For atheist and skeptics....?

Question

Why in your minds if scientist figures out how to do one or more of miracles mentioned in the Bible;why must science disprove that the stuff in the were miracles.

Using the definition of anything done by God that the current society of people didnt know how to do or reproduce.

The things Jesus did were miracles,cuase people didnt know how to do that stuff, or do it the way Jesus did.

Evan if the society back then knew how to make water into wine;they didnt know how to make it the way Jesus did.He didnt have herbs,fruits,flavoring or anything.Just faith in God,and the water turned to wine.

So again,why must advancing science disprove the miracles Jesus did?

Maybe cuas now that we do know how to do some of the stuff,we take it for granted?And dont realize how magnificent&spectacular God has made the universe?

Answer 1

Those stories about what Jesus did were written long after he died. They were passed down by word of mouth. Stories that are passed down that way always get changed and exaggerated. That does not prove he did those things.

You can believe in your religion. Let atheists and skeptics believe in what they believe. Let's just agree to disagree instead of trying to change each other's opinions.

Answer 2

"Why in your minds if scientist figures out how to do one or more of miracles mentioned in the Bible;why must science disprove that the stuff in the were miracles."
Things aren't miracles if they're commonplace.
Creating a computer like the one you're on, by your standards, is a 'miracle'.

"The things Jesus did were miracles,cuase people didnt know how to do that stuff, or do it the way Jesus did."
You're assuming that those things actually happened. There's no proof of that.

"Evan if the society back then knew how to make water into wine;they didnt know how to make it the way Jesus did.He didnt have herbs,fruits,flavoring or anything.Just faith in God,and the water turned to wine."
Again, your argument is based on a book of fairy tales. You're assuming that the stories about Jesus in the Bible are actual fact.

"So again,why must advancing science disprove the miracles Jesus did?"
It isn't science's role to 'disprove' anything. Science proves through repeated testing and debate, as well as falsifiability.

Try again, Maurice. Please read a book, and present us with something that requires a little more careful thought on your part. You have yet to come forward with anything other than tired arguments.

Answer 3

Is it just dismissing our point of view or can you truly not grasp others not being certyain in the existence of God, miracles or even Jesus?

Prove miracles occured. Historical records from a reputable source, the Bible doesn't count it was written hundreds of years after. Reproduce them. There are countless Christians in the world, and countless starving people, get just one Christian to reproduce a miracle and feed these people just for a day in the manner you believe Jesus did.

You missed whatever point someone earlier tried to impress upon you. It is basically thus: Religion was used in ancient times to explain that which we had no explanation for how or why it occurred. Supernatural intervention was given to everything from the weather to illness or success in a hunt. As we progress we have found the reason or factors that contribute to these things. We uncover the rules by which the universe governs itself by examining the results. As more is uncovered to be "natural" less is attributed to the supernatural. So some of us decide that religion is nothing more than a substitute for reason when human beings were unable to find an answer, and hence we do not believe in the supernatural or decide that we do not need to believe.

It doesn't matter that what you think were miracles could be reproduced today or not. the fact is we do not beleive that they happened. David Blane floats on air. Paul McKenna turns men into chickens. John Edwards talk to the dead. Or so we think. People can be deceived and fooled today, they could be 2000 years ago. All you have is a record 200 years later of the testimony of what someone "thought" they saw or heard about happening. This isn't proof, it isn't even evidence. We tend to call it hearsay.

Answer 4

Sorry, it's the lack of proof. You/the Bible can say that Jesus turned water into wine, but no historian in the 1st century or 2nd recorded it or mentioned it until after the Gospels were written in the second century. Think about it a sec, the New Testament was written well after the apostles were dead and most if not all of the people who knew them were as well.

While many of the people mentioned in the NT may have existed, there is no record of 2 year old and under males being slaughtered in Bethlehem (or any where for that matter). There is no record of any earth quake in the Jerusalem area, but there are for other areas. There is no record in mid-Eastern cultures or civilizations of a bright star heralding the birth of Christ. If we start in on the OT, it gets worse: The exodus and preceding enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt *may* have some potential for being slightly true, note there is nothing conclusive in Egyptian records, just some possibilities - and definitely no record of the plagues or the 7 years of famine. We could do the same for the flood, the times that the sun stopped or moved back. There is simply no collaborating evidence for any of these things.

Answer 5

Your premise is faulty. (not surprising) Advancing science DOES NOT disprove the miracles Jesus did. That is not what scientists are trying to do. I'm sure that when a scientist is performing an experiment they don't do it with the purpose of disproving any religious idea. Sometimes that happens as in the 6,000 or 10,000 year old Earth idea being disproved, but that is certainly not the end they seek. And whether Jesus actually performed these miracles is not proven in any way. Turning water into wine? I just don't believe that.

Answer 6

Well, I'm a diplomat here, so bare with me and my neutral take on this one. The way I see it is this: Skeptics are completely against what lacks a certain amount of valid evidence, but Christians believe word-for-word that everything mentioned in the bible is truth.

The way I see it, though, is that either one is entirely possible. The bible has a lot of documented history within it, but also some rather questionable content. On the other hand, science has yet to prove a lot of things (such as Jesus' miracle work) and has yet to be seen in modern society. All in all, I'm not for or against any religion/belief in general, but I say that both sides have valid points as well as setbacks. Don't believe everything you read.

Answer 7

For those acts to be miracles, they must be supernatural. I don't believe in the supernatural. As you just pointed out, just because science found a way to do it doesn't mean that's the way jesus did it, so we are back to believing that he had some kind of supernatural power. Which I don't believe in. So it really doesn't matter either way, now does it?
Besides, if I take a camera to a country where they aren't common and no one knows what they are, it is a miracle to them? Of course not. Just something they haven't seen before.

Answer 8

So if I was from an alien world, came here to Earth and seemly preformed miracles (because you didn't know how it was done)...you would think I was a God? You are going to be in sorry shape if we ever do make first contact with aliens.

Keep in mind, if people from this century were to travel back in time much of the technology that we take for granted would seem like miracles or magic to people several centuries ago. Much as it would be in the case of alien contact. As technology advances we learn how to do more things.

Answer 9

Because they aren't miracles. And because YOU have no proof they even happened other than the words in a book.

Proof tells you something is real, belief does not. I can say I believe unicorns are real too, does that mean I'm right? No? But I'd bet you believe because I found some hoof prints in the dirt wouldn't you? But that could have been caused by a regular old horse so how do you know that the unicorn is real?

Sorry, but I don't worship something I don't know is real. And PROOF is whats needed. I don't walk around blind.

Science does what it does BECAUSE its science. If your religion can't stand up to that, then its the religions problem, no a problem with science.

Answer 10

Wow you're hard to follow!! Your grammar and spelling is atrocious and your logic as tangled as spaghetti.
Why would it upset you that the "miracle" of turning water into wine wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny? By definition a miracle is an occurance that defies explanation, scientific or other.
My last point is that I don't believe everything I read or hear, and that applies to the bible as well.

Answer 11

You may be content with something being described as a 'miracle' but to me that's a very unfulfilling answer. Asking 'Yes, but how?' is what moves us forward. Being impressed by percieved miracles didn't get us to the moon.

As for what Jesus did or didn't do, I don't really consider the Bible to be 100% accurate. After all, his deeds were written down a hundred years after the fact.