LOL... exactly! That is why viruses are alive.
But, isn't that what I just said? Everyone looks at what they see and come to their own conclusion. Skeptical is not bad if one is looking for answers.
Are they logically justified? - Yes and no - depends on the person
Examples: A person has a cancerous tumor - then it is gone. Spiritual people say "a miracle" - non-spiritual - "spontaneous regression!" Who is right? Both have the same results.
More personal... a friend of mine, Cynthia Robinson. Decades ago had a skiing accident and broke her back and went to John Hopkins hospital. In those days the would "bridge" the break. After two failed attempts they said, "There is nothing we can do. Don't life anything heavier that 5lbs and don't have babies". She went to a Kathryn Kuhlman meeting and because of not enough sitting space they sat her behind the pulpit area. During the service, nothing happened and wasn't called up. Goes back to her hotel bedroom completely hopeless. Crawls into a ball on the floor next to the bed and bawls to God asking "Why". While in that state she finally gets the presence of mind and realized she had no more pain. Goes back to John Hopkins hospital and they said "We don't understand it but there is no break in your vertebrae. Our only explanation is a miracle"
Two babies later and pushing a lawn mower....
Now... there are two positions:
1) The believer or as the doctor placed on the report "It's a miracle"
2) the doubter - "Show me the X-rays - let me see the report (like I have her report in my back pocket), why isn't it in the news"
No matter what one says -- it is still going to be an issue.
But each person has to be convince by and of themselves. I believe in the "seek and you shall find et al".
I'm not sure about your statement of Tanakh. In archaeology, there are many words like "possibly", margins of errors, misapplication of what one sees and, sometimes, fraud. But, as I mentioned to someone, many archaeologists use the Bible as a reference point to find lost cities. It does lend to the support that there is a history that is written that can be trusted.
Which I acknowledge. My point was simply that many intelligent and wise people have come to opposite end of conclusions.
Perhaps because we interpret it differently? Sometimes we see something natural and don't know the supernatural aspects of it.
How many countries have had their populace spread throughout the world and maintained still their customs and language? Just one
How many countries were dispersed throughout the world and came back to
the same country, the same language and the same customs? Just one.
How did the Tanakh know that it would become a nation again?
After 2,000 years, how did Israel once again become a nation? | JJ Travel in Israel - and this doesn't include the Diaspora.
I see it as a miracle in every sense of history and probabilities. Someone else will simple say "self-fulfilling". Who is right?
Reminds me of what Jesus said, 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”
Jesus rose from the dead and people don't believe that either.
I guess I believe a lot easier because of the miracles I have seen.
Makes it easier to believe in the miraculous. As my testimony goes, "I was at a bar appropriately called Mac's Zoo Room staring into a Tom Collins and thought 'Where are all the miracles that I have heard about in the Bible stories?' Of course the only miracles in a Tom Collins that can be found is a next day headache or a pink elephant that night. But when I gave my life to Jesus, miracles abounded".
