Board index ‹ God

[Pyro]

> This is certainly not how the Bible defines faith. Good faith, according to the Bible, like good science, needs sound, rational thinking. Christianity is based in presuppositions combined with evidences, not in blind beliefs. In John 17.8 (also Jn. 14.11) we learn that faith is a judgment of certainty based on the evidence. Hebrews 11.1 confirms it. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There’s no absence of evidence here.

But there is, that passage is vacuous. Evidence isn't something based on wishful thinking.

> Belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.

Sure, but in the case of religious ideology and dogma, you have no chair. You have nothing but an empty sack. The "faith" one would need to sit in a chair that they always sit in is not the religious type of faith. It would actually be better to use the word "confidence" that the chair will hold, not faith.

Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith, because 10,000 times you've turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn't open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you walk forward in faith.

I don't see how this is analogous at all, and again, you are using faith in a different way here, though as I said above, I would rather use the word confidence, not faith.

> We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.

> I can only stand by faith on evidence, reason, and knowledge about things that haven’t happened yet, just like the chair, key, and doorknob. But I can make an assumption of truth about God and my Christian belief based on enough evidence to make it reasonable to make that assumption. And again, what we’re talking about is inferring the most reasonable conclusion.

The difference is you can actually test your doors, chairs, etc, because they actually exist in reality. There is actual evidence. There is not enough compelling evidence to warrant some sort of god, therefore you rely on faith. Again, if there was evidence, you would just say "I have evidence" A exists.

For the rest, I am really not concerned what the bible says about faith since it seems almost circular to even go down that rabbit hole. The whole point is faith is not a good pathway to any kind of truth. Muslims have faith, Scientologists have faith, you have faith, already you can see where this is going, and its not good.

[jimwalton]

> But there is, that passage is vacuous. Evidence isn't something based on wishful thinking.

It's always interesting to me how people interpret Scripture. The Bible specifically says that faith is evidence and certainty, and then you turn around say "Evidence isn't wishful thinking." Of course it's not. Evidence is material evidence, empirical evidence, logical evidence, eyewitness evidence, scientific evidence, mathematical evidence, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. The Bible, nor I, ever consider evidence to be wishful thinking.

> Sure, but in the case of religious ideology and dogma, you have no chair. You have nothing but an empty sack.

Wrong again. Christianity is a historical religion: Israel, history, the temple, Jesus, the Church. There's plenty of evidence for what we believe.

> It would actually be better to use the word "confidence" that the chair will hold, not faith.

Faith, confidence, no difference. You don't KNOW it will hold you until it's an experience in the present and past. You make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable. Only experience bears out whether your faith was accurate or misplaced.

> The difference is you can actually test your doors, chairs, etc, because they actually exist in reality. There is actual evidence.

Yep and, for instance, that's why Jesus, when he rose from the grave, didn't just ascend to heaven and expect people to believe. Instead, he showed up in the flesh, challenged people to touch him. He ate meals in front of them. He gave them actual evidence. Our task now is whether or not to believe their report. I find that the evidence is convincing. You, it would seem, do not. So it goes.

> There is not enough compelling evidence to warrant some sort of god, therefore you rely on faith.

My point is exactly the opposite. There is plenty of compelling evidence to warrant the existence of God and his actions in history. There are logical arguments far more convincing than the arguments against, there are scientific arguments more convincing than the arguments against, there are historical arguments that give plausibility, and there are arguments from experience that I find convincing.

> The whole point is faith is not a good pathway to any kind of truth.

I would never consider faith to be a pathway to the truth. Faith is a common type of knowledge that we all experience and to which we all give assent. Even in writing this message and clicking on "save", you believe that the software on the Internet will save what you have written so that I can read it and respond, and I am doing the same. We both believe/are confident/have faith that the process works, and so we act with that assumption.

> Muslims have faith, Scientologists have faith, you have faith, already you can see where this is going, and its not good.

Faith itself is not the value. Faith can be misplaced as easily as it can be appropriately placed. The question is not whether you have faith or not, but if you faith is in something that proves itself to be true.

[Vermont Choir]

> The disciples are not painted in the Gospels as being an astute bunch. In the Gospel of Mark there is only ever 1 thing that the disciples get right. Everything else in the entire book portrays them as "guys who don't get it." [...] In the Gospels they're quite blind. They don't get it.

So with a divine being in their face, assisting them in life and telling them how it is, they still just couldn't get it. The disciples weren't smart people, gotcha. They had an extensive history of failing to grasp the material they were being taught, with only a sole example of them ever understanding him right out of the gate. Your words, not mine. But in direct contradiction to the trend you have said that they set, you believe that the disciples not only managed to figure this one thing out completely on their own, but the fact that they made a claim about someone who wasn't around to dispute it isn't suspicious at all. As for me, I'm asking a few things: 1. how silly a person would have to be to conclude that the best way to convey a message across thousands of miles and thousands of years is by using people who repeatedly show me that they simply don't get it? 2. What kind of person would I have to be in order to believe that the wisest and most divine person to ever walk on the planet, whom I have never met, decided that complete morons are the best avenue to reliably relay the most important message in the entirety of human history? This is what you have to actually believe about yourself.

[jimwalton]

> The disciples weren't smart people, gotcha.

I was not implying they weren't smart. Intelligence is different from what I was talking about. It's almost impossible for us to analyze their IQs, but from what they wrote they're obviously not stupid men.

> They had an extensive history of failing to grasp the material they were being taught

Only before they were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. After that they had quite good understanding and erudition in explaining it all.

> But in direct contradiction to the trend you have said that they set, you believe that the disciples not only managed to figure this one thing out completely on their own, but the fact that they made a claim about someone who wasn't around to dispute it isn't suspicious at all.

Not a contradiction but rather a progression. Before the crucifixion, they were enthralled with Jesus as a person and His teaching. When He was killed they were both confused and crushed. After his resurrection they were in shock, I think, but convinced. After Pentecost, they were confident, knowledgeable, well-spoken, and bold.

> how silly a person would have to be to conclude that the best way to convey a message across thousands of miles and thousands of years is by using people who repeatedly show me that they simply don't get it?

Good comment, but you have failed to see the 180º change after the resurrection and Pentecost. What reaches across time and the globe is the bold, confident, and knowledgeable message that they finally DO get it, and its truth is life-changing.

> What kind of person would I have to be in order to believe that the wisest and most divine person to ever walk on the planet, whom I have never met, decided that complete morons are the best avenue to reliably relay the most important message in the entirety of human history?

What I find to be true is that one doesn't have to be rich, top IQ, famous or powerful to find God. Even a common person can find him. The message of Jesus reaches the poor and rich, man and woman, humble and powerful, famous and obscure. I find it particularly comforting that God is just as accessible to normal people as he is to the wise.

[Pyro]

> It's always interesting to me how people interpret Scripture. The Bible specifically says that faith is evidence and certainty, and then you turn around say "Evidence isn't wishful thinking." Of course it's not. Evidence is material evidence, empirical evidence, logical evidence, eyewitness evidence, scientific evidence, mathematical evidence, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. The Bible, nor I, ever consider evidence to be wishful thinking.

I was referring to your quote Hebrews 11.1 - "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." This is basically saying faith has nothing to do with demonstrable evidence. Yet you say there is plenty of evidence, its in scripture. If its evidence of anything, its evidence that faith is the absence of evidence.

> Wrong again. Christianity is a historical religion: Israel, history, the temple, Jesus, the Church. There's plenty of evidence for what we believe.

Historical evidence doesn't imply supernatural causes and effects. Even the most die hard atheists agree that there was Israel, temples, even Jesus existed. That has absolutely nothing to do with him resurrecting, performing miracles, talking donkeys, or demonic exorcisms.

> Faith, confidence, no difference. You don't KNOW it will hold you until it's an experience in the present and past. You make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable. Only experience bears out whether your faith was accurate or misplaced.

Where is your experience of supernatural? Ghosts, goblins, angels, demons, UFOs? You realize there are people who have equal amounts of "faith" that these things exist, and your only objection is that they are misled, or confused. How do you know you are not confused?

> Yep and, for instance, that's why Jesus, when he rose from the grave, didn't just ascend to heaven and expect people to believe. Instead, he showed up in the flesh, challenged people to touch him. He ate meals in front of them. He gave them actual evidence. Our task now is whether or not to believe their report. I find that the evidence is convincing. You, it would seem, do not. So it goes.

There are many theories on whether or not that happened and it is debated even among theologians. Even if Jesus did resurrect from the dead, it still doesn't prove he was the son of god, or omnipotent, etc. You are still left with an empty sack as Hitchens would put it.

> My point is exactly the opposite. There is plenty of compelling evidence to warrant the existence of god and his actions in history. There are logical arguments far more convincing than the arguments against, there are scientific arguments more convincing than the arguments against, there are historical arguments that give plausibility, and there are arguments from experience that I find convincing.

Even if I were to concede there is so much evidence for a god, which I wouldn't, that still wouldn't prove a Christian god, Greek god, Hindu god, etc. Atheism is on the rise, so clearly, all of that evidence you speak about is not so apparent to many people.

> I would never consider faith to be a pathway to the truth. Faith is a common type of knowledge that we all experience and to which we all give assent. Even in writing this message and clicking on "save", you believe that the software on the Internet will save what you have written so that I can read it and respond, and I am doing the same. We both believe/are confident/have faith that the process works, and so we act with that assumption.

Then to me its pointless. As I could have "faith" by your definition in anything, and that holds no weight.

> Faith itself is not the value. Faith can be misplaced as easily as it can be appropriately placed. The question is not whether you have faith or not, but if you faith is in something that proves itself to be true.

What do you mean proves itself to be true?

[jimwalton]

> I was referring to your quote Hebrews 11.1 - "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." This is basically saying faith has nothing to do with demonstrable evidence.

Then you didn't read what I said, and if you did, you failed to understand. Faith is "being sure of," a term that means "subscribing to reality and confidence in its truth." It says faith is being "certain" of what we can't see, a term that means "being sure of what can be proved." How is it you can twist this to mean "This is basically saying faith has nothing to do with demonstrable evidence"?

>Yet you say there is plenty of evidence, its in scripture.

I never said this. That's sort of circular reasoning. The evidences for God are in logical "proofs" that make far more sense than the rebuttal arguments, for the scientific evidence in the world around us that create far stronger arguments than those refuting, and in the life-changing experiences of billions and billions of people who subscribe to Christianity.

I said that Scripture shows us that the Bible defines faith as evidentiary, not "that for which there is no evidence" or "that which is contrary to evidence."

> Historical evidence doesn't imply supernatural causes and effects.

Correct, for the most part. The Bible gives theological interpretations of history, and those cannot be scientifically or historically verified—such as that "God defeated the enemy." There is at least one such event that can be examined both scientifically and historically as well as logically, and that's the resurrection of Jesus.

> Even the most die hard atheists agree that there was Israel, temples, even Jesus existed. That has absolutely nothing to do with him resurrecting, performing miracles, talking donkeys, or demonic exorcisms.

Correct. We all have to assess the material to determine, at the core, who Jesus is. We ponder his teachings, observe the responses to him, evaluate the claims of the resurrection, and look at history ever since to determine as best we can the truth about who He is. Based on that determination, people come to conclusions about the other material.

> Where is your experience of supernatural? Ghosts, goblins, angels, demons, UFOs? You realize there are people who have equal amounts of "faith" that these things exist, and your only objection is that they are misled, or confused. How do you know you are not confused?

I've never experienced ghosts, goblins, angels, demons, or UFOs. And I agreed that people have equal amounts of faith in such things. What I also said was that it wasn't faith that the the determinant, but whether we had faith in false things or faith in what is true. The object of faith is really what makes the difference, not the experience of faith.

How do I know I am not confused? Only by continually examining, doubting, questioning, researching, thinking, studying, and evaluating. It's the best any of us can do. We all do our best to discern the truth.

> Even if Jesus did resurrect from the dead, it still doesn't prove he was the son of god, or omnipotent, etc.

This is an interesting perspective. You make it sound as if resurrection is common and many people could do it. But you're right in one sense: the resurrection doesn't prove he's God. What the resurrection is designed to prove is that Jesus conquered death. We have to take the whole of his life: his mannerisms, attitudes, personality, teachings, miracles, and resurrection to try to discern whether he is God or not.

> Even if I were to concede there is so much evidence for a god, which I wouldn't, that still wouldn't prove a Christian god, Greek god, Hindu god, etc. Atheism is on the rise, so clearly, all of that evidence you speak about is not so apparent to many people.

We have to be thinking people. We have to consider the logic, weigh the evidences, and draw the best conclusion that we are able. Nothing that we have available to us right now "proves" a God. We have to assess the data and infer the most reasonable conclusion.

That Atheism is on the rise is of no consequence. But if you want to go with your flow of logic, according to the statistics atheists make up 3-5% of Americans, and theists make up about 75% of Americans. So it would seem that evidence of which I speak is obvious to a large majority.

> What do you mean proves itself to be true?

Just like anything else, we have to play things through. I can have theories, hypotheses, opinions, and beliefs, but what counts is what turns out to be true. There can always be plenty of theories about what happened, but once we find out the truth about what happened, all theories fall by the wayside except those that were true. Truth is what plays itself out to correspond to reality.

[Pyro]

> Then you didn't read what I said, and if you did, you failed to understand. Faith is "being sure of," a term that means "subscribing to reality and confidence in its truth." It says faith is being "certain" of what we can't see, a term that means "being sure of what can be proved." How is it you can twist this to mean "This is basically saying faith has nothing to do with demonstrable evidence"?

Because apparently, I do not understand your definition of faith. How can you be certain of something you do not even know exists? How do you know anything can be proved? All we have is a certain confidence level or probability. You cannot demonstrate or measure the supernatural, so what exactly are you having “faith” in? Again, empty sack.

> I never said this. That's sort of circular reasoning. The evidences for God are in logical "proofs" that make far more sense than the rebuttal arguments, for the scientific evidence in the world around us that create far stronger arguments than those refuting, and in the life-changing experiences of billions and billions of people who subscribe to Christianity.

Well you were quoting scripture to provide definitions for faith. I agree its circular, which is why I said I could care less about quotes from the bible referencing their own significance or terms. What “proofs” can you provide for the evidence of a supernatural Deity? Please provide this evidence.

> Correct, for the most part. The Bible gives theological interpretations of history, and those cannot be scientifically or historically verified—such as that "God defeated the enemy." There is at least one such event that can be examined both scientifically and historically as well as logically, and that's the resurrection of Jesus.

Again, even theologians do not agree about this, but I am not well versed in this, so I’ll leave it at that. There is not a consensus among scientists that “Jesus definitely resurrected from the grave”.

> Correct. We all must assess the material to determine, at the core, who Jesus is. We ponder his teachings, observe the responses to him, evaluate the claims of the resurrection, and look at history ever since to determine as best we can the truth about who He is. Based on that determination, people come to conclusions about the other material.

Well no, “we” all don’t. There are parts of the world that never even heard of Jesus, or his teachings, or his miracles, etc. Maybe in the Western cultures, it might be a prevalent ideology, but in many other countries, it is not prevalent, or even really considered, and many of those countries do just fine. Western cultures find it so compelling mostly because they were indoctrinated in to it. Just like any other culture and their main religions. At least that is my opinion.

> I've never experienced ghosts, goblins, angels, demons, or UFOs. And I agreed that people have equal amounts of faith in such things. What I also said was that it wasn't faith that the determinant, but whether we had faith in false things or faith in what is true. The object of faith is really what makes the difference, not the experience of faith.

What does that even mean? You said prior that faith is not a pathway to truth, and now that it is whether you have faith in things that are true or false that matters. This is contradictory.

> How do I know I am not confused? Only by continually examining, doubting, questioning, researching, thinking, studying, and evaluating. It's the best any of us can do. We all do our best to discern the truth.

I would agree, though you could still equally be as confused.

> This is an interesting perspective. You make it sound as if resurrection is common and many people could do it. But you're right in one sense: the resurrection doesn't prove he's God. What the resurrection is designed to prove is that Jesus conquered death. We must take the whole of his life: his mannerisms, attitudes, personality, teachings, miracles, and resurrection to try to discern whether he is God or not.

Well, back in the bible many people were getting resurrected, especially when Jesus was supposedly resurrected, yet all those people, if true, did not end up being Gods. So yes, if the bible was true, resurrection really wasn’t that big of a deal. How would you know you are even taking all those things you listed in to consideration accurately? Maybe his teachings were misreported, blown out of proportion, or just blatantly made up? Not to mention all the contradictions in the bible. Also, what about all the other gods, do you not take equal consideration and critical examination of them?

> We must be thinking people. We must consider the logic, weigh the evidences, and draw the best conclusion that we are able. Nothing that we have available to us right now "proves" a God. We must assess the data and infer the most reasonable conclusion.

I agree.

> That Atheism is on the rise is of no consequence. But if you want to go with your flow of logic, according to the statistics atheists make up 3-5% of Americans, and theists make up about 75% of Americans. So, evidence of which I speak is obvious to a large majority.

Irrelevant. Religion has been a predominant factor since the beginning of the Western cultures, so of course it has a majority. Indoctrination is a strong tool.

> Just like anything else, we must play things through. I can have theories, hypotheses, opinions, and beliefs, but what counts is what turns out to be true. There can always be plenty of theories about what happened, but once we find out the truth about what happened, all theories fall by the wayside except those that were true. Truth is what plays itself out to correspond to reality.

Sure, but you have all those theories, hypotheses, and opinions to find out the truth. You could be wrong in your assessment, but you go through that to find the truth. You would not go through all of that to expect a dice roll. If truth is what plays itself out to correspond with reality (which I agree with), then how does supernatural events work with truth, since they do not correspond with reality? By reality I mean “the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.”

[jimwalton]

> Again, empty sack.

You know, you need to stop concluding before we have the discussion. You'll remember that I defined faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable." We can never know with absolute certainty about the future. As in the illustrations I gave, on occasion chairs break, doors don't open, and cars don't start. But we can still be "certain," with the context about "certainty" being as certain as one can be, with real knowledge of the evidence, an assessment of the situation, evidence of the material structure, and pertinent information. It's the best we can do in any situation since none of us know the future with 100% "certainty." When we use the term "certain," we use it with a consensus about what we mean by that. Faith falls into that same category. Faith is the evidence of things we hope hope, the certainty of things we can't see (Heb 11.1). Faith has as much to do with demonstrable evidence as anything else in life.

> What “proofs” can you provide for the evidence of a supernatural Deity? Please provide this evidence.

We don't have room in this post for me to go into it completely. The arguments for the existence of God are cosmological, teleological, ontological, analogical, linguistic, arguments from science (design and fine-tuning), and from experience. Though none of them are irrefutable (everything is refutable), they are far stronger than the opposing arguments.

Cosmological argument: The universe had a beginning. The idea of an infinite universe is absurd. Something outside of the universe had to have caused it to bang.

Ontological argument: If God doesn't exist, his existence is logically impossible. If he does exist, his existence is necessary. Since we know God is not impossible, he must be necessary.

Teleological argument: We don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that was not indeed purposefully designed. Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose. Therefore it's logical to assume the universe could be the product of purposeful design.

Analogical argument: Everything we humans produce for a particular purpose is designed for that purpose by someone intelligent enough to have designed it. The universe has many characteristics that seem like it was produced for a particular purpose. It's reasonable to conclude that the universe was designed by an intelligent being.

The argument of other minds: I can't prove that other minds exist, but it's logical to believe that. I can't prove what other minds are thinking, and yet it's reasonable to assume they are. The bulk of my commonsense beliefs about others minds is more probably than not on my total evidence. Using that analogy, then, belief in God is rational, being more probable than not on the total evidence.

Argument from consciousness: Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions). The explanation for such mental states is either personal or scientific. The explanation for nonphysical mental states is not a natural scientific one, for no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical. Therefore the best explanation for now of nonphysical mental states is a personal one. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.

Axiological argument: Since there is evil in the world, there must also be good (or we wouldn't know evil was evil). If those words mean anything, there must be a standard by which to measure them. And if there is a standard, there must be a source for that standard. That source must be moral, objective, and personal.

Linguistic argument: Language is effective only if endowed with meaning. Meaning is non-material; it is neither energy nor matter. The essence of meaning is entirely distinct from energy and matter. Language demands a non-material source, since meaning is non-material. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes. The most plausible source for that is an entity with mental faculties qualitatively similar to our own but vastly superior.

God makes sense of the existence of abstract entities.
God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
God makes sense of the complex order in the universe.
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

The resurrection of Jesus. The established facts surrounding the resurrection, and the inferences that can be made from subsidiary arguments and evidences are more plausible than alternative explanations.

The credibility of the Bible: The historical evidences, its trueness to life, its value for life, and its spiritual power.

The testimonies of other people whom I respect. It's tough to deny when you can see people change right before your eyes from one kind of person to another, qualitatively different, kind of person.

My experiences of God. I am convinced God exists wholly apart from arguments. They are properly basic beliefs, just like my belief in and experience of the external world and the existence of minds besides my own, such as yours.

> The resurrection

Well, we certainly have to distinguish between theologians who want to study what's there and so-called theologians who want to disprove what's there. Everything is ultimately refutable. Philosophers can even persuade us we don't exist, the universe doesn't exist, and we can't know anything. Go figure.

> "The object of faith is really what makes the difference, not the experience of faith." What does that even mean?

It means that one's belief is not the determinant of the truth of something. Lots of people believe things that are untrue or wrong. The experience of faith may be valid, and it may not be, depending on whether one is believing something that is true or false. The object of faith is what matters.

> How would you know you are even taking all those things you listed in to consideration accurately?

I already said: "Only by continually examining, doubting, questioning, researching, thinking, studying, and evaluating. It's the best any of us can do. We all do our best to discern the truth."

> Maybe his teachings were misreported, blown out of proportion, or just blatantly made up?

We do the best we can to discern truth. Since we have 4 records of what Jesus said, as well as writings after that (with a reliable chain of custody), we have to assess what we consider to be authentic. Having read the Gospels and studied them, I find no particular reason to believe they are misreported, blown out of proportion, or outright fiction. I find instead the writings of sincere men trying to give historical truth to a skeptical audience.

> Religion has been a predominant factor since the beginning of the Western cultures, so of course it has a majority. Indoctrination is a strong tool.

Then what was your point? Atheism has a certain flair of "rebellion against the norm, and that is also a strong tool. You said, "Atheism is on the rise, so clearly, all of that evidence you speak about is not so apparent to many people." Atheism being on the rise has nothing to do with the obviousness of the evidence. The evidence for Christ and Christianity has never been universally accepted. There may be no particular association (direct associations are notoriously difficult to nail down) between the difficulty of the evidence and the rise of atheism. Many factors are at play here.

> then how does supernatural events work with truth, since they do not correspond with reality?

There is no evidence that miracles don't correspond with reality. logically and scientifically speaking, miracles cannot be shown by science or logic to be impossible. The way science generally works is by stating a hypothesis and then designing an experiment to prove or refute the hypothesis. None of this is possible in the event of a spontaneous miracle. Science can only speak to what is in the purview of scientific observation. Anything outside of that ballpark is outside of its scope. Science can't prove to us whether entities exist outside of nature or whether those entities could possibly have an influence in our natural world.

Miracles can only be proven in two ways: (1) They can be shown to be logically consistent with the physical world, or (2) By enough corroboration by credible eyewitnesses.

Scientifically speaking, the odds of certain miracles occurring (such as the resurrection, may be infinity to one, but theologically speaking they are x:x (unknown to unknown). Miracles are outside of the scope of probability calculations. Ultimately you are asking the wrong question of the wrong discipline. Science can really only work in a uniform environment that is predictable, repeatable, and (in this situation) controllable (a control group and an experimental group). Evidentiary demands require some sort of material remains that allow a phenomenon to be studied, but this requirement is outside of the sphere of what we mean by "miracle." Miracles are not predictable (so the situation can't be intentionally studied before the event), reproducible (so the situation can't be tested again to confirm hypotheses), nor controllable (cannot isolate causal mechanisms). Nor do they leave behind any material evidence.

It's absurd to think that everything must be subject to scientific methodology and verification. While we can bring some scientific thinking to bear as we evaluate them, they are just as much outside the purview of science as, "I forgive you."