OK, also not wanting to debate the virgin birth, but the Bible does unambiguously identify it as miraculous; not only is there the bit in Matt 1:18-20 cited by tim314, but there’s Luke 1:34, where mary replies “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” to the angel, in response to his declaration that she was going to have a baby.
One more thing about proof:
The nice thing about mathematical proofs is that you can show someone your assumptions, and you can show them the steps that lead you to your conclusion. You don’t have to take my word for it that the Pythagorean theorem is true – I can prove to you it’s true. Faith obviously doesn’t share that property.
Saying “I have faith” doesn’t seem that different than saying “I believe it wholeheartedly.” Which, at least for anyone outside your own head, leaves the question unanswered: “Why?”
Although to reiterate, I’m not just asking “Why do you believe?”, I’m asking “Why do you believe with less proof than you’d normally require before accepting such extreme claims?” It seems to me that everyone believes some things without proof (although in some cases it’s a much more minimal set) – what’s perplexing to me is that it seems people are being inconsistent with how much proof they expect.
Let me try to recast my OP to identify more clearly what I’m asking:
[ol]
[li] Name one miracle (from the Bible or other religious book) which you personally believe occurred. (Not including something you believe happened, but without being a miracle. E.g., “Lazarus was really just sleeping when Jesus woke him up”.)[/li][li] If I told you that I witnessed a similar occurrence last week, how much evidence would you require before believing me?[/li][li] Does the Bible provide that same level of evidence? If not, why do you still believe?[/li][/ol]
Of course, if you don’t believe in miracles then you may be as in the dark as me, but feel free to speculate.
Substitute the words “unmarried young lady” for virgin… is it still miraculous? I could further argue that the “mary quote” was heresay only, and possibly an imbelishment to furhter the prophecy fullfillment angle.
Point being that text does not neccisarily imply she hadn’t had sex… Bill Clinton would still claim that wrt Monica… might imply she didn’t understand, or any number of things.
It could also imply exactly what you think it does, as that is what it has been taught to imply over the centuries.
But it doesn’t have to, and that is the point… there could be perfectly plausible ‘natural’ explanations for the miracles, given honest thougth.
Which basically means that I agree with the OP’s premise… why do we insist that certian things are “miraculous” when a) we wouldnt believe it now from an eyewitness and b) there are other explanations possible given the language, the culture and the intent of the author of the work.
(Both Gospels quoted here were written as testaments, they had a job to do to teach/bestow others the “good news”, its not unreasonable to assume that the authors used language specific to the task of ‘proving’ the gospel (Good News) to be valid, and that their new Messiah was ‘The Messiah’… ).
I’m an unmarried young lady and I’m pregnant, how can this be? No, it doesn’t imply a miracle, it implies that she’s either stupid or naive. I think the miracle/virgin explanation is far more plausible.
Now the Isaiah reference is not to a miracle, of course. The mistranslation is what caused the Gospel writers to think a miracle was necessary to explain the Biblical prophecy.
Kind of like someone reading a scene with horse flies, and illustrates it with pictures of little Pegasuses. 
OR they knew exactly what it meant and it is the folks after them (us, more or less) that think a miracle is neccesary to explain it…
I’ve had plenty of discussions with ‘pregnant people*’ that knew they were pregnant prior to any test being able to prove it, this could be the same as an “angel telling her” - we just call it intuition now.
IOW, the narrative does not require a miracle.
*not all of them were married, or young, but they all had had sex.
In Luke, an angel tells Mary “you will conceive” and Mary says “How? I have never knocketh boots with any man?” (actually she says "I do not ‘know’ any man, but ‘know’ is a euphemism). The angel says “the Holy Ghost will come upon you.”
[INNER 12 YEAR OLD] So I guess that answers the question of who provided the semen. [/12 YEAR OLD]
Seriously, I don’t think there’s much question that Matthew and Luke intended to imply literal, physical virginity for Mary. Matthew even says that Joseph agreed not to tap her until after Jesus was born. I guess you could see the statement that …before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. to be a sanitized way to say that she put horns on Joseph before their wedding, but I find it less than credible that such was Matthew’s intent.
Actually, luke might have a little more ambiguity. The angel tells her “you will conceive” 9not that she already has) and Mary says “I do not know any man” (not that she won’t in the future. Then (after some stuff with Elizabeth and John the Baptist) Luke skips an indefinite period of time to Joseph and Mary travelling to Bethlehem with Mary now 9 months pregnant. It might be possible to read Luke (if you squint a little) as representing a natural conception with divine implications.
Some years ago (OK; over two hundred years ago but it seems like yesterday to a geezer like me) David Hume wrote an essay entitled “Can Miracles Be Known to Happen?” He starts by suggesting he has an argument that will “be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” It’s worth reading.
It wouldn’t be fair to Dave for me to summarize his reasoning. The basic premise is that since miracles are contrary to the laws of nature as we perceive them, it’s more likely the report of the miracle is wrong rather than that the law has been violated. (It’s irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not we have the law correct; the assumption of a miracle is that it violates a law of nature, and not that what appears to be a miracle is actually just an incorrect understanding of a Natural Law.)
Anyway, the last paragraph of the essay addresses your point of why Christians still believe:
“…we may conclude that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.”
For the person who believes–who feels he or she has been “given faith”–I think this nicely summarizes their position. An event which feels external to their reasoning-- “being given faith” --has subverted their natural logic which would otherwise have led them astray.
That’s why Christians (and other religions) believe what they do. They feel they have been given a miraculous inside track on Truth.
Remember, an angel (or God, I forget) came to Sarah telling her she was pregnant at a ripe old age. The angel part is not the same order of miracle as the no sex part.
OK lets add a bit, lets say Joe Schmo has the proof in hand. but there is no way you are capable of understanding it.
Actually it can be and it is how I see it. There is one true God, and one head enemy - Satan. Satan is responsible for all false religions. So they are 2 sides of the same coin - nothing is contradictory.
This is I think the meat of it. The answer is creditability. God has much more credibility then any other person I know.
And perhaps related to this point:
It’s important to remember that all (IIRC) of the miracles described in the Bible are attributed to God. They are things God does, either directly or working through a human being. (For example, the tricks Moses does to impress Pharoah: it’s clearly God providing the special effects.)
Once you believe in a God who created the world, it’s not that much of a stretch to believe that he can and, at least occasionally, does do things that go contrary to the normal rules by which that world operates. (i.e. he’s left himself a “wizard mode”?)
That still leaves all sorts of questions, such as whether any particular miraculous event, whether described in the Bible or elsewhere, actually happened as described, and whether it was really a miracle or whether it was done through some trickery or other naturally explanable phenomena; and whether, when, and why God would step in and do things that go against the way he usually lets the world run.
Zero points for readability. Reject. If no one can get anything out of it, it’s useless. You’d think god could afford a good tech writer.
I feel sorry for you. Your circle of acquaintances must include some real doozies. 
And leads to such topics as “Is God Dead”? which I believe reflects the observation by relatively unbiased parties that if true miracles happened at the drop of a hat thousands of years ago, why aren’t they happening now?
My answer to that is similar to points of view expressed earlier in this thread, that our standards of proof and likelihood of unquestioning belief were different then. And once the “event” became frozen in text, it was no longer questioned.
This reasoning could have been (and is) advanced by Muslims as well. Every suicide bomber has gone to his grave under the same paradigm.
Accepting something as true for yourself because you personally know it to be true and have been given the faith to embrace it may be sufficient for you.
Explaining all other belief systems as being from the Devil may be equally comforting.
To outsiders looking in, it is indistinguishable from schizophrenia or any other delusional state.
So just because you are incapable of understanding the valid and true proof you are faulting the one who proved it? Have you understood every proof of every scientific fact - or do you accept on ‘faith’ some of them, which you depend on the credibility of the source?
I’m not sure about the Muslem bad guy, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they think everyone else is deceived by their version of the evil one.
Will you please look up the word “proof” in any dictionary, then come back and tell us what definition you could possibly be referring to?
I think this is still missing my point. I’m not trying to have the “miracles are physically impossible” debate. (It’s not a bad debate, but I think it’s been had on this board many times before.) My point is that it seems to me that even people who believe in God, and who believe that God can and does work miracles, still would normally require a significant amount of evidence to believe a miracle has occurred – except when that miracle is described in the Bible.
Thus, my question:
How much evidence would it take to convince you I’d witnessed a miracle last week? Do the Bible authors provide comparable evidence for their claims, and if not, why do you believe them?
So far, the only answer I’m getting seems to be that you have to personally experience some sort of miraculous revelation that convinces you of the veracity of every word of the Bible. But I wonder if this is really true for every Christian? If so, you’d think there’d be no such subject as Christian apolegetics, since no one’s belief is actually based on reasoning or evidence.
Muslims believe in the same God and the same Satan as Christians do. They don’t think Christians worship Satan, they just think that Christians are in error about the deification of Jesus (who Muslims believe was a great prophet, just not the son of God).
kanicbird, can you not understand the difference between saying “Faith proves that the thing you believe is true?” and “Faith proves that something is true”?
I am saying that some people have faith while their beliefs are still wrong. Arguing that their faith proves the existence of Satan doesn’t change this assertion.
E.g., Most Muslims have faith in a God who is explictly not part of some Trinity. Most Christians have faith in a Trinitarian God. These beliefs can’t both be correct. Therefore, someone can have faith in something without their beliefs being correct.
The situations aren’t really parallel, since most if not all of the miracles described in the Bible weren’t witnessed personally by the authors. (Which, from one point of view, makes them even less credible, I know). But it means that the people who wrote of these miracles weren’t trying to convince their original audience, let alone someone like you or me with our modern sensibilities, that those events actually happened. That was not their primary purpose in writing: to present a clear case, with evidence, that those events happened, as though they were writing like a modern historian. So it’s not fair to expect them to succeed at something they weren’t even trying to do. They weren’t really making “claims” in the sense that you’re using the word; they weren’t writing in a “claim-making” genre.
I realize that I still haven’t answered your question. Maybe I’ll be able to take a stab at it after I’ve thought about it some more.