Are Historical Miracle Stories Verifiable?

[the_bob_delusion]

Billions of people around the world believes in God(s) because they believe certain miracle stories to be true? But can you truly verify a miracle historically?

By miracle, let's define it as an intervention by a supernatural being that defies natural laws. So not just something with a very low probability like winning tattslotto twice or recovering from a deadly cancer.  

So when Christians say history points to the resurrection of Jesus which is obviously a miracle. Do you think there's sufficient evidence to prove it happened?

If you don't believe Jesus Rose from the dead, or that Mohommad flew to Heaven on a winged horse, what evidence would convince you that it did indeed happen?

[the_bob_delusion]

Depends which alien family you're talking about. Some come from 3.5 light years away, others from 39 light years.

Well the same question applies. Not where where but how did they arise out of nothing? Did they evolve or did they just sprung out of thin air? 

[i-need-a-martini]

If you asked most CHristians they believe that the resurrection is a historical fact. Without the Resurrection there's no CHristianity so therefore you assume they're basing it on historical evidence. But how can you possibly prove a miracle?

As I'm not a Christian, the answer to all your questions is 'no'.

Perhaps many of the stories are based on historical events. And many others are based on myths and legends. 

Regardles of the origins, along the way they have morphed, been embellished, exaggerated, metaphors have been added in - so much so that there is no way of separating truth from fiction.

And obviously if there was sufficient (or I would say irrefutable) evidence of any of the more fantastical stories (like jesus rising from the dead or being the son of God) then even I might be a Christian today.

As it is Christians only have their faith to rely on (which is good enough for them) and not evidence as Nile stupidly suggests.

[ufo_investigations]

Well the same question applies. Not where where but how did they arise out of nothing? Did they evolve or did they just sprung out of thin air? 

That we don't know yet. I think the answer would be known by the ETs. Us earth people were in caves not that long ago whereas the aliens have been flying around from star system to star system for millions of years. We need to ask an ET.

[the_bob_delusion]

That we don't know yet. I think the answer would be known by the ETs. Us earth people were in caves not that long ago whereas the aliens have been flying around from star system to star system for millions of years. We need to ask an ET.

In that case you've answered nothing. You've just answered one mystery with another. 

However I do think it's plausible that life is likely to have started somewhere in the Universe given how many gazillions planets there are out there. And eventually one of these life forms can then spread thru out the universe. 

[ufo_investigations]

In that case you've answered nothing. You've just answered one mystery with another. 

However I do think it's plausible that life is likely to have started somewhere in the Universe given how many gazillions planets there are out there. And eventually one of these life forms can then spread thru out the universe. 

In galactic terms we're only small fry!  Look around you. eg; the microwave, tv, computer. These things didn't exist 100 years ago. Us earth people are only just now starting to learn about technological possibilities. Our civilization is waaaaaaay behind.  I believe we were put here so we can evolve in our own way and the ETs check on us to see how we are doing. These TV shows about alien ships arriving I think that is just a way to get us used to the idea of that happening which I think will happen eventually.

[i-need-a-martini]

Life form is simply a random act of nature. Evolution took care of the rest.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Rabbit, "falsifiable" means that if it were wrong, evidence and experimentation would prove it to be wrong. For instance up u til the time of Copernicus it was accepted as a fact that the earth was the centre of the universe aand the sun revolved around it. Clearly this was a falsifiable theory because Copernicus proved it to be false.

Any scientific theory is similarly falsifiable - remember the excitement when experiments with the hadron collider seemed to suggest the theory that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light might be wrong (as it turned out the evidence didn't stand up to scrutiny.

Evolution is falsifiable because it would only take one piece of conclusive evidence e.g. finding a fossil in the "wrong" stratum, to disprove it. So far no such evidence has been found and each new piece of evidence that has turned up has only served to support the theory.

Miracles, by their very nature are phenomena which cannot be explained by scientific means. A lot of of the so-called 'healing' miracles e.g. The curing  of those possessed by evil spirits, could no doubt be explained with modern medical knowledge, but as far as the resurrection is concerned, it is nothing that can neither be proved or disproved at this distance in time. There is no evidence available  to corroborate the accounts given in the New Testament  and it simply has to be taken on faith.

[Anonymous]

No. there is no proof of the resurrection. 

and it had all been done before anyway.

I wonder why Christians don't ask 'wheres my god now' because he's done diddly in the last 2000 years or so. and where the hell is Jesus lol.

~ there is no evidence that would convince me, because there is no evidence.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

the-great-she-elephant wrote :" Evolution is falsifiable because it would only take one piece of conclusive evidence e.g. finding a fossil in the "wrong" stratum, to disprove it. So far no such evidence has been found and each new piece of evidence that has turned up has only served to support the theory."

the same can be said about the creation account in Genesis- as I have said before (some have disagreed) - the creative days were possibly millions / billions of years long - so the very same 'fossils in stratum' can be used to prove / disprove creation - can it not? The lower in the layers the simpler the specimens - the higher the layers the more complex the specimen - exactly as the Bible says.

I'm not explaining it very well, but what I am trying to say is the same proofs that evolutionists use (more advanced fossils in later rock layers)  can be used to equally prove creation.

I know that's not what bob is asking but just thought I'd add that.

[the_bob_delusion]

No. there is no proof of the resurrection. 

and it had all been done before anyway.

I wonder why Christians don't ask 'wheres my god now' because he's done diddly in the last 2000 years or so. and where the hell is Jesus lol.

~ there is no evidence that would convince me, because there is no evidence.

If there's no evidence that would convience you, that makes you closed minded. 

But you make a fair point why the bible God does diddly squat for 198,000  years while humans existed then 2000 yrs ago he decides it's time to intervene and he choose an illiterate part of the middle east to reveal himself. At that time the Chinese civilization was well advanced, they could perform advance science experiments and record evidence. 

So if your entire salvation for all eternity is based on this one incident in history, you would feel a bit cheated.