[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Cerek Surviving in freezing water longer than expected could be explained based on different factors. The physical stamina and endurance of the individual could play a part, as well as the clothing they happen to have on. This may not completely explain the person's survival, but it could provide at least parts of an alternative explanation. I've read other accounts that would be considered miraculous as well. One was of a man who worked construction and - in a freak accident - actually shot a nail into his heart with a nail gun. The physician that treated him stated the mans extraordinary physical condition played a partial role in his survival, but that still wasn't enough to explain he surviving such a traumatic wound. His final conclusion was "this is one lucky individual". I also read a story when I was in elementary school of a stewardess who survived falling from the sky when her plane blew up. While her survival might be considered miraculous by some, there were several factors that attributed it as well. She was towards the back of the plane away from the location of the explosion. She was knocked unconscious as the tail section fell from the sky (which prevented her from suffering panic, a heart attack or broken bones from "tensing up"). The tail section landed in a thick forest on a snow covered hillside. So the size and shape of the tail section affected her rate of descent and provided some protection to her. The trees and snow also helped "cushion" her landing. Her survival would still be unexpected in most cases, but you can see how other factors played into it. THAT is they type of alternative explanation I am talking about. The skeptic only bears the burden of providing a plausible explanation or listing reasonable mitigating factors that could also be considered. Saying "I don't know exactly" is an acceptable answer. You've evaluated your beliefs and you really don't know what it would take to convince you they may be wrong. It's no different for a believer. I'm not sure exactly what evidence I could see that would be irrefutable and convince me to change my mind. I will say that several arguments I've seen over the years have forced me to RE-evaluate my beliefs and look much deeper into WHY I believe them than I have before. I've still not found an argument that is completely convincing, but I've seen some that made me rethink what I thought before. But that is the same culpability you are placing on God. You are saying there should be no chance for doubt if God is perfect, but we are told we have a choice to believe what God tells and shows us or not to believe it. There are some people who still believe the Earth is flat. When shown pictures from satellites disproving their belief, they say "I can see how an untrained eye would be fooled by that." Now,this example is normally given as an analogy for believers refusing to accept scientific evidence that contradicts a belief in God. But we've seen non-believers display that same refusal to consider evidence contrary to their belief system. So the culpability lies somewhere in the middle, rather than wholly on one party.

Fair enough.