The "science" of Miracles

As has come up on other threads, the ability to study a phenomenon scientifically requires repeatability, and/or evidence that endures after each event. If you don't have that you can't study it, and in all the examples that have been brought up those conditions don't exist, all we have is witness evidence for single events, and since nobody here will accept that, what sense does it make even to talk about a science of miracles?

In the case of phenomena that do not leave evidence and are not replicable you can't just make that fact into evidence against it. Lack of evidence obviously is not evidence that the phenomenon did not occur at all.

Because of the tons of witness evidence. That's the point. You don't have the scientific kind of evidence you all insist on, but you have lots of witness evidence that you deny out of sheer prejudice.

I'm sorry I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Even if hard evidence was left behind, there isn't going to be evidence that it was caused by a miracle is there? If you found Egyptian chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea would that be evidence that it was miraculously parted and then closed over the Egyptian army? If you have a jug with dried dregs of wine in it, would there be any evidence that it was miraculously changed from water? I don't think it is possible to have physical evidence of a miracle that anyone would accept as evidence for a miracle even if it happened to be, as I keep saying, even though reports of a lot of witness evidence certainly suggests there was a miracle. (This refrain that it's so untrustworthy is silly when there are so many reports of so many witnesses to so many miracles. They might get some details wrong but no, all that is not going to simply be totally wrong.) I asked a while back if anyone can think of the sort of evidence that would show a miracle had happened and nobody came up with any.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith healings are bogus. A famous Christian quadriplegic who is now in her sixties tells of going to a Kathryn Kuhlman faith healing event when she was young, only to be shunted off in her wheelchair to a part of the auditorium that was not close to the stage, along with a lot of other hapless sick people, while Kuhlman did some phony antics with other "sick people" in another location and claimed to heal them.A photo of a person with a missing limb followed by a photo of a restored limb then? Would that do it?

This line of reasoning is cockamamie poppadoodle. We're talking about something WITNESSED by people that doesn't happen to leave physical evidence. It's been witnessed, it happened, but despite that screamingly obvious fact it's getting declared nonexistent because you don't have physical remains to show for it?. Some physical events don't leave that kind of evidence, therefore you declare them nonexistent? What?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The gospels have been understood for two millennia to be honest accounts by honest people. Only revisionist idiots have decided otherwise in recent times.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, the entire history of Chrsitianity says you're mistaken because the accounts of miracles in the Bible are understood to be actual events witnessed by many people. Sorry, you can't redefine things to suit yourself.Others have been declaring them nonexistent, not just not proven. But for sensible fair minded people the miracles of the Bible have definitely been proven. That just creates two classes of people, though, doesn't it? The sensible fair minded people and the prejudiced self-deluded.

Christianity is dying out in the west because Christians have become weak and compromised, which is why we are now having a resurgence of paganism. EvC is a wonderful case in point. Barring a great revival I don't expect Christianity to come back any time soon, but meanwhile I do try to keep the truth alive here. The miracles were quite real and Christendom was built on such truths.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Already said it many times.No. Just witness evidence.

That is true. I am not going to play this "scholarship" game which is nothing but every kind of speculation designed to contradict traditional Christianity. Traditional Christianity requires belief in the gospels and all the other Biblical reports, and it has been through that belief that powerful benefits to the world have come, and millions have led faith-guided lives that only increase their belief. The evidence is in the history itself and the documents themselves, and I will not listen to the debunkery brigade.abe: And from the previous post: It's actually experience-guided certainty, not assumption. The evidence has already been given many times, the trustworthiness of the gospel writer witnesses. Nobody deserves any more evidence since your rejection of what has been given is nothing but crabbed prejudice. The evidence is quite sufficient. You believe or you don't. That's what Jesus asked for: repent and believe.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is completely baffling to me. Faith in what? What does your faith do for you? Does it give you some kind of strength or hope or promise for the future? What's the point of it? Does your God have any grounding in any kind of reality, or even any kind of religion?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My God has plenty of grounding in reality through the Biblical accounts of His acts in history.abe: I don't know what it could possibly mean to "have faith in one's religious beliefs." My faith is in God, in Christ, not in my beliefs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do not define my beliefs for me. What I said is the truth.