SUMMARY:  Belief in God as creator and as standing for the doctrine that it is totally impossible for nature to come into existence from nothing or create itself.  The biggest assumption that people relate to God is that nature has no power at all to create or help create itself.  The creation of nature and its total dependence on power from a creator is the ultimate and the miracle that makes other miracles possible.  In comparison and if there was a choice it is the only miracle to be believed in.  The resurrection of Jesus is made central to all but that cannot be for creation is more central.  If you have a gun to your head and you have to believe the resurrection or the creation then you reject the resurrection.  The resurrection miracle is more about ideology then anything else then.  Matter is supposed to be unable to lead to life so life is believed to be another miracle.

So every individual item in nature and what it does is a miracle.  It is not potentially a miracle but actually is one.  It is a miracle as in supernatural even if the intention is not to be a sign.  It is taken for granted that a miracle is both a supernatural event and inherently a sign at least that there is a supernatural.

For practical reasons everybody including religion treats only some events as miracles.  This is about pragmatism and does not imply the religion thinks nature appeared by itself and miracles interfere with it.

A miracle is a supernatural event and distinguished from a paranormal one. Only a power outside nature can do the supernatural. A power within nature can do the paranormal. The Church says only God is truly outside nature. Satan may be able to do paranormal things but he will be within nature in the sense that God made him. The Church's miracles are hostile to science. Only God can create (assuming creation is possible which it is not) thus you cannot be sure a miracle is from God unless it involves creation.

The Bible says God rarely works directly.  That is another way of saying he rarely creates.  Does he ever need to work directly? A miracle believer can never prove that God worked directly in a miracle. He can give an angel the power to create.  And who says a direct act needs to be obvious?  What if that tree you found was only created before you came along?

A miracle such as a communion wafer bleeding cannot be verified because you cannot show that the blood was created from nothing there and then. What if some paranormal force did some trick and the blood was not miraculously created? If you have to assume the blood was created then the miracle is is not about giving evidence for God. It is no good and it is insulting to God to say he does miracles to show off. The advantage of limiting miracles to acts of creation is that it weeds out a lot of fraudulent and ignorant claims. However, only God can know if an example of a creation miracle really happened. It is no good to us.

Religion says that miracles are acts of God in which he creates something out of nothing. For example, if God heals an AIDS patient he creates health where there was no health before in the patient. Religion adds that miracles cannot be explained by the ways of nature. God is said to be the only possible explanation for only God has the power to make things out of nothing.
There is no evidence at all that creation by God out of nothing is possible. Miracles are said to be evidence for they are acts of creation. But they are not evidence for we still don't actually know if something has come from nothing at all. Creation is pure speculation.
If a miracle is creation, then most miracle accounts are not miracles at all. Or maybe none is. It would be a worry that religious leaders have presented examples of miracles to you that were not really miracles even if they go against the way nature usually works.
A thing that is already created floating in mid air is best described as paranormal - paranormal can be seen as nature behaving out of character.
A thing that appears in mid air and if you can verify it did not exist before (you cannot - maybe it was just undetectable or something but was still there) would be a miracle of creation.
If miracles come from nature, they can be understood by science if not now then some day so it would make no sense to call them supernatural. If they are not understandable for practical reasons they would be understandable in principle. They are not really miracles.
Science sees a universe that does not look like it needs a God to make and sustain it. If God hides, then miracles must be hoaxes or untrue. Why hide and then do miracles? Miracle claims are accusing God of being a ridiculous entity.
Miracles are events like magic. Religion says God does them. God makes all things out of nothing so he can do them. Making things out of nothing is a miracle.
Suppose a miracle happens. All you may be able to show is that it is unexplainable and that the testimony to this is reliable. You cannot prove or give adequate evidence that God did it or created it directly. All you get is an extraordinary fact. You can only guess what did it. What if it's an artificial intelligence that cannot be seen or heard just like God cannot be seen or heard? In fact, you would be entitled to make the best guess and that would be that it is some kind of artificial intelligence. It is false that miracles would show us the existence of God or that Jesus is his supernatural messenger.
A miracle may be praised when it seems to build up and help. But to do so something has to be un-created.  Every miracle of creation does a reverse creation for something else.  If it is good that something exists then it is not its fault that it is in the wrong place and wrong time so eliminating it from existence is evil. When miracles involve destruction why do we love them so much?  What if you get eliminated to help somebody else?

What if somebody is "miraculously" cured?  Presumably, God created the sickness out of nothing and then just for show reversed this creation. He decided to un-create it. Not only is this against divine dignity, but one is as much of a miracle as the other so what did he need to do the miracle healing for? What would he need to animate statues for? Also we don't know if an act of creation has taken place at all. Just because blood comes out of a statue out of nowhere it doesn't mean it really came out of nowhere. Spiritualists speak of apports. That is items that are transferred to earth from the spirit world. Miracles cannot be examples of God's creative power. They are examples of sleight of hand or sleight of something else.
The believers in God say that miracles are from God for they show he creates – that is he makes things out of nothing. Miracles are said by religion to imply creation out of nothing. Miracles are defined as divine acts of creation out of nothing. For example, at Lourdes in 1858 he made Mary appear in a place where she didn’t exist in prior to her appearance. He creates the apparition of the Virgin Mary. He has to move her from Heaven to earth by recreating her on earth. He makes diseases vanish – he creates health in place of the disease. God creates the miracle healing of the sick. But then if he creates the world and creates miracles then what does he need to create miracles for? He doesn’t need them as signs to convert us with if he created all things for the creation would be a sufficient sign. God gives everybody light anyway so he could make us all see that creation is his work that he made from nothing. To say he does miracles is to insult him and to infer that he doesn’t know what he is doing.
Science cannot comprehend or explain anything coming from nothing. Miracles imply an absurdity. Even the idea of God making something out of nothing is insanity. The distance between something and nothing is infinite so God would need to be infinite to bring something out of nothing. If he is infinite, that means all power is his and there is no power that exists outside him, so he has made all things out of himself. So we would be God. Thus the atheist being God can say, "There is no God and miracles don't happen" and it doesn't matter because he is God anyway.
If God is a something that is like nothing but not exactly nothing and which caused all things, science still will never understand him or discover him. If God has made all things out of himself then the insanity of the creation out of nothing doctrine is avoided. But most "authenticated" miracles deny this God. Would anybody want to believe in such an abstract God?The man on the street would not understand it and would have a more ordinary "god."
 There are no such miracles as an eye appearing in an empty socket or a new leg growing. If the healing miracles reported by the Church of Rome are true why do we not have eyes appearing in empty sockets or people instantly growing amputated feet? This is a question that the Church cannot answer for there is no answer. Why would God do the miracle of creating something out of nothing to heal a person in a less obvious fashion? For example, he may gradually create cancer in somebody he hates. Why not just make it appear instantly.
You are entitled to be sceptical that God miraculously removes infection from a person - meaning he creates health from nothing when there are no examples of a beheaded man growing a new head instantly. If he creates the miracle from nothing he might not care if the miracle is obviously creation or less obviously. Indeed if you do a miracle to show your power of creation you will make it obvious. Otherwise why bother? Is God more worried about what people think than giving a person the instant healing they need?
No being would miraculously cure people and refuse to do the type of miracle in which a limb or organ that is missing is recreated especially if miracles are intended to be signs. There may be either misunderstanding or deception involved in miracle reports when they are all rather pathetic. There being no creation miracles means that all miracles could be hoaxes or simply that creation miracles are not done which is silly for if they are not done then no signs are done.

The Christian will say that the person who is cured of a disease by divine power is the recipient of a creation miracle for God has created health where there was sickness implying that God does not need to do anything as dramatic as replacing lost body parts. God supposedly made him or her and the cure out of nothing. That assumes that nothing can come from nothing but if that is true then there is no God and if creation could come from nothing there is no need for God. God is supposed to be the cause of his own existence meaning that he came out of literally nothing. And all miracles are by definition creation miracles in some sense. For example, in visions God creates a unique and rare power to see and when he heals a person miraculously of cancer he has to create health where there was devastated tissue. But when God does creation miracles like that and does not recreate legs and eyes it shows that the miracles are probably misunderstandings or are lies. We reject the view that creation miracles happen for you cannot verify that they really came from nothing. To exploit them as evidence of creation is to beg the question. The miracles are so weird that we cannot rely on them as signs of the religion in which God’s truth is preserved.

No Copyright