A question for atheists

[Rand_Al_Thor]

coyote:

At the risk of severly offending someone I still must say…

Hitetlen,
Why cast pearls before swine?
Some dogs just contine to chase their own tails.

Pax tecum!

I bow before the intellectual superiority of the apostate Catholic who is so much more enlightened than us weak-minded believers.:bowdown:
This is exactly what I was talking about in my post. Atheists aren’t interested in rational discussion…they love to insult, though.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Nullasalus]

There are definitely antagonistic atheists, and I’m sure all of us have come across one type or another - saying how they know there’s no god, or if there is one they’ll flip him off for whatever reason (not striking hypocritical christians dead via thunderbolt, allowing misery and pain into the world, demanding worship, etc.) And then there’s the whole ‘flying spaghetti monster’ thing that’s popular on the net - that bit’s just becoming annoying.

But, I think it’s important not to consider atheists - even antagonistic ones - to be enemies to the faith on a personal level. I’m still trying ot figure out what I believe, but I do believe that if there is a God - certainly if the Catholic view of God is most valid - then atheists need to be approached with compassion. Some of them misunderstand christianity or feel at war with the social/political ends of it. Some of them have run into a whole lot of christian hypocrisy or idiocy in their lives and have soured on the idea. Some feel like the only things they can believe in are strict facts and the quantifiable. But I think all of them, if they truly understood what Catholics meant by ‘God’ would at the very least want to believe in such a divine being.

 

[Flopfoot]

Nullasalus:

And then there’s the whole ‘flying spaghetti monster’ thing that’s popular on the net - that bit’s just becoming annoying.

Pastafarianism

An interesting apologetics exercise for the beginner is to learn to refute the ‘beliefs’ of pastafarianism.

About coyote’s post, I think that he isn’t trying to offend anyone, he’s basically asking Hitetlen “why bother?” I think it is an interesting question too. Perhaps Hitetlen is just on these forums trying to understand and discuss, although sometimes it seems more than that, as if he is trying to make converts to atheism.

What exactly is he trying to save us from anyway?

 

[coyote]

Rand Al'Thor:

Pax tecum!

I bow before the intellectual superiority of the apostate Catholic who is so much more enlightened than us weak-minded believers.:bowdown:
This is exactly what I was talking about in my post. Atheists aren’t interested in rational discussion…they love to insult, though.

Unlike yourself though right
What is your definition of “insult”; choose the verb or the noun.

In Christ,
Rand

Aha! Another pseudo-mindreader!
Am I an atheist? Or, am I not?

Thanks for the compliment though.

 

[Hubriss]

I love you Hitleten.

I think I’m probably in between weak and strong atheism, as i am Agnostic. There really is no reason to believe in a god, even though I have been raised as a Catholic, but I don’t totally deny the existence of a higher being than us that may have created us being omniscient, omnipotent, immortal, etc, or not, it doesn’t matter (to me this being if existing doesn’t even have to be “intelligent” or thoughtful).

The reason why I don’t think there is a reason to believe in any of the conceptions of a god that we have today is that yes, there is no such thing as miracles. Most of the supposed ones we have today are of people living after near death experiences. You all say that science can’t find out how people have survived in those cases, but you assume that we Know Everything there is to know about us and our world (we obviously don’t because if we did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion). It is stupid to think that we could ever possibly know everything, even about our own bodies and Earth.

As for Fatima, we can know one thing. The sun didn’t actually move. It was an illusion to specifically the people in whatever place it occured in (probably some third world religious contry, i dont remember). We can know this because if it did move, people all over the world would have seen it and the temperature would have likely changed dramatically. The best explanation for it is some sort of mass hysteria. Some people saw something that may have looked like the sun was moving, may it have been some sort of light in the air or something. These few people would have then gone around and told everyone what they saw, sooner or later, you’d get people who say “yeah i saw it to,” when they very well know they didn’t. You then get many people saying that as they all want to be included in this supposed miracle, and vuala, you come up with the thousands of people or whatever that “saw” this miracle.

The problem with most of you is you think that atheists and agnostics don’t believe because it puts restrainments on their lives, disenabling them to do what they want. When I agree that there are many dumb people who are like that, not all of them are, there are many like Hitleten and I who really don’t believe because it really doesn’t strike us as plausible. We see the many reasons why there are so many different religions in the world both current and past, and we think of why that must be, not just say that people are tempted by Satan or that we need to be enlightened by god or any of that Bull ****.

When you guys say that us agnostic/atheist go around in circles, i laugh, i laugh really hard. Your whole belief in the bible and the church is based on a circle, with your thinking that popes and writers of the bible, etc, are infallable when they talk about truth, as you then say this infallability comes from the very thing you try to prove(god) with this concept.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

coyote:

Aha! Another pseudo-mindreader!
Am I an atheist? Or, am I not?

Thanks for the compliment though.

Pax tecum!

It was sarcasm, not an insult. I didn’t call you a swine or a dog chasing its tail.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Nullasalus]

Hubriss:

When you guys say that us agnostic/atheist go around in circles, i laugh, i laugh really hard. Your whole belief in the bible and the church is based on a circle, with your thinking that popes and writers of the bible, etc, are infallable when they talk about truth, as you then say this infallability comes from the very thing you try to prove(god) with this concept.

And some of us happen to think that atheists who laugh and deride people who believe are trying to convince themselves there is no God more than they’re trying to convince others. I’m sure the same can be said of particularly obnoxious christians too - people cope with their own doubts in strange ways.

There are christians who try to make religion do things that it simply was not made to do - there are even diets based on the bible. There are tacky, misunderstood, opportunistic parts of the faith. But there’s also a world of validity and insight that you’re apparently missing - take a look at how you discount what happened at Fatima. Did the sun need to move for the vision to be a miracle? Do you honestly think you’ve decimated the validity of the experience by proposing what you consider to be a rational explanation? Maybe - and I am not an expert on Fatima - it could be both. A particular coincidental visual oddity that happened then and only then, and still valid.

 

[Hubriss]

The problem I and most agnostic/atheists have with miracles, is that in order to believe in them, it necessarily entails believing in a god, or else they would just be normal occurances which seem abnormal or are simply not true. It mostly depends on what is convincing to a person. Maybe if it happened in America, this vision of Fatima, where people are less likely to jump to illogical conclusions, it would be more plausible.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Hubriss:

I love you Hitleten.

I think I’m probably in between weak and strong atheism, as i am Agnostic. There really is no reason to believe in a god, even though I have been raised as a Catholic, but I don’t totally deny the existence of a higher being than us that may have created us being omniscient, omnipotent, immortal, etc, or not, it doesn’t matter (to me this being if existing doesn’t even have to be “intelligent” or thoughtful).

The reason why I don’t think there is a reason to believe in any of the conceptions of a god that we have today is that yes, there is no such thing as miracles. Most of the supposed ones we have today are of people living after near death experiences. You all say that science can’t find out how people have survived in those cases, but you assume that we Know Everything there is to know about us and our world (we obviously don’t because if we did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion). It is stupid to think that we could ever possibly know everything, even about our own bodies and Earth.

As for Fatima, we can know one thing. The sun didn’t actually move. It was an illusion to specifically the people in whatever place it occured in (probably some third world religious contry, i dont remember). We can know this because if it did move, people all over the world would have seen it and the temperature would have likely changed dramatically. The best explanation for it is some sort of mass hysteria. Some people saw something that may have looked like the sun was moving, may it have been some sort of light in the air or something. These few people would have then gone around and told everyone what they saw, sooner or later, you’d get people who say “yeah i saw it to,” when they very well know they didn’t. You then get many people saying that as they all want to be included in this supposed miracle, and vuala, you come up with the thousands of people or whatever that “saw” this miracle.

The problem with most of you is you think that atheists and agnostics don’t believe because it puts restrainments on their lives, disenabling them to do what they want. When I agree that there are many dumb people who are like that, not all of them are, there are many like Hitleten and I who really don’t believe because it really doesn’t strike us as plausible. We see the many reasons why there are so many different religions in the world both current and past, and we think of why that must be, not just say that people are tempted by Satan or that we need to be enlightened by god or any of that Bull ****.

When you guys say that us agnostic/atheist go around in circles, i laugh, i laugh really hard. Your whole belief in the bible and the church is based on a circle, with your thinking that popes and writers of the bible, etc, are infallable when they talk about truth, as you then say this infallability comes from the very thing you try to prove(god) with this concept.

Pax tecum!

You have just proven your ignorance of religious people, just as you accuse us of being ignorant of why atheists are atheists. We Catholics, unlike most Protestants, do not believe in God simply because “the Bible says so.” That would be kind of silly–to base an entire belief on a single book. But the thing is, we don’t base our faith on a single book. We base it on not only that book, but on other books and other writings and historical records and, yes, reason. And your simple dismissal was exactly what I addressed in my first post in this thread: atheists will simply write off anyone claiming to have witnessed a miracle, even if it were 70,000 people all at once, as being hysterical or liars. Of course the most obvious thing about this is that you were not there and have most likely never spoken to anyone that was, so you are basing your whole argument off of a pre-formed opinion that miracles do not exist.

C.S. Lewis (who was not Catholic, but a High Anglican) wrote that either Jesus was a) a liar b) crazy or c) exactly who he said he was. And, I will add my own, d) just a “good person” with good ideas. No serious historian still doubts the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, so whether he existed is not the argument. The argument centers on whether he was God or not. Let’s go through them one at a time, saving c) for the last.

ctn’d below

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

ctn’d

a) Jesus was a liar. If Jesus was a liar, then he never actually performed any of the miracles the Bible said he did and he never actually rose from the dead. But the Apostles saw him perform these miracles and testified to it. The Apostles saw him rise from the dead and testified to it. For evidence that they preached this, see the writings of the early Church Fathers (some of whom, like Ignatius of Antioch, knew them personally), the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Roman historian Tacitus, who mentions Christians in Rome. Most of the Apostles and their successors were killed for what they preached. Since under the assumption of a) Jesus never rose from the dead, the Apostles were knowingly preaching lies. That would mean that they endured extremely painful death (Peter was crucified upside down and burned at the same time, and his brother Andrew was crucified on an ‘X’ shaped cross) to cover up a lie. What gain was there in that for them if there is no God and no Heaven to go to?

b) Jesus was crazy. Under this assumption, Jesus THOUGHT he was God and preached it. The rest follows a), complete with Jesus not performing miracles, not rising from the dead, and most of the Apostles and early Christians dying painful deaths to cover up what they would have to know to be a lie.

d) Jesus was just a “good person” who had good ideas. This seems to be the most popular line of thought among atheists/agnostics. However, Jesus was a devout Jew. No devout Jew would claim to be the Messiah if he were not…just look at what the pharicees did to him–they got him crucified for blasphemy, which is certainly what claiming to be God was. Unless, of course, Jesus was telling the truth and he WAS God. Which leads us, of course, to our last option:

c) Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[cynic]

I think atheism is based on the suspicion that God ( or Gods ) is an invention of the human mind so that we don’t have to accept the idea of oblivion at death.

Following the laws, self denial, constant worship of a being I cannot see and never hear from, well I’d have no problem with this is If I could have some assurance that God actually exists.
But it seems like believing in God is about …

• A way of giving supernatural authority to moral codes that have been neccessary for the human race to survive. (eg, fidelity, sacrifice for ones own children, service to others)
• Alleviation of guilt from the personal failings know about ( eg thinking naughty thoughts about someome not your wife, being enviouse, hateful, vain etc). We can be “forgiven”.
• The idea that we just ‘stop’ at death, that once all our neural connections stop firing that that’s the end, there is nothing more frightening…the idea of this is intolerable to most people. Being conciouse , we are uable to comprehend ‘ending’, not being conciouse anymore. ‘Nothingness’ is far more scary than a judging God or even hell. Belief in a God is about hope for life after death, and the more stringent Gods requirements, the more we must deny oursleves, the more plausable Gods existence becomes.

 

[didymus]

thistle:

To an atheist there is no such thing as a miracle. Even something that can’t be explained now they say will be explained naturally or scientifically at some stage.

And they would be perfectly correct.
Perhaps a miracle could be proven or disproven if it occured in a laboratory with scientific instruments running but such is seldom the case. For the skeptic that would just move it to the category “unexplainable at the present time.”

Faith is faith. I certainly would not believe any less in God or the Jesus if the Shroud were finally proven to be a forgery, or some other miracle proven to be a natural phenomenon.

The folks who get under my skin are not atheists but the ones who leave the Church and go over to New Age craystals, auras, channelling spirits, &c. They’d be better off as atheists.

 

[Hubriss]

You have just proven your ignorance of religious people, just as you accuse us of being ignorant of why atheists are atheists. We Catholics, unlike most Protestants, do not believe in God simply because “the Bible says so.” That would be kind of silly–to base an entire belief on a single book. But the thing is, we don’t base our faith on a single book. We base it on not only that book, but on other books and other writings and historical records and, yes, reason. And your simple dismissal was exactly what I addressed in my first post in this thread: atheists will simply write off anyone claiming to have witnessed a miracle, even if it were 70,000 people all at once, as being hysterical or liars. Of course the most obvious thing about this is that you were not there and have most likely never spoken to anyone that was, so you are basing your whole argument off of a pre-formed opinion that miracles do not exist.

You were not there either, and yet you believe it. I have never said that people are christian just because they base it all on the bible. I believe the bible and the church came at the same time. The bible is much of these supposed historical accounts, as is the other ones you can mention. BUT. They are not history. They were not written with the purpose of just recording events, they were written to convince people and influence them. For this purpose, they can not be deemed as history, or even completely true.

It is not just a simple dismissal. I have seen people who are, we’ll just say, not too bright. There are tons of people even in America which is the greatest country in the world, who really don’t know anything. Now, 2000 years back, were the average male had no education at all (but yes, were intelligent and wise in some cases from daily experiences) would have been a hundred times worse than some people we have today. Their lives were so poor and crumby that they were willing to believe in anything, and death was likely not much worse than what they had. However there were people like Jesus who knew how people think, was 'righteous" and did not like what was going on in the Jewish culture. The pharosies were manipulating the people for personal gain, and steared them away towards rituals and pointless practices that Jesus believed were not essential and actually strayed the people away from the true purpose and meaning of their religion. I tend to go with d) as you probably could have guessed. He was a devout jew, just not the kind the pharosies wanted. He attempted to reform the practices of the people, and stear them in the right path. He and his apostles believed in it so much that they were even willing to lie and die for what they believe in. If you don’t think that is possible, you basically say that it is no biggie when men, fighting for what is right and what they believe in, die for their cause.

Abraham Lincoln did it. He KNEW that there were assasination attempts on him, and yet he continued to push the war against the confederacy for the union of the states, and the freedom of blacks. But was he the Son of God? No, he was just a really good guy.

I dismiss miracles. YOU dismiss the possibility that there may not be a god.

 

[Hubriss]

I think atheism is based on the suspicion that God ( or Gods ) is an invention of the human mind so that we don’t have to accept the idea of oblivion at death.

-It’s not Entirely based on it, but yes, that is a major point.

Following the laws, self denial, constant worship of a being I cannot see and never hear from, well I’d have no problem with this is If I could have some assurance that God actually exists.
But it seems like believing in God is about …

• A way of giving supernatural authority to moral codes that have been neccessary for the human race to survive. (eg, fidelity, sacrifice for ones own children, service to others)

• Alleviation of guilt from the personal failings know about ( eg thinking naughty thoughts about someome not your wife, being enviouse, hateful, vain etc). We can be “forgiven”.

• The idea that we just ‘stop’ at death, that once all our neural connections stop firing that that’s the end, there is nothing more frightening…the idea of this is intolerable to most people. Being conciouse , we are uable to comprehend ‘ending’, not being conciouse anymore. ‘Nothingness’ is far more scary than a judging God or even hell. Belief in a God is about hope for life after death, and the more stringent Gods requirements, the more we must deny oursleves, the more plausable Gods existence becomes

Hit it right on the money!

 

[MrWhy]

Anim8:

Most of the people I know at least in some way believe in God, it wasn’t until recently that I had ever encountered an atheist. It was really weird because their train of thought is almost completely alien to me. Anyways I got to thinking about that and I was wondering. What do you guys think about miracles? I mean not just the ones in the bible, but the ones we can see today (eg. The shroud of Turin, Our Lady of Guadalupe ect.). What is your take on these things?

I understand your reaction about alien thinking. The same thing happens to me, but because I’m an atheist it’s with most of the people I meet.

To an atheist there are no miracles. There are events that cannot be explained due to inadequate information (evidence), lack of knowledge/understanding, or even insufficient intellectual capacity in our species. In religious matters atheists and theists think very differently about what constitutes “adequate information”. A religious lawyer or research scientist may have different standards of evidence for their work compared to their religious belief. This suggests that people do one kind of thinking in one area and another kind of thinking in others, but that’s probably not the case. We all know personalities that are skeptical in every area, and others that are not.

A person’s fundamental frame of reference has a lot to do with their belief in miracles. If you believe there is a creator god then miracles are not incredible. Miracles would be less incredible than the idea of a god who created them, so miracle acceptance is not a big stretch. There is no god in the atheist view, so any miracle claim automatically triggers a position of doubt. Atheists have no preexisting belief that prompts them to accept accounts of supernatural events. Even if an atheist witnessed a stigmata they would not accept it as a religious miracle, because that would be explaining one mystery (spontaneous bleeding) with an even bigger mystery (an act of god). As a witness, they would also require personal continuous close observation of the persons open hands prior to the start of bleeding. The religious person might accept this as a miracle based on accounts that were claimed to be from eyewitnesses. To sum it up, the degree of evidence required is related to how incredible the story is. Also how important is the story. Some hard-to-believe stories are about historical events that are of only academic interest, and have little bearing on our daily lives.

BTW, an atheist is not troubled by the fact that science or logic cannot explain everything. It just means humans are slow learners, or have insufficient capacity. The other critters on this planet have limits on what they are capable of understanding, and we may have as well.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Hubriss:

You were not there either, and yet you believe it. I have never said that people are christian just because they base it all on the bible. I believe the bible and the church came at the same time. The bible is much of these supposed historical accounts, as is the other ones you can mention. BUT. They are not history. They were not written with the purpose of just recording events, they were written to convince people and influence them. For this purpose, they can not be deemed as history, or even completely true.

It is not just a simple dismissal. I have seen people who are, we’ll just say, not too bright. There are tons of people even in America which is the greatest country in the world, who really don’t know anything. Now, 2000 years back, were the average male had no education at all (but yes, were intelligent and wise in some cases from daily experiences) would have been a hundred times worse than some people we have today. Their lives were so poor and crumby that they were willing to believe in anything, and death was likely not much worse than what they had. However there were people like Jesus who knew how people think, was 'righteous" and did not like what was going on in the Jewish culture. The pharosies were manipulating the people for personal gain, and steared them away towards rituals and pointless practices that Jesus believed were not essential and actually strayed the people away from the true purpose and meaning of their religion. I tend to go with d) as you probably could have guessed. He was a devout jew, just not the kind the pharosies wanted. He attempted to reform the practices of the people, and stear them in the right path. He and his apostles believed in it so much that they were even willing to lie and die for what they believe in. If you don’t think that is possible, you basically say that it is no biggie when men, fighting for what is right and what they believe in, die for their cause.

Abraham Lincoln did it. He KNEW that there were assasination attempts on him, and yet he continued to push the war against the confederacy for the union of the states, and the freedom of blacks. But was he the Son of God? No, he was just a really good guy.

I dismiss miracles. YOU dismiss the possibility that there may not be a god.

Pax tecum!

Lincoln never said he was the Son of God, so that is an erroneous analogy. You see, you still have not touched on some key points. If Jesus was a devout Jew, then that means he believed in God. If Jesus was a devout Jew, then that means he believed in the Old Testament Scriptures. If Jesus was a devout Jew, then he believed that claiming to be the Messiah when you were not was blasphemy. And Jesus certainly did claim to be the Son of God–the Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote that in his histories of the Jews. Jesus was not crucified because he told people not to follow the pharicees. In fact, in the Bible he actually told people to follow what the pharicees said, but just not what they did. Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be the Son of God; he was crucified on the charge of blasphemy. If Jesus were simply a “good Jew” then he would not have claimed to be the Messiah.
Along these lines, you would have to believe that Jesus never rose from the dead either, so again we have the senario of the Apostles actively preaching what they know to be a lie. These Apostles would have also been “good Jews”. Now Jews back then didn’t have a deep understanding of Heaven and hell, but they certainly knew that to blaspheme was to incur God’s wrath. So then we have the Apostles knowingly incurring God’s wrath upon themselves, and if the Gospels are to be taken as accurately recording what Jesus of Nazareth taught, then they had heard about hell from him. So now we have 12 men (13 including Paul) going around knowing that blasphemy is a sin that will lead to hell but preaching what they know to be blasphemy. No “good Jew” would do something like that because they believed in God and believed that they would have to answer to God when they died.
Do you begin to see the holes in this?

On a slightly different track, let me ask you a question if I may. Do you believe that the universe is infinite and/or self-sustaining? I would actually like all the atheists in here to answer this.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[puzzleannie]

Anim8:

. What do you guys think about miracles? I mean not just the ones in the bible, but the ones we can see today (eg. The shroud of Turin, Our Lady of Guadalupe ect.). What is your take on these things?

the appearance of Our Lady to Juan Diego happened nearly 500 years ago, and although the tilma said to have dated from that time is preserved, just looking at it provides no evidence of a miracle. The Shroud of Turin has scientific evidence on both sides of the issue on whether it is genuine. Those who believe in the venerability of these relics do so through the eyes of faith. Believers are free to accept or reject that they are genuine. Neither by itself is objective evidence of any miracle. No Catholic should base their faith on a created object, no matter how venerable, or on a created person. Faith is in Jesus Christ. If you faith depends on an object it is a weak faith.

 

[Hitetlen]

Anim8:

What is your take on these things?

As I read some of the posts, I suddenly remembered a very interesting event, something, I personally experienced. We were out on the nearby lake, a small party enjoying the approaching sunset, with some gorgeous clouds in the sky (this is important).

All of a sudden, we saw two Suns, not even close to each other, the angle was about 30 degrees in their respective directions. It was simply astonishing, we did not even know which one was the “real” one. The phenomenon lasted for about 5 minutes and then slowly disappeared. Of course there was only one Sun, the other one was a most convincing optical illusion. As we watched the “second” Sun to fade away, we realized that we did not really see the Sun at all (not even the first one), it was just the light coming from behind the clouds which gave the illusion of seeing it.

But the illusion was very strong and the light quite beautiful. I would not be surprised if someone in a more superstitions age would have sworn (quite honestly) that there were two Suns on the sky and declare it a “miracle”. Moreover, I was not alone, and everyone in our party confirmed that they also saw it.

So, as you see, this event (more or less) conforms with the “miracle” of Fatima, some seemingly inexplicable celestial event seen by several people (not seventy thousand of course, though I don’t know how many other people were out on the lake - it is quite large), a very convincing event at that.

So, this is the story of a “miraculous” event, I personally witnessed. You can believe me, or not, as you please.

 

[Nullasalus]

Regarding Hitetlen’s post.

But the illusion was very strong and the light quite beautiful. I would not be surprised if someone in a more superstitions age would have sworn (quite honestly) that there were two Suns on the sky and declare it a “miracle”. Moreover, I was not alone, and everyone in our party confirmed that they also saw it.

With all this in mind - and I don’t doubt your story - I have a question for you.

Let’s say you went back in time to the crucifixion and resurrection. You witness the whole thing and find out it went more or less as christians insist - Christ is beaten, put up on the cross and dies. He’s buried and, three days later, rises from the death. Again, you’re there - you can see, touch, verify all you like.

At that point, would you call what happened a miracle?

Now, a qualifier. Let’s say you not only witness all these things through your senses, but you’re given a gift - you’re able to understand exactly how all of this transpired on a material level. You verify the death, you watch under a microscope as the brain and body repairs itself - Christ rises in a glorified body, and you didn’t see anything that would constitute actual magic. You saw biological, material activity. Maybe not immediately explainable, but there’s obviously something physical going on.

Is this a miracle?

 

[Hitetlen]

Nullasalus:

With all this in mind - and I don’t doubt your story - I have a question for you.

Let’s say you went back in time to the crucifixion and resurrection. You witness the whole thing and find out it went more or less as christians insist - Christ is beaten, put up on the cross and dies. He’s buried and, three days later, rises from the death. Again, you’re there - you can see, touch, verify all you like.

At that point, would you call what happened a miracle?

Now, a qualifier. Let’s say you not only witness all these things through your senses, but you’re given a gift - you’re able to understand exactly how all of this transpired on a material level. You verify the death, you watch under a microscope as the brain and body repairs itself - Christ rises in a glorified body, and you didn’t see anything that would constitute actual magic. You saw biological, material activity. Maybe not immediately explainable, but there’s obviously something physical going on.

Is this a miracle?

I have to say “no” to both scenarios, meaning that they are not “miracles”. The second one is obvious: observing reality means that there is no supernatural involved. As a matter of fact, regenerating lost limbs is quite frequent in nature. The little worm called planaria is able to recuperate from being sliced into two halves.

Observing the first one I would have to assume that our knowledge is insufficient. As Arthur C. Clarke said once: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. To assume that a bona-fide miracle occurred we must contend that the event cannot be explained - now or ever - by using natural observations. In other words, something happened in nature, which cannot happen in nature - and that is a logical contradiction.