Miracles - the evidence is too hard to assess - its not for the layperson

David Hume stated that miracles are so bizarre no evidence can be great enough for them. The problem Christians have with this is that he was allegedly assuming that miracles don't happen instead of looking at the evidence that they do. That is the only thing they can say. If you assume miracles happen then you have no choice but to say what they say. But Hume is not doing what they are accusing him of at all. He is not saying that there is no evidence for miracle but that the evidence is not good enough to justify belief in miracle. It is they who are being the biased and narrow ones. Clearly is is better to listen to Hume than the believers. It is better both "morally" and rationally.

If Hume assumes miracles never can happen that is his right. Religion ties up faith in religion to morality meaning you are somehow bad if you assume what he assumed. God, according to the Bible, commands that we believe in him and the miracles he has done.

Christianity says that if somebody says a fig tree withers up miraculously by itself you would need very strong proof for something so strange. And yet when Christianity says Jesus miraculously made a fig tree wither up it does not look for proof at all. So you only need proof when it suits the Church! If that is not assuming then what is?

We all know that an orange turning into an apple is impossible. If it is possible, then the word impossible means nothing. If a miracle such as water turning into wine is impossible then no evidence will ever be good enough for the miracle. If something is impossible then the evidence that it happened is wrong. The impossible doesn't happen.

Proving that miracles are possible is more important than proving that any individual miracle happened. If the miracle is impossible then the evidence for it is wrong. But religion can't do anything to prove that miracle is possible. It admits this.

If there is evidence for the impossible then the evidence is entirely wrong! To say there is evidence for a one-headed frog that does not have one head is to say the evidence is wholly wrong. The evidence is not partly or mostly wrong. It is totally wrong for it speaks of what is totally wrong.

Until it is proved that miracle is possible, religion cannot use any evidence that miracle happened as a ground of belief.

Religion is just assuming that there is evidence for miracles. It assumes that the evidence really is evidence. It may as well do without assuming that there is evidence. It should just assume miracles happen and forget about evidence.

But it refuses to do that for otherwise it will be seen for the irrational curse that it is.

Some say that the existence of the universe is a miracle. Would it not be better to say that even if it seems to be, that it is not and that we are misunderstanding something?

Religion may claim that science cannot explain such and such an event so the event was a miracle. That should mean that in the past when less was known, that people should have believed in more miracles than we can now. It would mean that we should refute many of the miracles they accepted for we know better. If religion were honest it would say, "We accept X as a miracle unless further information comes to light". This is really provisional acceptance. But instead religion bursts with arrogance and says, "A miracle happened".

The more we learn the more we eliminate miracles. Suppose there was a god who seemed to be fulfilling a lot of ancient prophecies. We might think the prophecies were miraculous until another case comes up where it can be explained naturally.