Only atheists deny miracles

Why do you dislike 'Athiests' so much?

today majority of the people know science.

Do well to consider that we do not scientifically know everything... Some might say we barely know anything. A miracle could be ascribed to the unknown, nothing more than unexplained phenomenons. Therefore, science is silent on what you call 'miracles' because it has nothing to talk about, its stumped and cannot explain it. There are certain variabled in nature which I imagine are not scientifically explainable, they don't follow the pattern; Oddballs you could say... I'm no scientist but thats my view on it. Also if majority rules worked even the slightest bit the world wouldn't be in the crap hole we are now. Majority rules works only so long as the people aren't ignorant or brainwashed. Anywho :peace:

P.S. Which is actually sort of against theism... If nature does not follow an orderly code and breaks off from its "norm" then you could say there is no supernatural being controlling it. There is no perfection in nature if there are variables which do not fit; that is the very definiton of an imperfection.

Jesus did several miracles directly in the presence of public. But still He was crucified. Generally miracles are misinterpreted as magic or the events that might have happened in a routine way based on probability. Even today there are several people who perform miracles. God has given the power of performing miracles to even devilish people because miracle is the fundamental experiment to establish the concept of unimaginable nature of the unimaginable God and hence needs a wide propagation. Even today we have a clear demonstration of miracles by Bhagavan Shri Sathya Sai Baba. Several scientists have studied Him closely and accepted the genuine reality of His miracles. But some atheists with conservative mind misinterpret these miracles as magic. Of course magic also exists separately. If there is copying in one center of examination. That does not mean the system of examination itself is wrong and should be condemned. Even though Lord Krishna gave the vision of cosmic form (Vishwarupa) and Kauravas fell unconscious, they concluded it as magic only. In every religion the conservative lot is present and so in the religion of atheism also. They pose themselves as scientists. The basic characteristic of a scientist is to have open mind to everything and to analyze deeply before the conclusion. If the desired conclusion is not obtained, they accept the concept of hypothesis, which is the available possible theory till it is disproved. Some of them say that they will analyze the miracle by day after tomorrow, since they analyzed today the unimaginable event of yesterday. They are forgetting that the yesterday and today were very near to each other and tomorrow is far off. Today by high jump you touched the top of the door. By some practice you may touch the roof of house by tomorrow. The top of the door and roof of the house are very near to each other. But you should not pose that you will touch the sky by day after tomorrow. All this is due to conservatism, ego and jealousy towards a co-human form in which God exists.

Universal-Spirituality

So Scientists DO accept the reality of miracles???? Quit destroying your own OP. Also Christ was not crucified for his miracles, he was crucified because he insulted and outsmarted the pharisees of the day, even calling them hypocrites in from of their own people, for that, they crucified him.

Perform one. Perform one right now.

Also, the Heissenberg Uncertainty Principle says nothing of the sort.

It really does.You can only know either the position of the momentum of an electron. As stupid as the original post was, it was pretty clear that's what he was referring too.

The statement:

"In fact the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg establishes that there are certain concepts, which are beyond the accuracy of our senses"

is NOT what Hiessenberg's principle says. What you said is correct. What separates the two is why.

The OP is attempting to use the old and tired "Science can't know all!!!" argument in order to make a gap for God, and fails horribly.

Do well to consider that we do not scientifically know everything...

Some might say we barely know anything.

A miracle could be ascribed to the unknown, nothing more than unexplained phenomenons. Therefore, science is silent on what you call 'miracles' because it has nothing to talk about, its stumped and cannot explain it.

There are certain variabled in nature which I imagine are not scientifically explainable, they don't follow the pattern; Oddballs you could say...

I'm no scientist but thats my view on it. Also if majority rules worked even the slightest bit the world wouldn't be in the crap hole we are now.

Majority rules works only so long as the people aren't ignorant or brainwashed. Anywho :peace:

P.S. Which is actually sort of against theism... If nature does not follow an orderly code and breaks off from its "norm" then you could say there is no supernatural being controlling it. There is no perfection in nature if there are variables which do not fit; that is the very definiton of an imperfection.

ugh

and yes, knowing both the location and momentum of an electron is out of the current realm (beyond the acuracy of our senses) of science.

His inference, while badly worded, is correct in this limited scope.

No, not at all.

The mere existence of an electron is beyond our senses regardless of whether electrons move or not. What the uncertainty principal establishes is that the exact position of an electron is beyond our ability to known using current techniques.

It has nothing to do with our senses.

You are arguing symatics here and doing it badly.

For the scope of the argument and post, senses != touch, taste, sound, sight, smell. But encludes things able to be determined through current science, such as the existance of an electron, and its postion or momentum.

The reason we do not know the position of any given electron is not because we cannot perceive it with our sense (with the aid of 'tools') but because of the techniques we use. The only reliable method of locating an electron also causes it to move at the same time, so by the time data gets back to us it is inaccurate.

Or "anomalies" as they are known in science.

What the hell is "symantics"?

Whether you are using a microscope or just your eyes are you still not using sight?

Current science does not exclude our senses, it extends it. The reason we do not know the position of any given electron is not because we cannot perceive it with our sense (with the aid of 'tools') but because of the techniques we use. The only reliable method of locating an electron also causes it to move at the same time, so by the time data gets back to us it is inaccurate.

I don't even know why we are arguing this. This is rudimentary knowledge, something you should have learned in high school.