Are the miracles in the Gospels true?

I don't understand the mining of the random word fictitious. Would you rather eliminate the word miracle from all languages ? since according to atheist the word miracle never could happen .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Miracles are the UFO of events. Just because they cannot be understood by someone doesn't mean there's not a natural reason for them. It's the advanced technology is magic thing. It's relative to the understanding of the observer and the wanting to believe in supernatural causes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The way it is written , " mother of Jesus said to the workers do whatever He (Jesus ) tells you what to do " It does not say if he Prayed or what ever it was done , so don't screw it up. Beside wine is a mixture of water, alcohol , grape extract molecules to give flavor to the beverage , I would not use the word atoms

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not really so hard not to believe in the miracles of the gospels. We already do that with the other 99% of religious/legendary accounts. Marduk, Osirus, Mithra, Zoroaster, Hercules, Buddha, Krishna, Orpheus, Apollonius, Mohammed, Beowulf, King Arthur, Joseph Smith, etc. What are the chances that of all these psuedo accounts of miraculous deeds you would somehow end up with the only one that was really true? Not very likely. In fact there is no better reason for rejecting an account than that it ascribes to the characters magical super powers. We simply reject such stories as myths and legends. We don't say, "Well maybe in THIS one case they actually happened."

 

I know there is a natural reason, but it usually centers around mass hysteria, or a misunderstanding of nature. For instance in India recently a religious statue was emitting some liquid which was considered a miracle, like it was tears or something. Actually it turned out to be a leaky sewer pipe. The man who exposed this fact was hounded out of the country.

 

I don't mind the word as a metaphor for something very unlikely, but that's not what the religious mean by it.

 

Correct in principle. But wrt the sense of your comment, you do precisely the opposite. Therefore, you are in fact lying to yourself--but you don't know it, nor can you be convinced otherwise... QED.

 

Why? What reason do you have to assume this?

For one, you just said that it was just a mixing of atoms, which means it wouldn't be above any natural law. But how would that make him God? We can turn grapes into wine. We can pull entertainment out of thin air with the press of a button. Are we also God?

 

Its called faith.

 

That's a non-sequitur. Faith is not a reason to believe, it is the mechanism by which one believes.