Amaleq13

It means "discount as having any relevance in establishing what actually happened (ie history)." IOW, hallucinations and delusions do not explain anything except the actions of those who accept them as true.

jakejonesiv

Miracles can hardly be proven to occur in the present day to the critical thinker; much less can highly improbable events be proven from texts written by religous zealots some 19 centuries ago.

The question resolves itself quite nicely; is it easier to believe that the alleged miracle actually occured (Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven) or that it is a tall tale, a bit of pious fiction? Is it easier to believe that the Lord and creator of the universe came to earth and breathed life into a Mesopotamian mud man or some old timey guy wrote a story?

But let's not let the real issue stay masked. The believer in Biblical miracles (such as Craig in the OP) cares not a hoot for miracles ascribed to person's outside the Bible. Nor is the issue that some of the Biblical miracles are true and some are not, because once that concession is made, the holy baby inevitably goes out with the bath wash. No indeed, the real issue (as Robert Price has noted) is that of Biblical inerrancy. The alleged miracles must be believed because they are in the Bible.

The so-called claims to "keep an open mind" and charges of "ani-supernatural bias" are revealed for what they really are; apolgetic devices with the goal of saving souls. You will never see these guys like Craig arguing to the end that the pagan miracles are historical. Indeed the apologists are completely afraid of the subject lest they be forced to admit the historicity of pagan miracles also, thereby spoiling claims of Christain uniqueness.

Jake Jones IV

lpetrich

Has anyone brought up the question of pagan miracles in a debate? Like ask why reject all claims of divine impregnation but one? And ask why reject all the fulfilled extrabiblical prophecies?

Consider the case of Livy's History of Rome, which is often used as a source for Rome's early history. But Livy tells us that Rome's founder was someone named Romulus who was the son of a god and a virgin. And that Romulus one day got surrounded by a cloud and disappeared. And that he reappeared to an eminent Roman citizen and told him that it is the will of heaven that Rome rule the world, and that if Romans learn how to conquer it, it will be theirs.

And Rome did indeed conquer much of the world known to its citizens, thus making this a more-or-less fulfilled prophecy.

So should we be "open-minded" about the Romulus story?