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]

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.

Yeah, we've tried to explain to you about evolution last time, obviously it hasn't worked but would prefer if you stick to the OP. So what's your opinion about the OP?

[Anonymous]

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

if there were evidence I would consider it.

but there isnt.

so I guess until then, I am close minded

[the_bob_delusion]

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

if there were evidence I would consider it.

but there isnt.

so I guess until then, I am close minded

sorry I was responding to your earlier comment. 
So what evidence would convience you?

[Anonymous]

what evidence could there be?

[the_bob_delusion]

you tell me. You're the judge. 

[Anonymous]

it cant be verified. there will be no new evidence, it was bs.

[the_bob_delusion]

you're still missing the point. I'm saying IF there's evidence, what evidence would convience you?

[Anonymous]

I guess. but there isnt. and wont be lol

[Anonymous]

oh sorry, what evidence. with ya now. we're back to this. what possible evidence could there be at this point? sorry for not playing properly lol

[the_bob_delusion]

I give up.