When God created the universe, He established what we call “natural laws” to govern it. Humans have digressed to speak about how “Mother Nature” does so-and-so, and the Darwinian hypothesis of “natural selection” is as ridiculous as anything godless man has ever concocted. As if “nature” had a brain and could make an intelligent “selection” regarding the direction everything is supposed to go. At best, every “natural selection” would be only a 50-50 chance, and since the great, great majority of mutations (the other pillar of Darwinism) are harmful to a species, the idea that such a system could produce the beautiful, and incredibly complex, world we have, is ludicrous in the extreme. Only man who is trying to avoid obedience to God would invent such a monstrosity.
But I wander a little from my purpose in this article. God established natural laws and has intervened very, very infrequently in those laws. The Bible, of course, records some miracles God performed (by Himself and through His prophets and apostles), but when you compare the number of miracles with the hundreds of...trillions?...of actions by humans since the world began (did you brush your teeth today?), then obviously God’s direct interventions have been, in comparison, microscopic in number. But the Bible does say He did such miraculous works, mainly to establish the authenticity of His messengers and their message.
Did the miracles really happen? Skeptics say “no,” but their rejection of miracles is a priori, in other words, they have a materialistic philosophy that says that miracles simply cannot happen. Their world view rejects the possibility of the miraculous before they even begin their investigation. This is not a search for truth, this is a close-minded bias. Such people are hardly credible if they are not willing to open their minds to every possibility and let the facts lead them where they may. We must “prove all things,” and skeptics are not willing to do that.
But yet, most of them admit that at least some of the teachings of Jesus in the Bible are actual things that He said. His teachings are not miracles, of course, so they can accept that He truly said, at least some of what the Bible says He said. But on what theoretical grounds can they say that some of the Bible (Jesus’ teachings) is true, but other parts (the miracles) are not? The same evidence (eye witness accounts) that we have for Jesus’ teachings is the same evidence (eye witness accounts) for His miracles. Again, it’s simple an a priori rejection of miracles by skeptics and not a true search for truth. They deny some eye witness accounts in the Bible (the ones they don’t like) and accept others (the ones that don’t press them too hard). Indeed, the legs of the lame are not equal.
Skeptics, of course, reject Jesus and the Bible for the simple reason that they don’t like what it says, they don’t want to obey God, they want to live their own lives as they please. That’s the ultimate reason, not because of evidence. Jesus’ miracles are proven by the same evidence as His teachings. Good and honest hearts will let the truth lead them wherever it might take them.