Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerek
That's only partially true. If the skeptic claims the experience wasn't really "miraculous", then the burden of an alternative explanation falls to the one doubting the claim.
|
The sceptic has no data here whatsoever. How would you propose the sceptic provides an alternative explanation with nothing to go on? For all that we know, a miracle story can be made up.
Quote:
|
And the explanation needs to be something more substantial than "coincidence or chance". Because then the skeptic is admitting that he/she cannot explain the cause of the event any more than the believer. They just attribute it to different sources.
|
True, however it's prudent for the sceptic to reamain sceptic here and not claim miracle.
Quote:
|
I'm hoping for something a little more specific. Take your time and think about what would honostly make you reconsider the existence of God.
|
Technincally, I wouldn't need to. God, being omniscient, would know what would be required for me to believe. A biologist, lacking omniscient, would not really know what would be required for a Creationist to accept ToE. Even if I can't provide a defininte answer here, my above point still stands.
Quote:
The fact that hundreds don't survive is what makes the experience of one miraculous. 
|
Nah, merely unlikely.