What is Reddit's opinion of Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I agree with you, we are instructed to go and preach, heal by miracle and cast out devils.

As a former atheist(I'm sorry for using this card) I'm sorry to see most Christians have so little faith, because most have only been exposed to miracles through con men and babbling heretics.

Not only are people visibly healed, cured from stage 4 cancer overnight etc. But many of these things are recorded by doctors themselves and by people who have lots to lose from testifying.

We need to talk about this more.

I recommend Craig Keener's book on miracles :
https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

>Is there any evidence for this outside the bible?

Not really. There are numerous accounts of miracles outside the Bible, as those were common at the time. In fact, they're still common today. There are also a few extra-Biblical mentions of Jesus as a miracle worker, but not many.

If you're looking for a more comprehensive defense of miracles in general though, I'd point you to Craig Keener's work.

I might not have the answer for everything, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that there's a possibility for you that what the Bible says is true - for me it definitely is. I've witnessed in firsthand supernatural ocorrences so it would be impossible to deny, for me, ever.

I hope some day you manage to reconcile your skepticism with God's word. If you're interested in the subject i highly advice this book, where are countless testimonies, some with proof others without, about supernatural ocorrences in modern times.

> But sometimes outside of my control, God changed the weather in certain situations. And I know it was him.

I recall reading a good amount of weather associated miracles in this book: Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (truly worth a read).

>I am trying to make myself stronger though

Trust God for that. It's certainly not easy to overcome our flaws, i get you

You're not being rude, i get it.

What you said makes sense and i understand that. But i was talking about the nature of God. Again, if He says He is who He is, then He cannot be explained/proved by science. It's just the way it is. Same conclusion can be said otherwise, just because we cannot fully understand His nature doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Though i reckon, it also doesn't prove he exists, sure. It will always take a leap of faith to believe (a leap i believe it's intended, as a way to prove our love/devotion/whatever you want to call it).

Now, what you were talking about is something else, God's interaction with reality, or God manifestation in reality. I believe God does interact with our reality (not only God actually, but spirital beings), and that can be measured to an extent. I highly recommend the book Miracles. It's a very thorough book with a very scientific approach of miracles, i.e., God's interaction with reality.

As i explained to someone else in this post, i don't believe in the christian god just because i randomly pick. It comes from a study and interest in religions and reaching the conclusion that Jesus is the only God that provides a coherent way for salvation, in a way that represents both the justice and mercifulness of God, it is the only religion where you're saved by his grace, not by our works.

All in all, i understand you, i truly do. I've been there. What i was stating is the latter reply is that, if God turns out to exist (i do believe in that, you don't, it's fine), science will never provide a way to explain or define Him, because he doesn't exist in our reality. Just like beings that exist in a 2D world can't explain a 3D by science. It is far out of our reach.

I believe that God still reveals himself to people nowadays. There are in fact many testimonies of it, not counting miracles. Miracles is one book that completely changed me regarding that, one i strongly suggest.

Also, i firmly believe, as most christians do, that people from many "religions" or even people with no religions will be saved. To believe in a perfect God is to believe He can judge without flaw, even those whose character would make them possible to believe in Him, perhaps under different life circumstances.

I'm not sure how much you studied of the bible, but the Old Testament portraits a world very different to ours, a world where Jesus didn't came and died for our sins. Obviously, i do not know everything, nor God's plans. But the old alliance, in the old testament, has God revealing himself and communicating through many different ways, though never truly showing himself.

We believe that God reveals himself nowadays (after Jesus) through the Holy Spirit, which didn't happen in the old testament/before Jesus. That's probably one of the reasons. I'm not much of an expert.

Regarding your first sentence, the first thing that came to my mind is that saying that god is all powerful doesn't mean he can do anything. For example, God cannot make a square with 3 sides. I could also start rambling about free will and as his imposed presence would leave no room for belief/disbelief, but i'm guessing that wouldn't make much difference to you.

> Well, I assume he was actually dead.

Yes, I agree that he was dead. Without this admission, Christianity doesn't exist.

> Others have already looked into your caterpillar and shown it is not actually dead when in hibernation.

Hibernation is different from what is going on in this caterpillar. Hibernation is metabolic reduction, not cessation. In hibernation there is still respiration, heart beat, etc. In the Pyrrharctia isabella all life functions cease, so I guess it matters what you mean by death.

> So you still have yet to demonstrate resurrection is a physical possibility as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure you realize, though, that part of the punch of the claim of Jesus' resurrection is that he did something miraculous, not something perfectly natural.

> is that I can say that miracles do not occur with at least as much certainty (and for many of the same reasons) that unicorns do not exist.

And, of course, this I disagree with. No rational person is claiming to see unicorns, but rational people by the thousands or millions claim to see miracles. Craig Keener did scholarly investigative work, and his book "Miracles" (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508873027&sr=8-1&keywords=craig+keener+miracles) refutes your thesis. Miracles do occur, they can be observed and substantiated, and they happen today. There is simply no logical comparison with the unicorn fantasy.

> I would say the burden of proof is on you to prove they exist.

Miracles are often seen. I already mentioned Keener's book. You know about other claims (Miracles From Heaven). These are not in isolation, but part of a long chain of such substantiation. Your arguments don't carry your thesis against the weight of evidence.

God gives us logic, and then occasionally circumvents the rules He established.

It's not blind acceptance of the irrational. It's accepting that God's miraculous intervention in our universe can circumvent known laws of nature. This book outlines hundreds of scientifically supported examples of miraculous events occurring. This is not explained by science alone. Miracles do seem to occur on occasion when situations are charged with religious significance. The acceptance of a rational only universe (according to Newtonian mechanics) is in my opinion, lacking in evidence. It does not best explain the universe I see. I approach the evidence like a jury approaches the evidence in a murder trial - what is the likely event, beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence we have available. When new evidence surfaces, we can revise our decision.

I consider this a rational approach, and it means accepting that God has circumvented the laws of logic.

Minimally, if the effect of prayrer is unverifiable, it would be wrong to say it universally fails (I don't know if you said that but someone did). Prayrer isn't deliberately unfalsifiable, I suppose the nature of prayrer and testing scientifically if prayrer 'works' is . . not really a matter of science, even though I can imagine certain kinds of scientific tests to observe if certain prayrers 'work', and even the term 'work' is difficult to use because of the nature of prayrer. So maybe it would be better to say a significantly better methodology would need to be employed.

If God didn't heal 100 out of 100 amputees, the most you could say based on that experiment is that God said no, 100 out of 100 times. . and then you are assuming there is a God in the first place, and God could have morally sufficient reasons for saying no 100 times.

In regards to the nature of answered prayrer, it is not true theologically speaking that all answered prayrer must happen supernaturally. So answered prayrer could come in the form of a friend meeting a need, and I completely grant that that makes the conversation in regards to science and prayrer even more confusing, which I think supports my point regarding the general untestability of the effects of prayrer in a certain sense.

We live amongst brilliant people so I think something could be done, but the experiments im aware of are either too simple or are based on a superficial understanding of prayrer.

Not that you need to read it, but theirs an incredible book by Craig Keener called Miracles that has significant crossover into the conversation we're having here, more in the region of things like exotic medical ailments being undone. Very well documented. Conclusions aside, it is good work. And its nice to hear what you have to say, too, so I appreciate your conversing :)

For another modern scholarly input on this issue, from a more biblical studies perspective, I recommend Craig Keener's Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.

I would encourage you to look at the recent work by Craig Keener, called Miracles, in which he attempts to document miracles around the world, while also providing a reasoned argument for continuing to consider them as a rational possibility.

In addition to other comments, here you go:

https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

And you will note that anytime anyone brings up an example of a miracle, even if their doctor or nurse supported that interpretation, there's always an excuse about why it doesn't count. There's certainly observation bias on each side, but let's no one pretend the indefensible "science proves miracles wrong" group doesn't have it in spades.

In all seriousness:

Yes. Craig Keener has a two-volume work on miracles. He also has a cheaper book for a lay audience on miracles, which includes cancer miracles.

Dr. Jacalyn Duffin is an atheist who is also a hematologist and medical historian. In this interview she discusses an unusual cancer case she saw:

>Her passion for miracles began in 1987 after she was asked to review a series of blood marrow samples in a blind reading.
>
>“I thought I was reading them for a lawsuit,” she says. “I was worried about having to face an aggressive lawyer in court, so I was really very careful when I was reading all these bone marrows and I couldn’t figure out what was going on when I got to the end of all that work.
>
>“The story was very clear. The woman suffered acute myeloid leukaemia, a most aggressive type of the disease. She went into remission following treatment, relapsed, was treated and went into remission again. The final bone marrow was a remission marrow, but such was the diagnosis and the fact that I was reading these several years after the advent of the leukaemia, I assumed the patient was dead.”
>
>She later discovered her report had been sent not to lawyers but to the Vatican, as an independent expert testimony in the case of a second miracle presented in the cause for the canonisation of Marie-Marguerite d’Youville, the founder of the Order of Sisters of Charity of Montreal (known as the Grey Nuns).
>
>The former patient is still alive and well today, 40 years on – a fact Jacalyn has no answer for. And since the Church usually requires proof of a second miracle to elevate a person from the title of ‘Blessed’ to ‘Saint’, Marie-Marguerite d’Youville was declared the first Canadian-born saint in 1990 thanks to the Prof Duffin’s testimony.
>
>.......................
>
>The story that surprises me the most is the one I was involved with clinically as a haematologist. You sometimes can get a second remission but the rules, the canon or dogma of medicine tells us that remissions get shorter and shorter. This woman’s second remission has gone on for 40 years, and I can’t explain that. There are no cases like it in the world. There are a few cases like that where they’re still in the first remission, or they got a bone marrow transplant which completely changes the terrain, but at the time she became ill, bone marrow transplant was not readily available to everyone.

She has a book where she examines the Vatican's archive of supposed medical miracles. It's not a book about "is this a miracle or not", rather it is a book on what these records can tell us about people in the past, especially people whose voice we normally don't get to hear (ex. illiterate people who's lives and testimony are described in the archives). One part I liked is when she pointed out that, contrary to the idea proposed by some that parents in the past weren't as attached to their children due to high infant mortality, these records show parents freaking out and praying desperately for their children when they are ill.

Here is a news article (including MRI scan) about a girl whose brain tumor disappeared after prayer.

If you want more concrete statistics on miracles in general, you may be interested in the work of Craig Keener: - https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525 - https://www.amazon.com/Craig-S-Keener/dp/1540964299

Or Lee Strobel's "the case for Miracles:"https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Lee-Strobel/dp/0310259185

Regarding concrete statistics for "words of knowledge", this is a specific charismatic gift. It's easier to find statistics on charismatic gifts in general. See for example: https://www.barna.com/research/survey-describes-the-spiritual-gifts-that-christians-say-they-have/

In other religions they call them "psychic abilities", "occult powers", "siddhis", etc. Feel free to look up statistics on those if you want.

Relevant sources:

• Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, by Craig Keener (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525)
• Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World, by Craig Keener (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Today-Supernatural-Modern-World-ebook/dp/B08MXZVXLW)
• The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural, by Lee Strobel (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Miracles-Journalist-Investigates-Supernatural/dp/0310259185)
• The Miracles: A Medical Doctor Says Yes to Miracles! by Mh. D. H. Richard Casdorph(https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Medical-Doctor-Says-Yes/dp/B007RXEG58)
• Why I Am Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today, by Jack Deere (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Still-Surprised-Power-Spirit/dp/031010811X)
• The Grave Robber: How Jesus Can Make Your Impossible Possible, by Mark Batterson (https://www.amazon.com/Grave-Robber-Jesus-Impossible-Possible/dp/0801015987)
• Demonic Foes: My Twenty-Five Years as a Psychiatrist Investigating Possessions, Diabolic Attacks, and the Paranormal, by Richard Gallagher (https://www.amazon.com/Demonic-Foes-Twenty-Five-Psychiatrist-Investigating/dp/0062876481/)
• They Shall Expel Demons: What You Need to Know about Demons - Your Invisible Enemies, by Derek Prince (https://www.amazon.com/They-Shall-Expel-Demons-Invisible/dp/0800792602/)

Craig Keener documents many miracles in his 2-volume set here:

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801039525/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_236M2TBBFAVGQ1FXA0PN

There's no theological obligation (i.e. there's no biblical text that makes such a claim) to take another believer's testimony at face value without proper examination, so I'd apply the same standards of evidence and reliability as with anyone else's claims. Would I believe them, be skeptical, etc.? It depends on the specific claims and the context, so for now, It's hard for me to say, but independently of that, I always prefer to be cautious than gullible, at least in regards to believing such incredible claims. On the other hand, by definition there would not be any scientific evidence for some event that is extra-scientific, that is, beyond the scope of explanation of science. Nevertheless, there are other criteria for assessing such claims, and multiple reports is a good indicator. I'm not an expert on the topic, so the best thing I can point you to is the work done by NT scholar Craig Keener, he has an excellent book (or series of books) about the topic of miracles and their credibility (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3LVXK736CT8U7&keywords=miracles+keener&qid=1648418011&sprefix=miracles+keene%2Caps%2C138&sr=8-2). Hope my answer helps!

>which we all know based on the face of there never being confirmed cases of supernatural events happening in our reality

Except they do happen. We have entire volumes of verified miracles.

https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

Numerous video recordings on YouTube as well.

Sounds like you need to read Craig Keeners 2 volume work on miracle accounts! https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

You're being a a bit unreasonable. The standard you're holding betrays your bias that these things aren't real. I'm not talking about a few one-off weird things, or placebo effect. This is a routine, and a pattern that is very common in my daily life, and the daily lives of almost all the Christians that I associate with.

Hospitals? My wife and unborn baby were healed while going on hospital visits...a rare condition with a high likelihood of infant mortality...but as we prayed through the pregnancy, the placenta and cord began actually shifting, moving, and regrowing visit after visit until it was completely normal. Doctors had never seen that before. Yet, we lost 2 other babies in miscarriages for other reasons. I don't know why God chooses to heal some times and not others. I said I've prayed for many people (not hospitals, but mostly nursing homes and public parks), and only seen healings a couple times. God is a person, not a force, so he will do what he wants.

Miracles were also very rare in the Bible. You might ask, "why not regrow a limb?" I don't know. I'm not God, but I'm sure it's happened at some point with someone in history.

What I do know is that there's a massive mound of astronomically impossible coincidences piled up over years in my life, and I'd be an incredulous ass and a stick in the mud to say, "yeah, but I haven't seen a limb regrow."

Even then, if you witnessed a limb regrow, you still could explain it away as some freak genetic stem-cell regeneration...after all, some creatures DO regrow limbs.

Hold a reasonable standard. There are several really good books which have scientifically documented miracles. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801039525/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glc_fabc_4EQYN8EYMC03T4T1KZNQ

Alien abductions? Yeah, I'm consistent. Enough genuine down to earth people have experienced something extraordinary. There is a phenomenon underneath that which secular academics have written about, and which fits into my Biblical framework. Might night be spaceships from Mars, since there is often no physical evidence, but might be more like demonic oppression which the Bible acknowledges is real.

Miracles from other religions? I haven't met anyone from another religion who experiences what I do...I haven't even heard of ANYONE besides Christians who experience it. You might be able to point me to one or two cult leaders who claim power, but that's very different from the dozens upon dozens of credible, in-person people I personally know who actually experience the power and presence of God with outward expression of supernatural power.

The point is, you've hardened your heart, and you should soften it. You should quit all the arguing with strangers on the internet, and deal with the deeper reason why you lost faith. God is real whether or not you deny it. You are accountable, and you should really examine why faith gets under your skin.

Anyway, that's all I'll say. You should read the book, but I doubt anything would ever convince you. I hope I'm wrong.

If you're looking for a reasonable analysis on worldwide healing reports, read this book

This book will challenge any non-believer's perspective on miracles if they're intellectually honest.

Craig Keener's book is probably the modern standard, IMO.

>There are processes that select for more complexity and rationality.

Again, processes require an agent to set up the initial process. That agent also must be very intelligent if the program goal is to select for complexity and rationality.

Also, an ordered process is not at all likely to arise within this universe. The reason being is that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states that the universe is constantly becoming more and more disordered: http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html If such a process has arisen, then it needed an agent to help it.

My point is simple: Name something else, besides what you think of the brain, that uses itself; and that is not designed.

There really isn't anything else. Hammers need carpenters, skis need skiers, planes need pilots, and computer need users. The brain is a computer, and as a computer it requires a user.

We haven't even talked about DNA, which is somehow a code without a writer. How can a code not have a writer? Check out this recent study done with DNA at Harvard: http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/93/writing-the-book-in-dna Quote from the article: "In another departure, the team rejected so-called "shotgun sequencing," which reassembles long DNA sequences by identifying overlaps in short strands. Instead, they took their cue from information technology, and encoded the book in 96-bit data blocks, each with a 19-bit address to guide reassembly. Including jpeg images and HTML formatting, the code for the book required 54,898 of these data blocks, each a unique DNA sequence. "We wanted to illustrate how the modern world is really full of zeroes and ones, not As through Zs alone," Kosuri said."

If the modern world is full of zeroes and ones, and DNA is a code capable of doing this experiment, then that code requires a super intelligent writer that exists outside the realm of the code (so outside the natural world) Same as a software designer exists outside the software.

>There's no evidence whatsoever anything like a supernatural realm exists, which is what my original post was searching for I believe.

Well, I just posted some evidence straight from Harvard. I would also suggest checking out this book on documented modern miracles: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801039525?creativeASIN=0801039525&linkCode=w00&linkId=ZT4A3RX5O2OMDWSA&ref_=as_sl_pc_tf_til&tag=roalll-20

Also, here's a link to my website: https://www.rocalternative.com/Testimonies.html

If we're going to go by empirical evidence here, then is it really logical to dismiss ALL testimonies of supernatural encounters? Especially when we are talking about millions of them that have happened over thousands of years? Not everyone can be insane or lying.

By the way, the number 2 isn't based at all in the natural world. It is not a material thing. Does this mean that the number 2 doesn't exist?

Btw, the reason I know all this stuff is because I used to be an atheist. It was because of all these things I've laid out, not to mention a few of my own supernatural encounters, that I was forced to change my mind about my former beliefs.

Check out this book by NT scholar Craig Keener (he is a protestant but I don't think the RC church would take issue with what he claims)

Obrigado pela forma respeitosa como escreveste o teu comentário. É de facto uma pergunta muito interessante. Vou tentar explicar o que acho, sempre com a noção de que posso ter um entendimento limitado.

Em primeiro lugar congratulo-te por seres agnóstico. Ao contrário de ateístas, admites que pode, ou não, existir alguma coisa externa ao mundo físico. Teístas (como eu) e ateístas recorrem invariavelmente fé, porque a crença (na existência ou não de Deus) não pode ser empiricamente comprovada.

Para efeitos do exemplo, partindo do pressuposto que Deus ou uma entidade sobrenatural responsável pela criação do mundo existe, e com a consciência que não temos provas físicas ou empíricas da sua natureza, resta-nos avaliar o que nos rodeia, o mundo físico como o conhecemos, à procura de "pistas". Da mesma maneira que um detetive de homicídio resolve um crime pelas "pistas" deixadas pelo assassino, i.e., através de inferências de lógica e ciências forenses.

Com base nesta metodologia, o Cristianismo é a única religião que apresenta coerência e "pistas" que me parecem corretas. Por exemplo; do ponto de vista filosófico, é a única religião que justifica a "salvação" única e exclusivamente pelo mérito de Deus, e não por nosso - em todas as outras encontra-se em nós o mérito, através rituais e trabalhos, para ganhar alguma recompensa sobrenatural. Do ponto de vista histórico, é a única religião que apresenta a narrativa de Deus a intervir diretamente, fisicamente na terra, através de Jesus, com prova histórica para tal. Do ponto de vista científico, não existem contradições com a ciência; o alcorão por exemplo afirma que o sol se põe numa nascente. Do ponto de vista profético, existem manuscritos datados a mais de 200 anos antes do nascimento de Jesus descrevendo o que "aconteceu" durante a sua vida e em particular morte. Do ponto de vista pessoal, nos inúmeros testemunhos que existem sobre intervenções sobrenaturais (existem muitos mentirosos e pessoas que imaginam coisas, alucinações, etc., sim, mas não serve para justificar a quantidade de casos que existem, não só nos relatos antigos, mas mesmo hoje em dia; se houver interesse aconselho este livro com testemunhos e casos em que até existem exames médicos a provar.)

Claro, é necessário fé. É sempre necessário dar um passo de fé. Quer para acreditar em Deus, ou num deus em particular, quer para acreditar que não existe de certeza qualquer deus - porque no fundo estás a assumir como verdadeiro algo que não é possível verificar empiricamente.

É por isso que nunca tomo a bíblia como prova de autoridade quando falo com pessoas que não acreditam: porque para eles a bíblia não é verdadeira e não serve como prova. Mas, pelo contrário, descartar todos testemunhos à priori parece-me errado (no caso da bíblia o volume de testemunhos e escritores é esmagadoramente maior do que nas outras religiões).

No fundo, e em suma, acredito no que acredito porque é o único Deus cuja natureza explica e fundamenta tudo o que observo neste mundo. Espero que a minha posição tenha ficado mais ou menos clara.

To be honest, the hypothetical case I had in mind, which might still happen, would be about an amputee -- but it is a small amount of specialized tissue, not something large and specialized like an entire limb.

However, I have seen two reports -- a kidney being replaced (Habermas) and a leg being regrown (Wikipedia -- sorry I can't recall the name, something Spanish from the 1500s).

I wonder if Keener includes cases of amputee healing in his volume. If you're interested, please read it and tell me (I have no money to buy it): http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525

Hi OP, thanks for the insightful post. You did a lot of collecting of good Bible verses to make the point.

Essentially, your argument is a reductio ad absurdem taking the form: "If X, then Y. Not Y. Therefore not X."

1. If the world is full of magic (as the world seems to be described in the Bible), then there will be verifiable, creditable magic to be present in history and in modern times.
2. But there isn't verifiable creditable magic in history and modern times.
3. Therefore, the world is not how it is described by the Bible -- a world full of magic.

I think you well supported the first premise. And the conclusion follows from the two premises.

The place to look is your second premise. The second premise you simply stated. You said that history and modern times are not replete with miracles (except ones that are "discredited").

If I challenged the second premise, asserting that anyone who cares to investigate miracle claims (from Christians or any other group) will discover that the observable world is indeed full of them, what would you say?

I'd venture that some people (and just wait for the comments!) will mock me. But let's ignore them.

• Some people will say that many miracle claims have been discredited. That's true! But many historical claims have been discredited, and that doesn't discredit all of history, only those claims. Many historical claims, and many miracle claims, have been credited and verified.

• Some people will say "Where's the evidence? Prove it to me." To that I say, four things: first, I'd say beware of sealioning. It's not my job to prove to flat-earthers that the earth is round. It's not my job to prove to materialists that reality is material and formal. If you don't know how things stand, or who to trust, that's on you. But if the question is sincere, perhaps start with Craig Keener's book, Miracles (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525) Thirdly, "proof" is completed when the proof has been given. Persuasion is not the same as proof. I can prove things to my five year old son that will not persuade him because he is being unreasonable. So you have to persuade yourself; the proof is out there.

Fourthly, and relatedly, the problem with doubting a thing's existence is that doubt disincentivizes the search for evidence. If I don't believe in sea creatures, I am not likely to go swimming in the ocean looking to "prove" to myself that the ocean is indeed empty.

All that to say, the evidence and proof are plain to most people and readily available unless you are (a) already so sure that you're right that you only mock and dismiss those who could potentially offer you evidence and (b) don't go out of the way to seek the uncomfortable truth about our world.

I believe in science, have a Ph.D., and have personally experienced miracles and know people who perform miracles with some regularity. So, despite skepticism of some particular claims, I credit many of the Biblical stories, historical stories, and modern stories. I don't think that I am weird in this way. Disbelief in the supernatural is a minority report, globally. Most scientifically educated Americans believe in the supernatural. About 50 percent of working scientists are religious and believe in a god or higher power (footnote: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/)

So there is nothing particularly wild or mysterious about the phenomena you describe as "magic." I've seen it personally, and hundreds of people I know have experienced it personally. So, when I consider the evidence impartially (including verifiable eye-witness accounts), I'd say your second premise needs revisiting.

But like I said, I appreciated the post, and enjoy thinking these things through.

I'd appreciate non-mocking thoughtful responses as well.

Cheers!

Edit: added footnote to verify claim that a slight majority of scientists believe in a god or higher power (51%) according to Pew.

No. On the contrary, I think it can be shown that theism is rationally obligatory; that is, that we deny the existence of God on pain of irrationality.

To avoid the conclusion of the Modal Cosmological Argument an atheist must deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason: He must hold to the principle that a physical object can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence. Schopenhauer aptly dubbed this a commission of, "the taxicab fallacy." The reason is as follows: Ordinarily, the atheist agrees that things have sufficient causes and explanations: headaches, global warming, diamonds, teapots, lightning. Indeed, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is a lynchpin of rational thought for theist and atheist alike. But when the atheist is asked to follow the principle through to its ultimate logical consequence (i.e., the universe) he attempts to dismiss it like a hired hack—and not because it is rational to do so but because he doesn’t like where it is taking him.

As we move through the rest of the arguments the cost of atheism continues to rise. Faced with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an atheist must deny the precept of Parmenides that ex nihilo nihil fit; in other words, he must believe that physical objects can pop into existence uncaused out of metaphysical nothingness. To avoid the theistic implications of cosmological fine tuning, he must (in an extravagant defiance of the principle of parsimony) postulate the existence of infinitely many unobservable universes. To explain the origin of life, he must believe that it self-assembled by chance in the prebiotic soup of the early Earth when on every reasonable calculation this is prohibitively improbable. To reconcile his atheism with the essential properties of human mental states, he must deny those properties—including free will and, with it, the rational content of his own denial. He must, finally, deny moral objectivity since morality, on his metaphysic, arises from evolutionary processes in the service of reproductive fitness. This has the absurd and unpalatable consequence that to first principles of moral reasoning (say, It is always wrong to bayonet babies for sport) he cannot give his unqualified assent. And when it is pointed out to him that his belief that, "Beliefs that arise from evolutionary processes serve reproductive fitness and cannot be trusted," is itself a belief that arose from evolutionary processes and so, ex hypothesi, cannot be trusted, he has no reply.

The entailments of atheism are counterexperiential and absurd. Atheism cannot be rationally affirmed.

On the face of it agnosticism would seem to be a very reasonable position to take. What could be more prudent than suspending judgement in matters about which absolute certainty is impossible?

Note, however, that to be agnostic is to hold that, possibly, atheism is true. And since to affirm atheism is to affirm that all its entailments obtain, to hold to agnosticism is to affirm that, possibly, all the entailments of atheism obtain: It is possible that physical objects can exist without a sufficient reason for their existence; it is possible that physical objects can pop into existence out of nothingness uncaused—and so on. Clearly: If it is absurd to believe that married bachelors actually exist then it is just as absurd to believe that married bachelors possibly exist. Atheism and agnosticism cannot therefore be rationally affirmed and so it follows that theism is rationally obligatory.

Against all this the list of objections you cite have no force whatsoever.

>We would see many religions claiming absolute truth that are incompatible with each other, all with fervent and devout believers claiming all others are misled > >Vastly different moral codes among religions, cultures, and nations. And time periods. And...this is what we observe.

Yes. But see posts 20 to 23 here

>Prayers would not be answered aside from what chance would allow. And...this is what we observe.

This is a bare claim made without support.

>Miracles would be locked away in the past and would cease to happen in modern times, when the population is more educated and has recording devices. And...this is what we observe.

Recommended reading. Plot spoiler: This massive tome is an encyclopaedia of well-evidenced modern miracles.

>No religion would have compelling evidence outside of their own holy books (or confirmation bias). And...this is what we observe.

Pish posh.

>Believers would commit the same atrocities as everyone else. And...this is what we observe.

If you are saying that some purportedly-religious people act immorally that is a very insignificant claim. If you are saying that the religious life does not overall conduce to the production and pursuit of virtue that is a more interesting but very controversial claim in great need of support. But even granting it, how does this prove there is no God? Man has free will.

>Believers would not live any more or less privileged lives; misfortune or good luck would befall everyone regardless of their inner beliefs

God is not a fairy god mother. He is concerned with his creatures obtaining higher order goods, not material comfort.

>Faiths would continue to splinter into more and more sects, and argue over interpretations of minutiae instead of consolidating

This is a subtype of the problem of hiddenness which theists have coherently addressed.

>Supposed miracles would be unfalsifiable or proven to be hoaxes or simply natural occurrences

Miracles are unfalsifiable? This is rubbish. The Resurrection could have been falsified if the corpse of Jesus had been produced.

>New belief systems and/or cults would appear and sometimes gain large followings despite seeming ridiculous to everyone else (ie. Scientology)

See the above link on divine hiddenness.

>Religions would often need apologists or lies to keep their followers, and that wouldn't always work. And...this is what we observe.

I came to Christian Theism through Natural Theology. I think that on the total evidence it is far more probable than not that there is a God and that he met us face-to-face in the person of Jesus Christ. You are implying here that natural theology has no force.

Well, sure. Anyone can claim anything about the state of a philosophical field but if you actually do the heavy lifting and lay out your case you would get both my attention and my respect. Will you do it or will you tentatively withdraw your insinuation as unsubstantiated? There is no third option—at least, not one that avoids intellectual dishonour.

>Religious beliefs would often demonstrably contrast with observed reality

On the contrary, see my opening remarks.

>Greater access to information would correlate with growing non-religious populations

Google some stats. The vast majority of people in the vast majority of times and places have been theists. Today religiosity is, if anything, growing.