If no one wants to answer to that, just argue miracles in general.

never trust a 'criticisms' thing on wikipedia -- for all you know it may come from a fat dude who sits behind his computer all day and bit ches about how there's no god.

But to us there is but one God, plus or minus one. --1 Corinthians 8:6±2.

http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:28&version=NIV1984

One, is over the years we have found that various constants are tied to other constants in fundamental ways (similar to how the diameter of a circle is tied to the circumference. The universe is unimaginable without this fundamental relation that we know as pi). I have a creeping suspicion that given enough time we will discover that all of the universal constants are all related to each other and they are not really independent. Perhaps the universe can only exist in one way. But that is just philosophical mumblings.

But what I want to get at with the whole "things are improbable" argument is this. Take the months of the year's initials, JFMAMJJASOND. You can clearly see "JASON" somewhere in there. The probability that of this is 8/(26^5) which is 6.7*10^-7. A VERY slim probability. What is far more improbable though? The probability of the letters' not spelling a single word. So when talking about "Oh, well life is so improbable, god must have had a hand in it" we need to remember that our particular universe with life is improbable, but that's a very us-centric view of things. We can't think of things as how improbable it is that they happen, but how improbable it is that something doesn't happen.

I can assure you right now that you can have an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist as well as a agnostic theist and a gnostic theist. You see, gnosticism deals exclusively with knowledge (i.e. what you know) while theism deals exclusively with belief (in a god/gods; i.e. what you believe). They are two different concepts.

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe there is a god, but doesn't purport to know there isn't since it's ignorant to believe that such a thing is knowable. It is not a redundancy and it is definitely not a dodge. Also, this is really a matter of semantics, but an atheist might casually say "there is no god," but he could mean he doesn't believe there is one, not he knows there isn't one.

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about set theory, so I'm going to assume that the axioms of ZFC are like any other mathematical axiom. An axiom is irreducably self-evident, but you can still only assume that it is true. Derived proofs might confirm the truth of the axiom.
..
I don't quite understand fully how you're comparing mathematical axioms to this.

Logically sound is an entirely different beast from axiomatically sound ... Gödel's ontological proof is logically sound, but most people would be unwilling to accept Axiom 5:


Similarly, in mathematics, you have the Banach-Tarski Theorem, which isn't really paradoxical (despite having been labeled as such on occasion) so much as intuitively bothersome because of the way it uses (or abuses) the Axiom of Choice. The theorem itself is logically sound, but its validity hinges on your acceptance or rejection of the Axiom of Choice.

It's stupid to assume that anything can be "outside of the Universe" or "not governed by its natural laws" because there is no way to confirm our suspicions since we've never witnessed the possibility of anything being "outside" the boundaries of our universe. Therefore we can only assume that there is no "outside of the Universe".

One threat against strict Naturalism has recently been launched on which I myself will base no argument, but which it will be well to notice. The older scientists believed that the smallest particles of matter moved according to strict laws: in other words, that the movements of each particle were 'interlocked' with the total system of Nature. Some modern scientists seem to think--if I understand them--that this is not so. They seem to think that the individual unit of matter (it would be rash to call it any longer a 'particle') moves in an indeterminate or random fashion; [19] moves, in fact, 'on its own' or 'of its own accord'. The regularity which we observe in the movements of the smallest visible bodies is explained by the fact that each of these contains millions of units and that the law of averages therefore levels out the idiosyncrasies of the individual unit's behaviour. The movement of one unit is incalculable, just as the result of tossing a coin once is incalculable: the majority movement of a billion units can however be predicted, just as, if you tossed a coin a billion times, you could predict a nearly equal number of heads and tails. Now it will be noticed that if this theory is true we have really admitted something other than Nature. If the movements of the individual units are events 'on their own', events which do not interlock with all other events, then these movements are not part of Nature. It would be, indeed, too great a shock to our habits to describe them as super-natural. I think we should have to call them sub-natural. But all our confidence that Nature has no doors, and no reality outside herself for doors to open on, would have disappeared. There is apparently something outside her, the Subnatural; it is indeed from this Subnatural that all events and all 'bodies' are, as it were, fed into her. And clearly if she thus has a back door opening on the Subnatural, it is quite on the cards that she may also have a front door opening on the Supernatural-and events might be fed into her at that door too.

I also think that believing in a god will make science move on slower

I think I'll just jump in for a second on an unrelated note --

What do you think causes miracles to happen? Like ones that you can't disprove happened, such as The miracle of the sun or healings at Lourdes in France. Just curious to see what you theorize without any of God's presence

There are a lot of miracles that are not miracles. Some of them are fake and others can be explained by science.

If they can't be explained, research has to be done, we can't just say "It was god."

I pointed this out as well. I also claimed that the neutral formulation of atheism reduces to one of two things:
* Real lack of belief
* Negative belief without claim to knowledge
The "lack of belief" variation reduces to the popular understanding of agnosticism, and the latter, as I said, is something of a dodge.

Besides, why should it be my responsibility to force people into believing? That's not my job.

The bible was not written to be completely historically accurate, although it is, sometimes. An important thing to remember about the bible is that it was written to be religiously accurate, so when you say the bible is "off," in what way do you mean? If historically, then of course, as it wasn't meant to be a history book. If you mean religiously, then I guess that depends on your faith.

Like the priest as he was consecrating the host, It turned into a piece of a heart. Many doctors and body specialists have looked at it. The way the piece is, It could not have possibly been cut from a heart by people. It's impossible, even with today's laser cutting and all that stuff. How is that unprovable?

Willrandship: Hmmm.... I wouldn't say that miracles are unprovable. I can name a few cases that are highly provable. Like the priest as he was consecrating the host, It turned into a piece of a heart. Many doctors and body specialists have looked at it. The way the piece is, It could not have possibly been cut from a heart by people. It's impossible, even with today's laser cutting and all that stuff. How is that unprovable?

ZENIT is a non-profit international news agency comprising a team of professionals and volunteers who are convinced of the extraordinary richness of the Catholic Church's message, particularly its social doctrine.

CONCLUSION
Dear Pilgrim!

The world of today is tossed around at the mercy of countless contradictory currents. He is dismayed in the midst of thousands of conflicting opinions.
The spectrum of its ideas, from right to left, does nothing but hide a deeper level of delusion, emptiness and profound uneasiness.
Why?
Because the spirit needs certitude, stability and height. In the height there is only the Father of eternity, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Only He is capable of keeping the world in peace and in goodness.
With the Miracle God returns and with Him, man, this small but great pilgrim.
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano is the seal of this mysterious, discreet, yet very real presence of God.
You have to come to see, to contemplate, to adore. The way of the pilgrim is long and hard.

Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, is the only light for difficult pathways, the only strength in our moments of weakness, the only hope for our fragile dreams, the only warmth for our needy hearts.
Pilgrim!
Do not stop.
Keep going.
God awaits you.
Trust Him!
Use well the time remaining before your great meeting with Him.
You will not be disappointed.
[Snip]

At the Emallume-Eosine staining, no cellular element can be detected, with the exception of a yellow-dark-green granular material with foreign bodies of vegetable origin.
III. MICROCHEMICAL STUDIES ON BLOOD
Teichmann's reaction modified by Bertrand with hydrochlorate hematine and Takayama's reaction with hemo-chromogen, have been carried out on the ancient Blood in Lanciano with negative results, together with human Blood samples normally dried, which gave positive results.
Oxidase research (Stone and Burke's tests) gave highly positive results on the test sample and on control human normally dried Blood.
[Snip intervening material]
The negativity of Teichmann-Bertrand's test and Takayama's test does not exclude the presence of Blood, as these tests can become negative due to sample denaturation.
A positive oxidase test, generally indicating the presence of Blood, can occur also with organs contaminated by vegetable extracts or metal traces.