all of the miracles in the bible never happen today isn't it? Nowadays, our "miracles" are, as you said, acts of nature, that God caused. Creates a paradox as you say. This is one of the big reasons I don't follow any organized religion. All these miracles that used to happen, all of a sudden, are basically deemed unnecessary by God for our modern times. No rising seas for persecuted believers to cross, no supernatural help for the persecuted believers, not even any food raining from the sky for the starving. All of the "miracles" today are simple acts of nature, that you can easily acredit to God, but really is no more than nature taking it's course...
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 10:53:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 10:49:17 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Miracles explained by science? Or God using nature for miracles?

My assumption is that if God uses natural science for "miracles", scientists would probably uncover the circumstances/details of those "miracles" and find out what went down.

Many theists apparently agree with this; I regularly see and hear theists talking about evidence for biblical miracles relating to the exodus as confirmed by scientists... Somebody even posted a thread on it in this forum either today or yesterday.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 10:54:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 10:40:13 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:21:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
So, just doing a quick google search of the definition of "miracle", here are two of the first and most popular definitions that came up:


1) an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause (from http://dictionary.reference.com......)
2) A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

But if an event is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all.

So I find that miracle claims in theism present a bit of a paradox to rational/moderate theists (which is most of them; contrasting with extremist literalist fundamentalists who will say something like "you just have to have faith"):

If a miracle was done through a suspension of the natural order and is outside the boundaries of science, God does not necessary operate within the parameters of the nature that he created, and miracles can never be scientifically proven. (This is admittedly not self contradictory or refuting, it simply poses a problem to those theists who would try to prove "miracles" through science/natural explanations.)

If it is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all. By the definitions I brought in above, such an event would simply not be a miracle. It's simply part of nature/science. Sure, you can say God engineered it to happen at that exact moment, but most theists believe he does the same thing with the sun rise, hurricanes, and other natural disasters since he is actively governing the whole universe.

In short, to claim a natural event that happened within scientific parameters as a miracle would be to equate literally every aspect of nature with something miraculous... Which totally defeats the point of what theistic miracles are supposed to be. Really, to claim it as a miracle would require one to totally change the definition of a miracle so that the word could apply to just about anything.

To all theists reading - which position do you take on miracles, and how do you respond to the potential problems I mentioned that come with that position?

Funny how all of the miracles in the bible never happen today isn't it? Nowadays, our "miracles" are, as you said, acts of nature, that God caused. Creates a paradox as you say. This is one of the big reasons I don't follow any organized religion. All these miracles that used to happen, all of a sudden, are basically deemed unnecessary by God for our modern times. No rising seas for persecuted believers to cross, no supernatural help for the persecuted believers, not even any food raining from the sky for the starving. All of the "miracles" today are simple acts of nature, that you can easily acredit to God, but really is no more than nature taking it's course...

Most miracles that took place in biblical times only happened once...
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 10:54:03 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:40:13 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:21:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
So, just doing a quick google search of the definition of "miracle", here are two of the first and most popular definitions that came up:


1) an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause (from http://dictionary.reference.com......)
2) A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

But if an event is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all.

So I find that miracle claims in theism present a bit of a paradox to rational/moderate theists (which is most of them; contrasting with extremist literalist fundamentalists who will say something like "you just have to have faith"):

If a miracle was done through a suspension of the natural order and is outside the boundaries of science, God does not necessary operate within the parameters of the nature that he created, and miracles can never be scientifically proven. (This is admittedly not self contradictory or refuting, it simply poses a problem to those theists who would try to prove "miracles" through science/natural explanations.)

If it is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all. By the definitions I brought in above, such an event would simply not be a miracle. It's simply part of nature/science. Sure, you can say God engineered it to happen at that exact moment, but most theists believe he does the same thing with the sun rise, hurricanes, and other natural disasters since he is actively governing the whole universe.

In short, to claim a natural event that happened within scientific parameters as a miracle would be to equate literally every aspect of nature with something miraculous... Which totally defeats the point of what theistic miracles are supposed to be. Really, to claim it as a miracle would require one to totally change the definition of a miracle so that the word could apply to just about anything.

To all theists reading - which position do you take on miracles, and how do you respond to the potential problems I mentioned that come with that position?

Funny how all of the miracles in the bible never happen today isn't it? Nowadays, our "miracles" are, as you said, acts of nature, that God caused. Creates a paradox as you say. This is one of the big reasons I don't follow any organized religion. All these miracles that used to happen, all of a sudden, are basically deemed unnecessary by God for our modern times. No rising seas for persecuted believers to cross, no supernatural help for the persecuted believers, not even any food raining from the sky for the starving. All of the "miracles" today are simple acts of nature, that you can easily acredit to God, but really is no more than nature taking it's course...

Most miracles that took place in biblical times only happened once...

And nothing close happened in the past 2000 years...coincidence? I think not! :P
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:22:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:14:44 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:54:03 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:40:13 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:21:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
So, just doing a quick google search of the definition of "miracle", here are two of the first and most popular definitions that came up:


1) an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause (from http://dictionary.reference.com......)
2) A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

But if an event is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all.

So I find that miracle claims in theism present a bit of a paradox to rational/moderate theists (which is most of them; contrasting with extremist literalist fundamentalists who will say something like "you just have to have faith"):

If a miracle was done through a suspension of the natural order and is outside the boundaries of science, God does not necessary operate within the parameters of the nature that he created, and miracles can never be scientifically proven. (This is admittedly not self contradictory or refuting, it simply poses a problem to those theists who would try to prove "miracles" through science/natural explanations.)

If it is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all. By the definitions I brought in above, such an event would simply not be a miracle. It's simply part of nature/science. Sure, you can say God engineered it to happen at that exact moment, but most theists believe he does the same thing with the sun rise, hurricanes, and other natural disasters since he is actively governing the whole universe.

In short, to claim a natural event that happened within scientific parameters as a miracle would be to equate literally every aspect of nature with something miraculous... Which totally defeats the point of what theistic miracles are supposed to be. Really, to claim it as a miracle would require one to totally change the definition of a miracle so that the word could apply to just about anything.

To all theists reading - which position do you take on miracles, and how do you respond to the potential problems I mentioned that come with that position?

Funny how all of the miracles in the bible never happen today isn't it? Nowadays, our "miracles" are, as you said, acts of nature, that God caused. Creates a paradox as you say. This is one of the big reasons I don't follow any organized religion. All these miracles that used to happen, all of a sudden, are basically deemed unnecessary by God for our modern times. No rising seas for persecuted believers to cross, no supernatural help for the persecuted believers, not even any food raining from the sky for the starving. All of the "miracles" today are simple acts of nature, that you can easily acredit to God, but really is no more than nature taking it's course...

Most miracles that took place in biblical times only happened once...

And nothing close happened in the past 2000 years...coincidence? I think not! :P

Quote from a recent post of mine on the unlikeliness of theistic miracles being true on this subject:

Even if we had multiple primary sources attesting to these miracles, which we don't, it still wouldn't be enough to prove that any holy book is divine. Why not? Because firsthand reports of miracles are and have always been quite common, even in the 21st century, the age of technology and science. Sathya Sai Baba was a famous Indian guru who had millions of supporters attesting to his divinity and miracles (even virgin birth!) and he died just last year. His miracles have been confirmed by an uncountable amount of eyewitnesses. Yet the vast majority of theists wouldn't even consider the truth of his miracles for a second and would think that anyone who believes in them is probably crazy or not requiring solid evidence.

If you see something apparently suspending the laws of nature, you have to ask yourself a question. Which is more probable - that the laws of physics/nature have been temporarily suspended, and in your favor, or that you are under a misapprehension?

That's if you saw the event yourself! Now what if you heard it from a friend who saw it? You should doubtlessly be even more skeptical that a miracle has truly occurred. And what if you heard it from a friend who heard it from an older person who saw it long ago? Surely you should be greatly skeptical that the claimed miracle indeed occurred/was a miracle given the second-hand nature of the source and the abundance of such claims at all points in human history.

Here's the kicker - what if you're hearing the claim of a miracle from an ancient text that is thousands of years old, has been edited and contributed to by numerous authors, over a really long time... And many of these authors and contributors (in Christianity's case) openly admitted that they were non-eye witnesses to these miracles? Given that miracles are attested to by countless eye-witnesses even in our modern era of science and technology, and that thousands of years ago most people thought most things we know as part of nature were simply miraculous, and were terribly ignorant of science, I would say that anyone who can claim these miracles are historical facts is advertising a willingness to believe absolutely anything.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:33:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:22:31 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:14:44 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:54:03 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:40:13 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:21:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
So, just doing a quick google search of the definition of "miracle", here are two of the first and most popular definitions that came up:


1) an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause (from http://dictionary.reference.com......)
2) A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

But if an event is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all.

So I find that miracle claims in theism present a bit of a paradox to rational/moderate theists (which is most of them; contrasting with extremist literalist fundamentalists who will say something like "you just have to have faith"):

If a miracle was done through a suspension of the natural order and is outside the boundaries of science, God does not necessary operate within the parameters of the nature that he created, and miracles can never be scientifically proven. (This is admittedly not self contradictory or refuting, it simply poses a problem to those theists who would try to prove "miracles" through science/natural explanations.)

If it is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all. By the definitions I brought in above, such an event would simply not be a miracle. It's simply part of nature/science. Sure, you can say God engineered it to happen at that exact moment, but most theists believe he does the same thing with the sun rise, hurricanes, and other natural disasters since he is actively governing the whole universe.

In short, to claim a natural event that happened within scientific parameters as a miracle would be to equate literally every aspect of nature with something miraculous... Which totally defeats the point of what theistic miracles are supposed to be. Really, to claim it as a miracle would require one to totally change the definition of a miracle so that the word could apply to just about anything.

To all theists reading - which position do you take on miracles, and how do you respond to the potential problems I mentioned that come with that position?

Funny how all of the miracles in the bible never happen today isn't it? Nowadays, our "miracles" are, as you said, acts of nature, that God caused. Creates a paradox as you say. This is one of the big reasons I don't follow any organized religion. All these miracles that used to happen, all of a sudden, are basically deemed unnecessary by God for our modern times. No rising seas for persecuted believers to cross, no supernatural help for the persecuted believers, not even any food raining from the sky for the starving. All of the "miracles" today are simple acts of nature, that you can easily acredit to God, but really is no more than nature taking it's course...

Most miracles that took place in biblical times only happened once...

And nothing close happened in the past 2000 years...coincidence? I think not! :P

Quote from a recent post of mine on the unlikeliness of theistic miracles being true on this subject:

Even if we had multiple primary sources attesting to these miracles, which we don't, it still wouldn't be enough to prove that any holy book is divine. Why not? Because firsthand reports of miracles are and have always been quite common, even in the 21st century, the age of technology and science. Sathya Sai Baba was a famous Indian guru who had millions of supporters attesting to his divinity and miracles (even virgin birth!) and he died just last year. His miracles have been confirmed by an uncountable amount of eyewitnesses. Yet the vast majority of theists wouldn't even consider the truth of his miracles for a second and would think that anyone who believes in them is probably crazy or not requiring solid evidence.

If you see something apparently suspending the laws of nature, you have to ask yourself a question. Which is more probable - that the laws of physics/nature have been temporarily suspended, and in your favor, or that you are under a misapprehension?

That's if you saw the event yourself! Now what if you heard it from a friend who saw it? You should doubtlessly be even more skeptical that a miracle has truly occurred. And what if you heard it from a friend who heard it from an older person who saw it long ago? Surely you should be greatly skeptical that the claimed miracle indeed occurred/was a miracle given the second-hand nature of the source and the abundance of such claims at all points in human history.

Here's the kicker - what if you're hearing the claim of a miracle from an ancient text that is thousands of years old, has been edited and contributed to by numerous authors, over a really long time... And many of these authors and contributors (in Christianity's case) openly admitted that they were non-eye witnesses to these miracles? Given that miracles are attested to by countless eye-witnesses even in our modern era of science and technology, and that thousands of years ago most people thought most things we know as part of nature were simply miraculous, and were terribly ignorant of science, I would say that anyone who can claim these miracles are historical facts is advertising a willingness to believe absolutely anything.

Hit the nail on the head...
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
WeAreButler
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:07:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:22:31 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:14:44 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:54:03 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:40:13 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/29/2012 10:21:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
So, just doing a quick google search of the definition of "miracle", here are two of the first and most popular definitions that came up:


1) an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause (from http://dictionary.reference.com......)
2) A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

But if an event is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all.

So I find that miracle claims in theism present a bit of a paradox to rational/moderate theists (which is most of them; contrasting with extremist literalist fundamentalists who will say something like "you just have to have faith"):

If a miracle was done through a suspension of the natural order and is outside the boundaries of science, God does not necessary operate within the parameters of the nature that he created, and miracles can never be scientifically proven. (This is admittedly not self contradictory or refuting, it simply poses a problem to those theists who would try to prove "miracles" through science/natural explanations.)

If it is a natural event that happened within the laws of science without the suspension of the natural order, I'm not sure we can really call it a miracle at all. By the definitions I brought in above, such an event would simply not be a miracle. It's simply part of nature/science. Sure, you can say God engineered it to happen at that exact moment, but most theists believe he does the same thing with the sun rise, hurricanes, and other natural disasters since he is actively governing the whole universe.

In short, to claim a natural event that happened within scientific parameters as a miracle would be to equate literally every aspect of nature with something miraculous... Which totally defeats the point of what theistic miracles are supposed to be. Really, to claim it as a miracle would require one to totally change the definition of a miracle so that the word could apply to just about anything.

To all theists reading - which position do you take on miracles, and how do you respond to the potential problems I mentioned that come with that position?

Funny how all of the miracles in the bible never happen today isn't it? Nowadays, our "miracles" are, as you said, acts of nature, that God caused. Creates a paradox as you say. This is one of the big reasons I don't follow any organized religion. All these miracles that used to happen, all of a sudden, are basically deemed unnecessary by God for our modern times. No rising seas for persecuted believers to cross, no supernatural help for the persecuted believers, not even any food raining from the sky for the starving. All of the "miracles" today are simple acts of nature, that you can easily acredit to God, but really is no more than nature taking it's course...

Most miracles that took place in biblical times only happened once...

And nothing close happened in the past 2000 years...coincidence? I think not! :P

Quote from a recent post of mine on the unlikeliness of theistic miracles being true on this subject:

Even if we had multiple primary sources attesting to these miracles, which we don't, it still wouldn't be enough to prove that any holy book is divine. Why not? Because firsthand reports of miracles are and have always been quite common, even in the 21st century, the age of technology and science. Sathya Sai Baba was a famous Indian guru who had millions of supporters attesting to his divinity and miracles (even virgin birth!) and he died just last year. His miracles have been confirmed by an uncountable amount of eyewitnesses. Yet the vast majority of theists wouldn't even consider the truth of his miracles for a second and would think that anyone who believes in them is probably crazy or not requiring solid evidence.

If you see something apparently suspending the laws of nature, you have to ask yourself a question. Which is more probable - that the laws of physics/nature have been temporarily suspended, and in your favor, or that you are under a misapprehension?

That's if you saw the event yourself! Now what if you heard it from a friend who saw it? You should doubtlessly be even more skeptical that a miracle has truly occurred. And what if you heard it from a friend who heard it from an older person who saw it long ago? Surely you should be greatly skeptical that the claimed miracle indeed occurred/was a miracle given the second-hand nature of the source and the abundance of such claims at all points in human history.

Here's the kicker - what if you're hearing the claim of a miracle from an ancient text that is thousands of years old, has been edited and contributed to by numerous authors, over a really long time... And many of these authors and contributors (in Christianity's case) openly admitted that they were non-eye witnesses to these miracles? Given that miracles are attested to by countless eye-witnesses even in our modern era of science and technology, and that thousands of years ago most people thought most things we know as part of nature were simply miraculous, and were terribly ignorant of science, I would say that anyone who can claim these miracles are historical facts is advertising a willingness to believe absolutely anything.

And what's wrong with believing anything?
You believe you have the truth?
We all have theories. We all have faith.

The problem lies in the fact where you believe God needs to do miracles. I understand the line of thought of bias, and favoritism -- but this is completely wrong, and I can get into that later -- but not now.

Eventually my religious postings will lead to the paradox of my circular thinking -- yet truth is circular my friends. Hopefully one day you understand.
We Are Butler