Why do atheists attack the validity of the miracles of the Bible?

Question

If you phrase anything that you believe to be true in the right way, you can make it sound silly. It comes down to how you play around with words.

Here's an example:

Atheists believe that bananas are our relatives. This IS a fact. Evolution states that every single living thing is indirectly related to everything else because we all came from a single celled ancestor.

This sentence makes evolution seem silly regardless of whether or not it is true.

The same thing goes for Christianity.

The fact remains though that the Bible is TRUE. If God is all powerful, then who says he couldn't turn a woman into salt, or provide a way for the other miracles?

These miracles were historical events. They HAPPENED.

All you need is faith to believe.

Agree?

Answer 1

Your question is: why do atheists attack the validity of the miracles of the Bible. I'd like to rephrase the question slightly: why do atheists deny the factual accuracy of miracles as reported in the Bible.

As I understand their reasoning, I the reports of miracles are not true, then the Bible--as a whole--is not true. This raises a host of issues that we need to examine. First, there is a ancient doctrine in the law that says "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). The doctrine allows the judge or jury to disregard all of the testimony of a witness if the witness has testified falsely about some "material point" (some fact that would make a difference in the outcome of the case). The atheist case against miracles is, in part, that "miracles" (understood to be arbitrary suspensions of natural scientific law) are fundamental to the position that G-d is imminent and operates in human history. If the miracles didn't happen, then there is no divine intervention in history, including the divine self-revelation in Jesus as the Christ. There are fundamental flaws with this argument.

One, scientific "laws" are statements of probabilities (technically known as Bayesian probabilities), with no nomological content (they're not laws, e..g. statutes, which impose a duty of obediance) and not effect has a probability of 1 with any specific state of affairs or "cause." By is very nature as a discipline based on probabilities, science leaves statistical room for outcomes that can't be explained scientifically. It doesn't matter if you call these unexplained events "miracles" or give them some other name--they happen, and how a person interprets them depends on the worldview by which he or she interprets the world.

Two, there is a logical fallacy to the atheist argument. Their argument is: religious people believe in G-d; an attribute of their G-d is immanence; immanence means that G-d intervenes in history by suspending the laws of nature; the statements about the suspension of the laws of nature cannot be verified; therefore, G-d cannot be shown to exist; and, therefore, G-d doesn't exist. Put schematically, A (G-d) implies B (miracles, very specifically defined), and if B can't be verified, A doesn't exist. (A -> B; not B; therefore, not A.) Among other things, this is the fallacy of assuming the consequent. Atheists, in this argument, assume that proof of miracles--as they define miracles--is a condition sine qua non for the existence of G-d, as conceived by Jews, Christians, and Moslems. This is simply untrue and reflects a certain degree of ignorance about the nature of the belief in G-d. It is the position of most mainline churches that there is nothing in the Christian faith that is inconsistent with reason, including scientific reason.

Three, in order to propound this argument, atheists have to read the Bible very literally. The Bible is a collection of books written at different times by different people and in different forms. Much of it has to be read as you would read any piece of literature, and that is as metaphor. Because they read the Bible literally, some atheists want to make it into a natural history textbook, which it obviously is not. Furthermore, even if it accorded with "science" in the 1st Century C.E., science has come a long way in the interim. We don't read Galen any more for anatomy classes in medical school.

Four, many (not all) atheists often maintain there their disbelief in G-d is based on "reason" (however defined), while religious belief is based on "faith" (however defined), and reason is superior to faith as a source of knowledge. This is simply not correct. The proposition "G-d does not exist" carries no more ontological weight than the proposition "G-d exists." Neither statement can be proven, and, to add insult to injury, the atheist is attempting to prove a negative, which any first-year philosophy student will tell you can't be done. In the final analysis, atheism is based on faith no less than is any of the revealed religions. I would be willing to argue, in fact, that atheism is a modern religion with a lot of unexamined assumptions that may not withstand critical scrutiny.

Five, the atheist argument about miracles assumes the "truth" is limited to synthetic propositions that relate to "facts" about the mind-independent world (also known as "reality"). This is a very limited epistemotology, based on a particular set of criteria for truth claims and a very restricted metaphysic. It also ignores the fundamental idea, now widely accepted by both semioticians and historians of science, that "facts," as expressed in words, are highly contextualized. What is considered a scientific fact today might well be scientific rubbish tomorrow. (Look at Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man." Gould, by the way, taught biology at Harvard.).

Given the problems with the atheists' argument regarding miracles and the inferences from that argument, they certainly have not convinced me. I can't speak for anybody else.

To answer your question fully would probably take a book, and I've gone on too long anyway. I also hope that I haven't confused you. Some of the problems regarding this subject are fairly technical and, without writing that book, I could not explain everything as fully as I would have liked.

Answer 2

Since "miracles" in the Biblical sense no longer happen, it is simpler to assume that they never did - and that the author(s) of the Bible misconstrued certain events because they lacked a basic understanding of the world they lived in - understanding that today we all take for granted. They were, after all, primitive by modern standards. So why would a modern, educated person assume that the ancients knew better than we do today? These events may still be occuring, and nobody even notices, because we recognize them for what they are: earthquakes, tsunamis, eclipses, falling meteors, etc. The sun no longer rotates around the earth, bacteria cause diseases, and fools cling to superstitions - get with the program.

Answer 3

Yes, you can make a lot of things sound ridiculous by rephrasing them in that fashion. But, the fact remains that the only reason why we believe that Bible is true is because the Bible itself says that it is true. Even if this is simplified, it is circular reasoning no matter how you complicate it. And, God could perform these, yes. The fact that he has performed no miracles like them since, however, makes them questionable.

Answer 4

Lets take your miracle to begin with. The original text of god turning a woman into a pillar of salt came from the Sumerian tablets which predate any written bible and the original text said that she was turned into a puff of smoke, which would happen is she were caught in anything intense enough to destroy a city, and in the Hebrew/Aramaic of the time "pillar of salt" and "puff of smoke" are almost identical. It has nothing to do with a miracle is has to do with a miss-translation during a bit of plagiarism. And you wonder why we think you guys are not hitting on all cylinders.

Answer 5

You're proper. You do have the proper to feel something you wish. Unfortunately, a majority - or a *very* vocal minority - of individuals who feel don't believe the turn facet of that proper - that atheists have the proper to NOT feel. In so much the identical approach that a few individuals lump all Muslims into a class of terrorists regardless of that just a tiny minority of them truthfully are, believers are almost always lumped into the class of illiberal bigots. When a few atheists name you names or feel much less of you for the reason that they feel, they're without difficulty projecting hateful therapy they've skilled from different believers onto you. When you are saying you are watching to technology to disprove God, you can not ever get an reply. Science might not ever attempt to disprove God for the reason that the declare that God exists has not ever been demonstrated to start with. There's without difficulty no must disprove a declare that's unsupported. If you wish to disprove God, appear no additional than good judgment and purpose. Fact: Christians feel their god is all-realizing, all-robust, and all-loving. Fact: Christians feel their god punishes non-believers with everlasting punishment for the realistic purpose that they don't feel. An all-realizing god might understand who does no longer feel, what knowledge might enable them to feel, and the way/whilst to gift this knowledge in some way that might maximize its outcome. An all-robust god might be equipped to gift this knowledge with minimum attempt in some way that might no longer cast off a individual's loose will. An all-loving god might be flawlessly prompted to do that (and handiest this) as a substitute than to punish his production for being precisely what he created it to be. Therefore, both the outline of God is misguided or the movements attributed to him are fallacious. God punishing a individual for the notion crime of disbelief whilst no proof exists to aid perception might be no special than having a little one, feeding that little one, then brutally murdering that little one for the reason that he **** his diaper. An entity that's inconsistent with its definition will also be logically demonstrated not to exist. This is how God is demonstrably imaginary. Other examples incorporate five-sided squares and married bachelors.

Answer 6

Atheists attack the validity of the miracles of the Bible because they refuse to even entertain the thought that there may be a being in the universe superior to them. It comes down to extreme self-centeredness.

Also when atheists insist that any discussion about evolution vs. creation or intelligent design may not include any references to the Bible, it is an extremely transparent attempt to win the discussion before it even starts. That would be equivalent to one who believes in creationism saying, "Okay, let's have this discussion but you may not make any references to Darwin's theories, the fossil record, etc." Silly right?

I clearly believe in creationism and intelligent design. I also believe that animals and organisms can and do adapt over time. The fossil record has proven that. However, evolution scientists have yet to prove that you and I came from monkeys or a fish suddenly sprouted legs and walked up onto land!

Evolutionists - Do you know that the Bible contains a reference to "The great behemoths?" Sounds to me like God may have created dinasaurs in the past. Could it be that we are not so far apart in our beliefs after-all?

Answer 7

You are trying to put lipstick on a pig. First off in India there where numerous claims in 1995 statues where drinking milk and they swear it is the coming of their gods if that is the case would you abandon yours cause theirs had a more current miracle that was more substantially documented then yours could ever be? What is the fear that you theist have about people that don't believe that you god is going to destroy them in the end and that you are doing us a favor come on that is what you want to worship why should I have fear, respect or belief in it, it doesn't matter to me cause god doesn't exist what exists is science and logic.

Answer 8

I would also need a sort of faith to believe that when I leave my home, my furniture begins to move about, and the chairs dance romantically together while the table looks on fondly and the bed has a philosophical discussion with the dresser.

Answer 9

Atheists laugh at the mere suggestion that the bible is true. Most of them do not waste their time making claims against what you seem to be calling miracles. Listen to them a little more closely next time.

Answer 10

If they truly were historical events, there'd likely be evidence for them other than in a book of ancient mythology.

Zeus did some pretty amazing things too, according to various texts. Why do you not believe they actually happened?

Also, it's genetics that shows bananas and people are related, because they both use DNA as encoding material.