[quote="inocente, post:14, topic:441670"]
My reason is given in the penultimate sentence of that passage from 1 Cor 1 - It is because of [God] that you are in Christ Jesus”
So then, grace. It is because of God that I am in Christ Jesus. The individual also needs to be accepting, but I think it's an emotional thing. Of course that's an appalling admission on CAF but I think initially is has to be emotional, after all it is love. And that's not faith without evidence, but the evidence is subjective. Another appalling admission but what the hey, we're people not computers. Imho the problem with the god of the philosophers is it can only ever be a theory, it can never step off the page into one's life. I've seen lots of people witness after (adult) baptism, and none have ever said they met with God through uber-rationalism. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel.
You could always ask your friend if he agrees with the philosophy of these Pentecostals. There are equivalent Catholic arguments such as Taizé, but this gets the logic across too - youtube.com/watch?v=e33zCUm1ZnY
For me, the problem with miracles-are-scientific is it sounds like Jesus is a super alien from another dimension, while the notion that God is part of nature sounds pantheist, sort of the Force from Star Wars.
Paul talks of miracles in that passage from 1 Cor 1 - "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom". Seems some Jews wanted confirmation by miracles and some gentiles by theories. But, Paul continues, "we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles".
As a Baptist, I think I've never heard a sermon on biblical miracles nor heard them raised in conversation. On the other hand, anyone mentions the miracle of Christ in their own life and there's choruses of can I get an amen :D.
I think you would have to have a Calvinistic framework of theology for that to make sense, but, if you do, it DOES make sense. Under that framework, you wouldn't have to answer the question, "How would one who doesn't believe in God come to reason that He does exist." because you believe we can't arrive at a knowledge of Him by our reason. He either gives you knowledge of Himself or He doesn't.
The last part of your response just sort of glosses over all of the alleged healings and exorcisms done by Jesus in the Gospels. I understand your point, though. The real miracle of Christianity is the redemptive power of Christ and you don't need physical miracles for that to manifest. However, I don't think Paul meant to imply that the lesser, more carnal miracles of Christ didn't happen or that they didn't serve a purpose. I am asking you specifically about the physical miracles. You've already expressed resistance to the idea that they were just science we don't yet understand, but you also demand that anyone who sys that they were supernatural be able to explain how that supernature works. I want to know what YOU think, but I'll first say that I don't think a person has to know and be able to explain all the particulars in order to reasonably assert a philosophical axiom. The statement, "There is something that exists which is not nature, but can interact with nature and is not subject to natural scientific laws." does not actually require further exposition in order to be valid. It does not produce a contradiction.
I'm digressing. Please tell me what you think of Christ's miraculous healings, exorcisms, raising Lazarus from the dead, etc. Do you think they were real historical events? Fictional mythology? You've already said you don't think they were science not yet understood.
Thanks in advance.