Forbidden Knowledge: Why Books of The Maccabees Was Banned!

Are there areas of the world where miracles happen more frequently?

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural

John Loftus likes to pretend that if science cannot be used to confirm something then there is no reason to there is no validity to it. He agrees that we can't trust our own perceptions, yet thinks that science is the great equalizer. Further, anyone who points out that science can't tells us everything we need to know about reality is labeled by him as a science hater. This is not true. While he claims that believers have major intellectual problems he fails repeatedly to explain how science protects him from the same problems. He also fails repeatedly to correctly explain who Jesus is and what Christians believe about Him.

A Christian commented on a recent post having to do with how science could know the supernatural:

Let's posit for a moment that the supernatural does exist. It then follows that science, which by definition focuses on the natural, would have absolutely no means to measure it or detect it. It could thus never serve as a method and no scientific protocol could ever be established to rule it out, regardless of how real the supernatural would be.

Oh my gosh, believers have just pawned us god-hating atheists now, haven't they? *Throws in the towel in defeat.* Wait, on second thought, this is utter hogwash and it should be easily seen. So here goes.



Nope. Atheism has been pawned by God through over 40 authors and a period of 1500 years.

Let's grant that science by its very nature cannot detect the supernatural, or better, a supernatural being, since that's surely what he believes. Why would it bother anyone if this is the case? I see nothing problematic about this conclusion at all. If science cannot detect a supernatural being then science cannot detect a supernatural being. It's only a problem for a particular kind supernatural being, one that wants to be detected, and/or one whom we need to detect in order to live a good life both here and later in the afterlife. Without these additional characteristics a mere supernatural being is an unnecessary hypothesis, one we can safely live without.

 So Loftus admits that if a supernatural beings is necessary to live a good life here and in an afterlife we cannot safely live without him. I can hear the objection that Loftus is talking about being able to detect such a being. The problem however is that the God of  Judaism and Christianity can be detected. More than that He says that we have no defense for concluding that He does not exist.

 ¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20

I'm aware that people trying to side-step this by claiming that this scripture is wrong because we don't know if God exists. I invite people to read Paul's letter more carefully. He's not claiming that people instinctively know about Jesus and the need to believe and confess by default.  Far from it.  The letter builds from the idea of just knowing that there is a God to how you can learn more about that God in detail. In the above passage, the argument is that we know God exists because we can know somethings about God from what has been made. Let me make it simple: we can know more about God from just looking a what God has created - through um science. This means you do not have luxury of unbelief.

So we need to additionally suppose that a supernatural being wants to be detected and/or that we need to detect her in order to live a good life both here and later in the afterlife. Well then, whose fault is it if we cannot detect her through science?

According to Romans 1, science can help us to know about God. Who is right? Loftus or God? Due to my own studies in science and engineering, I'd have have to believe that God is the one who is right. 

It wouldn't be the fault of science. It can only detect the detectable based on the standard rules of evidence-gathering. So if science cannot detect the supernatural and she wants detected then the fault for this state of affairs is laid clearly on her back. No one else is to blame.

No, the problem is how you have interpreted the evidence, not the evidence, nor science. The fault is in you.

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

If you are a committed atheist or have no relationship with God, Paul was talking about you. 

 In fact, it must be what she wants, even though believers have been reduced to making stupid arguments in defense of religious experience as evidence for their three-in-one incarnating atoning resurrecting God. They have been reduced to looking like fools, since William Lane Craig still has not answered my challenge regarding the so-called testimony of the inner witness of the Spirit. I don't suspect he can. I don't think any believer who accepts the inner witness of the Spirit as reliable testimony can answer my challenge. Give it a go, someone, will you?

Does anyone not get this?

Loftus, obviously doesn't get it. If one just follows Paul's argument. He starts with studying the creation - science, to consciousness and morality, and then to Jesus Christ. One who can dismiss the testimony of the Holy Spirit has never had such an experience. Given that Loftus claims to have once been a believer must have never had such confirmation which best explains his apostasy. And given that God never expects us to live on Blind faith nor on just your feelings or what you think, no Atheistic argument based on these claims work.

Let's go deeper. Let's think outside the present realities for a moment, something required when comparing any given hypotheses. The whole idea that science cannot detect the supernatural is a hindsight Christian rationalization for justifying the Christian faith due to the onslaught of modern science.

Science has never disproved the Bible.  Atheists like Loftus like to keep asserting this lie but when pressed they can't really offer up a single example. There isn't a single example. Sometimes people like to bring up macroevolution but there isn't unanimous assent to macroevolution being a fact. In fact it's still under heated debate. Sometimes people point to the order the Bible says things came into being in Genesis 1 and 2 as being in conflict with science. However not everyone agrees. Dr Hugh Ross, an Astronomer, does an excellent job in showing how this conclusion is not necessary.  

Prescientific superstitious people would never have said this, primarily because modern science had not yet arisen. Anything that could not be explained by the science of their day was considered an act of God. Their God was constantly intervening in their world, even causing the sun to rise every morning. "You want scientific evidence that God exists?," they would ask. "You can see it every single morning when the sun rises," they would answer. This was considered "scientific" evidence in the minds of believers because, as always with believers, scientific evidence is considered by them to be the lack of scientific evidence. Get it? I don't either. This is the basis for a great deal of pseudoscience, something I've written on before right here, which has gotten the 3rd highest hits at DC in seven years of Blogging.

I don't get why God is still not responsible for things that we actually understand and can predict. The more we learn through science, the more questions arise. We also know that something is holding reality together. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that everything is breaking down - tending to disorder. Yet things are still being refreshed and living things are still being born. How why? The more we look into the atom, the more smaller and smaller particles there are and the more we don't know what is holding it all together. Science is important and necessary, but it's doesn't lead us away from God.

Not only this, but if we believe the Bible then anyone who wanted scientific evidence for God would just have to sail in Noah's boat, or cross the Red Sea with Moses, or live for forty years in the wilderness on manna and be led by a pillar of smoke by day and fire by night. They could go to the circus where for an extra shekel Balaam's ass would talk, or in the booth next to it they could see Elisha's actual axe head float in a tub of water. They could follow Jesus around, or Paul, or Peter, and see blind men who were healed, and dead men who lived to tell stories about their After Death Experience (ADE vs NDE).

Yes, miracles served as empirical evidence for God. However God is still doing miracles today. Didn't Loftus ever experience a move of  God intervening in his life or someone else? I thought he said he was a Christian. If he had never experienced such why would he waste that much time as "Christian"? I'm not buying that. If I had never seen God move or intervene I would have been giving up being a Christian the first year after I was saved.

So when Christians admit science cannot detect a supernatural being what they're doing is conceding the whole argument. They're conceding science has correctly concluded that a supernatural being cannot be detected. Let. This. Point. Sink. In.

Science can't conclude that there is no God to detect because it shows evidence that there is a creator. I concede no such thing given my own education in Physics and Chemistry and that God doesn't expect me to believe Him despite the realities of science.  As a methodology for finding out about the universe science cannot be wrong, but scientists can be wrong (and have been) in the conclusions they draw.

Breathe slowly and deeply if you feel like fainting. Get some smelling salts on hand. Sit down if you must. For if science could detect a supernatural being then Christians would be crowing about it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Don't try to Billy Goat me to death with your endless "buts." I know them. I've used them myself in defense of an indefensible faith. There are no ifs ands or buts about this.

Funny it doesn't seem to stop atheists from crowing about lack of evidence while they shut their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears. 

To drive this point deeper, if there is a supernatural being who wants us to detect her then she could have either, 1) kept modern science from arising in the first place,

He's been using modern science. 

or 2) kept on providing scientific evidence in verifiable miracles in the same ways we read in the Bible.

Interesting that Loftus ignores the verifiable miracles we have today. Too bad. He should read more of Dr Gary Habermas' work.

Such a supernatural God could easily have kept modern science from arising merely by keeping any thought of scientific progress away from the minds of people who were close to attaining such a thought. See, that was easy. *Snap* You're now stupid.

Why would God do that? Instead God has put scientific progress in us. And he's been merciful enough to gift it to even to unbeliever too blind to appreciate God or acknowledge God.  Scientists like Isaac Newton credited God for their successes.

Or, much more interestingly, such a God could have created an earth as a flat disk in a much smaller universe just as we find described in the Bible, with the sun moon and stars created on the fourth day to revolve around the earth, with no amphibians so evolutionary science could not have arisen. If God had created the universe in six literal days then *BAM* along with other things modern science could never have arisen at all.

I don't know what's more pathetic - that Loftus thinks that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat  that that the solar system is geocentric or the possibility that Loftus may have thought that this when he thought that he was a Christian.

Christians, could your God have done this or not? Yes or no? Now then, please tell us all why the rise of modern science is a much greater value to your God then the loss of so many billions of people to hell. You do realize that modern science is one of the major factors reasonable people all over the world think your faith is bunk, don't you?

Yeah, that is why they are wrong. 

 Of course, that's why you reject the other religious faiths as well. Ahhhh, the good 'ole double standard days which will end soon, but we'll have to wait for my soon to be released book The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.


I'm really hoping that Loftus does a better job actually describing what Christians believe in this book, because so far he has not gotten it right in his blog posts. He'd have a point if he could demonstrate that the Bible is actually wrong about something.

Isn't it funny that the more science has explained the fewer and fewer miracles believers claim to have experienced, exactly in the same way that science has disconfirmed the existence of UFO's from Mars?

Explaining day and night or the seasons or how birds fly is not the same as explaining how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead or walked on water. Don't get confused about what a "miracle" is  and isn't Science also cannot tells us the why, but it does a good job of helping us understand how.  Nothing about purpose. It's all meaningless without a designer or a creator. Science is a long way from explaining a lot of things. And what we can understand and demonstrate as true beyond a shadow of doubt points to God.

Debunking Christianity: Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural

FacePalm of Day - Debunking Christianity: How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?

Well quite a few facepalm worthy posts have come out of Debunking Christianity today. Where to start? Well, I decided to focus on Harry McCall's post about miracles because, in all honesty, it's really easy and I don't have a lot of time. He tries to show a contradiction in what miracles Christian accept and what we don't. He make a few bad arguments and missteps and while pointing them out won't change him or his views it's worth the exercise to correct error.

Here are Four (among many) Christian miracles:

1. There was a talking snake in Eden that talked (in Hebrew) to Eve.



Um...where does the Bible say the serpent spoke Hebrew? Before the Tower of Babel, no mention is made of what language was spoken. It could have been "Elvish" for all we know. 

2. Joshua made the sun stand still.
3. Jesus arose from the dead.
4. St. Raymond of Penyafort had a Sailing Cloak.

Here is the account of St. Raymond and the sinful prince and king:


Um...how can a monarch be a prince and a king at the same time?

This prince was an accomplished soldier and statesman, and a sincere lover of religion, but his great qualities were sullied by a base passion for women. He received the admonitions of the saint with respect, and promised amendment of life, and a faithful compliance with the saint's injunctions in every particular; but without effect.

St. Raymond, upon discovering that he [I'm assuming it's this prince doing the entertaining] entertained a lady at his court with whom he was suspected to have criminal conversation [read "illicit sex"], made the strongest instances to have her dismissed, which the king [is that the prince or his father promising but not exexuting?] promised should be done, but postponed the execution.

The saint, dissatisfied with the delay, begged leave to retire to his convent at Barcelona. The king not only refused him leave, but threatened to punish with death any person that should undertake to convey him out of the island.

The saint, full of confidence in God, said to his companion, "A king of the earth endeavors to deprive us of the means of retiring; but the King of Heaven will supply them."

He then walked boldly to the waters, spread his cloak upon them, tied up one corner of it to a staff for a sail, and having made the sign of the cross, stepped upon it without fear, while his timorous companion stood trembling and wondering on the shore.

On this new kind of vessel the saint was wafted with such rapidity, that in six hours he reached the harbor of Barcelona, sixty leagues distant from Majorca. Those who saw him arrive in this manner met him with acclamations.

But he - gathering up his cloak dry - put it on, stole through the crowd, and entered his monastery. A chapel and a tower, built on the place where he landed, have transmitted the memory of this miracle to posterity.

This relation is taken from the bull of his canonization, and the earliest historians of his life. The king [what about the prince?] became a sincere convert, and governed his conscience, and even his kingdoms, by the advice of St. Raymond from that time till the death of the saint.

Questions:

All four miracles are venerated by honest sincere Christian faith as having factually happened.

A. Form the view of an outsider; how does a non-Christian tell which of the above miracles (if any) are factually true?



My question is why would you think any of them is not factually true? Can God do anything or not? By definition, I would not consider a "talking snake" a miracle of God. I mean God would not perform a miracle to purposely mislead someone to disobey Him. There is a lot that would have to be taken into account to see if there is any reason to conclude that a miracle factually happened. Given that this isn't the purpose of McCall's post, I see no reason to recount them all here. 

B. How does one Christian faith (Catholicism) know historical truth by faith; while another Christian faith (Protestantism) knows the same historical truth to be a pious religious fraud?



I would not discount the story of St Raymond as a fraud. Why should I? Can God do what the story says happened? Yes! Why not? God made an axe head float in the Old Testament. Jesus walked on water in the New Testament. Why would this be such a stretch? And according to the story, people turned form their wickedness and obey God because of the testimony of this Miracle. It's a win-win.  I see no reason to discount it.

C. How can Protestants attack miracles (which Catholics believe to be true) as pious lies (St. Raymond), but immediately reverse themselves and claim to know real historical Biblical truth with the very same level of faith (Jesus’ Resurrection)? 

Here is where McCall falls flat. As a Bible-believing Christian, I can't discount any miracle claim without studying it and looking to see if it's true no matter what religion is claiming the miracle. By the same token just because a miracle is true doesn't make a religion's claim true. God can and does allow the devil to perform miracles. And sometimes God has mercy on people who are not Christians and sovereignty does miracles for them as well.  Miracles are not a sufficient proof for find truth. Look at what the Bible says about matters such as these:

^[a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. - Deuteronomy 13:1-4

This argument being made by McCall is what a failed arguments looks like, folks .

Debunking Christianity: How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?

Unimpressive Arguments - Debunking Christianity: Science Is Doing What God Can’t Do: Answering Prayers for Healing

Harry McCall wrote:

Spray-on skin, made-to-order muscle, and print-out kidneys aren't just science fiction anymore. Dr. Anthony Atala and Dr. Stephen Badylak, two pioneers of regenerative medicine, talk about the latest methods for building new body parts, and the challenge of growing complex organs like the heart, liver or brain.



Audio @ NPR:

What the Doctor Ordered: Building New Body

Harry McCall seems to be laboring under two false assumptions:



1. That God does not heal people.

2. And that regenerative technologies are not from God.



He also neglect the fact that there are documented cases of people's organs like kidneys being miraculously replaced after being surgically removed and subsequent prayer. Just look at what  Dr Gary Habermas says about miracles: CMW054: How would the Gospels Look Different if? Part 5, Interview with Dr Gary Habermas



McCall also neglects the fact that medical science and technology is not in spite of God but gifts from God.



²⁶ He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.” - Exodus 15:26



Debunking Christianity: Science Is Doing What God Can’t Do: Answering Prayers for Healing

Owned - Debunking Christianity: James Holmes and the Perpetual Miracle Objection

John Lofus has continued his series of blog posts in which he tries to judge God for allowing James Holmes to a massacre and injure innocent people at the premiere of the movie Dark Knight Rises at a movie theater in Aurora,Colorado. His basic contention is that if God is what Christianity says God is, then horrible tragedies should not happen leading him to the conclusion that God does not exist. In this series he tried to argue against why God didn't intervene. Before going through is post, I think it's important to remember that the fact that more people did not die in that theater is due that God did intervene. However God did not intervene in the way many of us think God should have, but we don't have all the facts or know what God's purposes are in this to judge God.


When it comes to the problem of suffering for a good omnipotent God, in my books I argue for the possibility of perpetual miracles from God that alleviate suffering among his creatures. I call it the Perpetual Miracle Objection. David Hume didn't use this exact phrase when he objected that the ordering of the world by general natural laws "seems nowise necessary" for God, but it's the same concept. Link. Let's apply this line of argumentation to what Holmes did and see another preemptive way God could have averted the massacre from happening if he exists and if he cares. 

I think scripture upholds that that God could indeed perform miracles continuously so that no one would ever suffer, but would that be really helpful? I don't think so. For example, what if it was impossible to fall off a cliff, building, or bridge because God perpetually changed physics because it would be impossible to die that way and each time it happens God delivers the person differently. If this were true, how would we be able to do science if we didn't know how nature would respond to what we do?  That's a huge show stopper. 

The other thing why is there a mutually exclusive choice between God being obligated to avert the massacre and the idea that if God does not avert it then he does not care or does not exist? Be real. Why would it follow that if God exist or cares that he should have stopped James Holmes. The choice that God would have a sufficient purpose for allowing is just left aside because Loftus has made up in his finite mind that there is no way that could make sense - something that John Loftus could not even begin to substantiate or explaln because he does not know everything.

Does anyone think God could not have created our world in such a way that some kinds of inventions could never be made? 

Sure God could have created our world so that some kinds of inventions could not be made. 

Nuclear weapons would be the most obvious example. If this universe didn't contain uranium (U-235) or plutonium (Pu-239) they could never be made. If such a universe could not be created or be self-sustaining without uranium and plutonium, then what's the problem for God? He could still perform one or more perpetual miracles after the fact, by making this world appear fine-tuned as it does without them. He could have created this universe as it now is and then later performed several perpetual miracles. What is there about an actually existing fine-tuned universe such that it is preferable over constant divine maintenance with the appearance of being fine-tuned? Is God lazy or something? He could even perpetually keep scientists from discovering how to make these kinds of weapons. But he either didn't think about these possibilities, or he cannot do what is required, or he doesn't care. You pick. 

There is no way that Loftus could know what possibilities God did or did not consider when God created our universe. I think it is really silly to suggest that the universe isn't fine-tuned because weapons grade uranium and plutonium exists. Again we don't know all the purposes for them and I'd argue that they may be very necessary for our very existence. As for the suggestion that God could have prevented scientists from discovering how to make nuclear weapons, I'd argue that God did exactly that. Ever wonder why the Nazis failed to develop the atomic bomb first? I mean given that all the best work in nuclear physics was being done in Germany. Why did they fail? Two major issues. Many of those German scientists were Jews and they went to work for the United States. The other problem was the Nazi scientists overestimated the amount of Uranium-235 needed to sustain an explosive nuclear reaction. They incorrectly concluded that there would be no way to extract enough U-235 for uranium ore to get the amount needed (about 15 kg). However, our scientist figured out how to do it (and it isn't easy) and that is one reason why not just any country can make nuclear weapons. And a plutonium bomb is even more difficult to make. God does indeed know what Gos is doing and we don't.

Weapons, that's what I'm talking about here.




But it was because of the same nuclear technology that made the bomb possible, also made the nuclear power plants possible. 

Let's weigh the advantages of the invention of gunpowder with the disadvantages of the human carnage it has caused. Would we be better off? Would the advantages be worth the human carnage?

And just how would anyone of us begin to judge or weigh that?

Would we be able to have roads, railroads, and bridges without it? Would we be able to mine gold or silver without it? Conversely, would we discover other means to kill large numbers of people just as easily? While these questions deserve more than simplistic answers I don't think there would be anything problematic in living without gunpowder.

 Gee, I wonder how would John Loftus go about proving that that is true.  Being finite and limited, no once could honestly believe that we don't need gunpowder.

 After all, human life flourished without it until it was discovered in the 9th century by the Chinese. The lack of gunpowder would inhibit the rise or modernity but why is that important to a God who merely wants to test our souls for an eternal reward or punishment? 

I wonder why John Loftus cannot see why God would want human beings to gain the technological knowledge that we have reached? Who says that God only wants to test our souls for eternal reward or punishment? God already knows that our souls are only worthy of punishment without God's intervention. The Bible tells us what God's purpose for God's people and it's not test our souls because God already knows how crappy we are. (see Romans 8:28,29). Regardless of whether you agree that it is true or not, you have to agree that God's purpose is not to test our souls for eternal reward or punishment.

This could go for such explosives as C-4 too, perhaps others.

Yes, it does. 

Without gunpowder James Holmes would only have a spear, sword and/or a knife. He would not do as much damage. He would not kill or maim so many people.

Not in a short time, but given that the other people in the theater were not armed, the loss of any life is not any less tragic even if there had been fewer people hurt of killed. It also would not change the thrust of the question for why God allowedJames Holmes to kill anyone. We don't know but what we cannot conclude is that God does not exist or that God does not care, no matter how much you want to assert it.

Debunking Christianity: James Holmes and the Perpetual Miracle Objection

Related articles

• 'Batman' Shooter James Holmes -- Sent Massacre Plans to Professor BEFORE the Shootings
• Miracle At Aurora Shooting 22 Years in the Making
• Graphic: James Holmes was a man with a plan
• John Loftus (Debunking Christianity) "is done"

Scholar Interview: Craig Keener - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted his interview with Dr Craig Keener on his research on Miracles. Anyone who has an interest in why we can accept Biblical miracles are reliable should listen to this audio interview!

Scholar Interview: Craig Keener - Apologetics 315

Craig Keener Interview on Miracles - Apologetics 315

Yesterday Brian Auten posted an Interview Dr Michael Brown did on Dr Craig Keener on his new book on miracles. This is one of those audios you have have got to hear!

Craig Keener Interview on Miracles - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• Keener on Miracles (inchristus.wordpress.com)
• Apologetics Debates: A List (faithbyhearing.wordpress.com)
• Word of the Day: Apologetics (crossexaminedblog.com)
• Keener, AL Christmas Lights (youngsblog.com)
• Defining Success in Apologetics (greatcloud.wordpress.com)

The Question of Miracles: Interview with Craig Keener - Apologetics 315

Here is an interview Michael Licona did with Craig Keener. They discussed what miracles are and give evidence that God is still at work today. It's a very interesting discussion. Got to Brian Auten's blog to get the link.

The Question of Miracles: Interview with Craig Keener - Apologetics 315

Recent Objections to Miracles MP3 Audio by Gary Habermas - Apologetics 315

Image by Vasile Tomoiagă via Flickr

This is a great lecture by Gary Habermas. He discussed what he thought about the philosophical claims for and against miracles. It's extremely interesting how important it is to defend why miracles can't be automatically discounted and ignored. This is another great resource from Apologetics 315.

Recent Objections to Miracles MP3 Audio by Gary Habermas - Apologetics 315

Atheism is Dead: Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

Mariano, has turned out a great post discussing the validity of Miracles in the Bible. I think everyone should read it!

Atheism is Dead: Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

Someone has anonymously commented that Pantheism is a better explanation for miracles than any theistic system and posted the following video.





After I finished laughing I realized that this fantasy must be addressed. The whole argument that since all theistic religions claim authentication by miracles, none can be true because if there was only one God then only one religion would have miracles and answered prayers. The Bible answers this charge in Deuteronomy 13:1-4.

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.

God clear says that He allows false prophet and false religions to have miracles of their own. Miracles alone cannot be used to validate a religion or system of belief. Another good example is how Egyptian magicians were able to duplicate a few of the Plagues God brought upon Egypt to bring about the Exodus.

In addition I don't think that just the existence of miracles is enough to consider. We should consider the quality of the miracles not just quantity. For example name another miracle, from any other religion, rivaling the parting of the Red Sea! Or the one Mariano started out with in his essay - The raising of Lazarus from the dead after three days! Or the Miracle of the resurrection - Jesus predicted it and executed His own resurrection saving all of us who believe on Him! What could be greater! It was like a base ball player telling when, where, and how he is going to knock the ball out of the park and by how many runs they will win by. Nobody is like Jesus!