Do miracles invalidate faith?

Every time I ask Christians why God doesn't perform miracles in modern times, someone inevitably answers "because then it wouldn't require faith to believe in him". I'd like to devote this thread to trying to understand the logic behind this notion.

1st off, this is obviously a modern argument. For the first 1800 years, almost all Christians would have answered that he does perform miracles. The Catholic church has a collection of hundreds, even thousands of "miraculous" objects. So I highly question if there is any biblical justification for this argument; if there was, obviously 99% of Christians in history didn't get the message. No, this seems rather to be an apologetic, created when science had refuted the supposed miracles.

2nd, God never had the slightest hesitancy to provide miracles in the Bible. In the old testament, he will provide miracles whenever his existence is put to the test, for instance, when the Baal worshippers questioned Elijah about him, God gladly provided a miracle to prove his existence, a literal "bolt from the blue". Now, I have heard people say, "well that's the Old Testament, it doesn't count". Except that this stuff happens all the time in the New Testament as well. Jesus performed miracles. The apostles performed miracles. When Paul doubted Jesus's existence, God had no problem providing a miraculous vision to persuade him. This happened after Jesus died, so any doubts people had about whether God will perform miracles post-crucifixion should be answered.

3rd, the logic itself bends my mind. Why would God care about this? Why is it so important to him that his believers have no hard evidence when they convert? Surely a belief inspired by reason and fact would be better than one founded on a guess. Obviously I lack the omniscient, all-knowing mind of God, but it seems to me that if I were in his shoes, I would want my followers to be informed, not under the spell of blind faith. If God wanted people to simply guess his existence from faith alone, with no facts, why would he create the bible, or ever appear on Earth at all? This argument presupposes that God would want to hide 100% of the evidence of his existence; otherwise he would "invalidate" people's faith. Obviously no message of the sort is in the Bible.

Is my logic here flawed? Or is this argument complete nonsense?

Buddhism was espousing this before it was cool. uhuh

God was performing miracles during the old testament because people did not have the Bible, his inspired word, to learn about him.

Or something like that, that's what I heard.

Also, Catholics don't know anything about Christianity. I heard that too.

But God revealed himself to Moses and that is where the 1st 5 books supposedly come from, so for a lot of the bible they did have revealed works of God. That never stopped him from performing miracles.

The writings weren't widespread. Also, a lot of miracles were used to protect his people.

And they obviously did not "invalidate" his people's faith.

Many people don't want to acknowledge how a religion changes as the world changes around it. I think you make a good point that this is a new-ish development that wouldn't have existed even, say, 300 years ago.

I wish people would really explore their thoughts on this matter, and others like it. Too often I think the quickest rationalization is clung to in order to support whatever a person's current belief is. Critical thought and thorough investigation are sorely missing from religious approaches to answers.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And they obviously did not "invalidate" his people's faith.

Miracles are almost always individual. Rarely are they widespread. Meaning, there’s not much room for interpretation outside the individual.

Regardless, the entire question incorrectly supposes that a miracle is mutually exclusive to faith in God. That's a contradiction.
It's only a miracle to a person that has faith in the motivations behind it actually being a miracle. One man's miracle is another's extreme coincidence.

For truly obvious miracles like Moses tapping a rock (sounds wrong, man) to bring forth water or Joseph Smith digging a hole in a random spot in the ground to find an underground water source...it's more difficult for both theist and atheist alike to deny that they are miracles. They do disagree on the "origin" of those miracles: the theist to God and the atheist to very extreme luck/intuition.

But, really, I think your entire question, King Kandy, requires an incorrect or convoluted understanding on the subject to begin with. I think you’ve been tainted by idiot Christians.

Or are you talking about the absurd like:

Did Moses split the Red Sea?

Did Jesus raise people from the dead and insta-heal leprosy?

Why don't we have miracles like that today? Some have faith that those miracles are happening all the time, today. Did you see what I did there? They have faith that God is exercising miracles quite frequently today.

Why doesn't God just exercise miracles all the time? But...He is to lots of people. And it still requires faith to believe that not only God is doing it, but that it is a miracle in and of itself.

Also, there are more types of miracles than just immature magic things: a miracle could be a massive life-style change.

But, seriously, if your Christian peers are filling your head full of such garbage, do me a favor and tell them that they are clearly idiots. Don't hold back. Tell them a fellow Christian told you to say that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Miracles are almost always individual. Rarely are they widespread. Meaning, there’s not much room for interpretation outside the individual.

Regardless, the entire question incorrectly supposes that a miracle is mutually exclusive to faith in God. That's a contradiction.
It's only a miracle to a person that has faith in the motivations behind it actually being a miracle. One man's miracle is another's extreme coincidence.

For truly obvious miracles like Moses tapping a rock (sounds wrong, man) to bring forth water or Joseph Smith digging a hole in a random spot in the ground to find an underground water source...it's more difficult for both theist and atheist alike to deny that they are miracles. They do disagree on the "origin" of those miracles: the theist to God and the atheist to very extreme luck/intuition.

But, really, I think your entire question, King Kandy, requires an incorrect or convoluted understanding on the subject to begin with. I think you’ve been tainted by idiot Christians.

Or are you talking about the absurd like:

Did Moses split the Red Sea?

Did Jesus raise people from the dead and insta-heal leprosy?

Why don't we have miracles like that today? Some have faith that those miracles are happening all the time, today. Did you see what I did there? They have faith that God is exercising miracles quite frequently today.

Why doesn't God just exercise miracles all the time? But...He is to lots of people. And it still requires faith to believe that not only God is doing it, but that it is a miracle in and of itself.

Also, there are more types of miracles than just immature magic things: a miracle could be a massive life-style change.

But, seriously, if your Christian peers are filling your head full of such garbage, do me a favor and tell them that they are clearly idiots. Don't hold back. Tell them a fellow Christian told you to say that.

As far as mutually exclusive, that's the whole point. People told me that the two were mutually exclusive, and i'm basically trying to disprove that stance. Neither in the Bible, or in common sense, would having evidence make your faith somehow lesser.

Attributing someone's lifestyle change to God is selling them short. I can't think of a crueler way to demean someone's efforts in life than to tell them that everything they accomplished, was actually God working through them. I mean call me crazy but I like to think that humans can change their ways without a miracle.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But in the Bible, God will present miracles to convince non believers, see the example I gave with Elijah. How come if I hold out a sacrifice and dare God to light it, he won't send down a bolt any more?

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you’ and ‘with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” 7 Jesus said to him, “Once again it is written: ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Originally posted by Mindset
Matthew:

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you’ and ‘with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” 7 Jesus said to him, “Once again it is written: ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Originally posted by King Kandy
Unless its a Baal worshipper doing it, I guess.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But in the Bible, God will present miracles to convince non believers, see the example I gave with Elijah. How come if I hold out a sacrifice and dare God to light it, he won't send down a bolt any more?

In order to make the same parallel, you'd need a bonified prophet to be the one holding out the sacrifice of his or her own volition.

There's plenty of people claiming to be a "prophet" but how many are actual prophets?

Additionally, I've already presented miracles that definitely defy our current understanding of science and atheists can easily explain those away and have done so on KMC (Symmetric Chaos says my own personal "miracle" could just as likely be a remote viewer/telepath giving me a mental warning to save my sister...just as easily as it could be a magical skyfather. Who is to say he's wrong? God certainly isn't going to come around and smack him in the face and say, "It was me, dude".)

So what's the point of the entire discussion to begin with when all possible miracles still require faith?

Originally posted by King Kandy
As far as mutually exclusive, that's the whole point. People told me that the two were mutually exclusive, and i'm basically trying to disprove that stance. Neither in the Bible, or in common sense, would having evidence make your faith somehow lesser.

I agree. Blind faith is weak faith.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Attributing someone's lifestyle change to God is selling them short. I can't think of a crueler way to demean someone's efforts in life than to tell them that everything they accomplished, was actually God working through them. I mean call me crazy but I like to think that humans can change their ways without a miracle.

I'd like to think a little less like an atheistic jerk (but most of the time, that's pretty much the only way I think) and think of it more like this:

Some problems in life require someone else to help get over. Some problems in life require a strong support system and God to get over. Some problems can never be gotten over but God can be there to lighten the burdern.

DDM youre a mormon?

Originally posted by Mindset
DDM youre a mormon?

Yes sir. 😄 I know, I know....I have a foul mouth for a Mormon. Jesus didn't die for nothin', man! 😆

Originally posted by dadudemon
Miracles are almost always individual. Rarely are they widespread. Meaning, there’s not much room for interpretation outside the individual.

Sorry, but this just sounds to me like "Miracles exist, but there's no way to validate or test them" *sticks tongue out at science*

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, there are more types of miracles than just immature magic things: a miracle could be a massive life-style change.

I doubt Kandy considers those types of things miracles. The "immature magic things" aren't explainable through standard rational means. Lifestyle changes certainly are, and need no divine involvement to make complete sense.

I'm fine with using 'miracle' in a colloquial sense. For example, "She survived! It's a miracle!" It's an unlikely even that has ended in a positive way. But those types of things, exciting as they are, need no creator being to happen. It's just people ascribing an abstract quality to the physical forces of the universe that they don't fully comprehend. It's a modern-day version of "Zeus makes the lightning."

Originally posted by King Kandy
Unless its a Baal worshipper doing it, I guess.

There were two tests, first they heated up an iron bar until it was red hot and presented it to the priest who picked it up and held it for all to see without any sign of pain and without getting burned.

Then they did a more direct contest and had two fires built, one by a viking shaman/priest and the other by the Christian priest.

They had a berskerker try running through both fires and while he had no trouble going through the pagan fire the Christian fire was impassible.

Originally posted by Digi
Sorry, but this just sounds to me like "Miracles exist, but there's no way to validate or test them" *sticks tongue out at science*

You're being unnecessarily defensive.

Here's the real interpretation:

"One person's miracle is another person's probability realized", you know, almost EXACTLY what I had already said?

Or, in other words, the exact opposite of what you said. I have no idea how you landed on that thought when there was plenty of context to directly contradict such a fallacious conclusion.

Originally posted by Digi
I doubt Kandy considers those types of things miracles. The "immature magic things" aren't explainable through standard rational means. Lifestyle changes certainly are, and need no divine involvement to make complete sense.

You're like...

Not even on the same page.

I don't know how you could have possibly gotten the most incorrect interpretation from "immature magic things".

You seriously could not have been further from actually understanding what I meant by that: the exact opposite is the intention.

Even if you had no idea what the context of the statement was, a bit of context would have revealed the meaning to you.

For example, I had also stated he following:

Originally posted by dadudemon
One man's miracle is another's extreme coincidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They do disagree on the "origin" of those miracles: the theist to God and the atheist to very extreme luck/intuition.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, seriously, if your Christian peers are filling your head full of such garbage, do me a favor and tell them that they are clearly idiots. Don't hold back.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Additionally, I've already presented miracles that definitely defy our current understanding of science and atheists can easily explain those away...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd like to think a little less like an atheistic jerk (but most of the time, that's pretty much the only way I think)

So why did you conclude what you did?

Regardless, I called it "immature magic interpretation" because I consider those interpretations by theists to be..."immature magic interpretations".

Regardless, I disagree with what you said here: "The 'immature magic things' aren't explainable through standard rational means." There's always a rational explanation for every miracle, imo. Even if we don't currently understand all the science behind it.

Lastly, I do not believe we can scientifically and soundly say that people "deal with problems" only in a self-contained bubble of awesome motivation. We are a bit more complex than that. Some would like to say they got help from God and I do not see a way for you to say they didn't. That just smacks of "prove that God doesn't exist" to me.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm fine with using 'miracle' in a colloquial sense. For example, "She survived! It's a miracle!" It's an unlikely even that has ended in a positive way. But those types of things, exciting as they are, need no creator being to happen. It's just people ascribing an abstract quality to the physical forces of the universe that they don't fully comprehend. It's a modern-day version of "Zeus makes the lightning."

You do know that you're restating my thoughts in a different way, correct?

Edit - I think I understand where your interpretations are coming from. You're confused over the fact that I am a professed Mormon: you're putting a filter on my words as supporting any and all "Christian God Fearing Statements". The fact that you did not quote the sections that would have contradicted statements you made about the portions you did quote does say something to contradict that previous thought. However, I wanted to make it clear that I am trying to provide a reason for your erroneous conclusions.

Fair enough, dudemon. Just a case of misinterpretation. So you're saying that you don't believe in miracles in a supernatural sense, right?

I'd still disagree if you then say it's God working through the universe's rational means. But you're at least denying the sillier definition of miracles, so yeah, I think we're mostly on the same page.