"Beware of occultist doctors and nurses"

 Yes, declaring something a 'miracle' means that. Unless when used as an exaggeration, sarcasm, etc. Just because there are things which cannot be explained by science, & yet does not appear to have any religious or spiritual association with it, does not negate upon the miraculous nature of such a situation.

Sorry, but God does have to prove something if he wants belief from those who aren't predisposed to take tall tales at face value. And yes, it certainly does matter that Revelations was written long after the Old Testament scriptures--there was ample time for the serpent as Satan story to enter folklore and corrupt the original story, which it clearly did here. How you can figure that Satan as serpent makes more sense than the snake being a creation of God gone wrong is beyond me--neither makes sense at all--except in the fervent need of the God-fearing believer to make certain that he doesn't say/think anything that'll get his god angry with him. 

Putting the observation that God created everything that exists in all caps, does not, btw, make that statement any more true. And if it were true, then apparently God did indeed create evil, since nothing supposedly existed before his creation and nothing supposedly exists outside of it.

 God Actually already Has Proven Himself more times than we can count, & still gets dismissed. He Does not Have to Prove anything to us. As I read in another website," we are the ones on trial; not Him."

Yes, I am saying that it makes more sense that the serpent was either Satan or demonically possessed by Satan. The first thing is, how was the snake even able to speak, in the story about the Garden of Eden? The only other animal in the Holy Bible that was able to talk was Balaam's donkey (coincidentally, that story also took place in the Old Testament, & in fact part of those set of Books known as the Torah, in Judaism, just as Genesis is), & it was explained in that case that it was God that Gave the animal the power to speak to its cruel owner. There is no such explanation as to why the snake was able to speak to the first humans in the Garden. The second thing is, what would even be the reason as to why the snake would want the first humans to disobey their Creator (& when I say 'they,' I am even including the snake here)  God Gave them all the gift of life & consciousness, why would the snake not be grateful for such a gift? Lastly, if the forbidden fruit was good for everything that the snake said that it was, why not eat the fruit himself??? God Gave the humans dominion over all the other living things that He Created. He even Allowed Adam to name all the species that He Created, rather than Naming them Himself. Therefore, if the snake ate of the fruit, he could have potentially taken over everything himself, & gain dominion over everything.

Therefore, it makes more sense that the snake had something against God, & tempted the first humans into disobedience out of spite against Him.

All you've succeeded in doing there is to show how utterly senseless the whole story is when taken in literal form. And don't you think it's a just a tad hubristic on your part to claim to have a better explanation than Torah scholars--or scripture itself, which states that the snake was a snake, and not something or someone else?

And in one sense you're quite right--it's those who claim existence of God as a fact who are on trial, and required to show proofs. And yeah, God's on trial: he began it all, let him provide some explanations if he can.

And no, God hasn't 'proven' anything. Once more, if you're predisposed to being a believer it's possible for you to see proofs of his existence in whatever; for those of us who require more than wishful thinking as a stand-in for evidence, no proofs have been shown.

 
Taking into consideration that St. John the Apostle (the writer of the Book of Revelation) was Jewish - as Christ Himself was, & all the Apostles were - no I do not. And did not these same Torah scholars also try have a better explanation as to why the creation of female was first written when the creation of Man was mentioned in Genesis chapter 1, & then again in Genesis chapter 2, by creating the story about a devil (Lilith), rather than simply explain that Genesis chapter 2 was simply a more in depth story about the creation of Woman?

Yes He Has. He Has Proven Himself constantly.



St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs Of God

Indeed, which is why for me (and I suspect others) it would be a red line event - something to compel immediate conversion. But any omniscient god would know that.

As  I have already quoted from the experts that "occurrences of spontaneous regression have been reported for many types of cancer."  But medical science does not seem to think there is a supernatural cause for these or other unexpected recoveries. Instead this is down to the regular credulity of believers. Why not just as easily attribute such healing to Allah, Odin, the unsuspected qualities of Coke or aliens?


The point is that with human limb regeneration has never happened in modern times and if it happened in short order, spontaneously and immediately after prayer, it would go against all we know about the human body. It is true that the obdurate will always be with us, but speaking for myself (and likely many others), such an event, independently authenticated, would compel immediate conversion. And an omniscient god knows this.

But, even if we say I was not really willing to accept even such a miracle... why does it still never happen?

No. He hasn't, St. Thomas notwithstanding. That video proves nothing whatsoever.