skepticdude

I'd like the skeptics and atheists here to share what they have heard from Christians concerning the bare minimum criteria they need to see fulfilled in order to judge a miracle claim as reporting literal actual and true history.

I can't get a straight answer from them. They seem to fear applying a consistent rules of evidence or criteria for deciding when testimony is more likely true or more likely false, because they know that once that criteria is revealed, skeptics might be able to demonstrate that a biblical miracle-claim doesn't measure up. Or if their criteria are too wide, they'd be compelled to believe pretty much any miracle claim.

Anybody have better luck?

Zenaphobe

Funny, I brought up this point recently in a discussion,

This point was ignored in his subsequent reply.

Christians seem to love them some Josephus when they think he supports their Jesus, but no one seems to keen on his magical claims. :huh:

spamandham

I've heard some say "two or more witnesses", but then when you point out someone *else's* miracle story (not in the Bible), you are usually met with silence (Marian miracles witnessed by "thousands"), or with objections based on technicalities. A few nutters will maintain consistent standards because they've played the game enough and figured out that they can't be trapped as long as they're consistent. They can always just suggest that other religion's miracles are authentic, but demonic in origin.