Some of it has a little to do with ingenuousness and trust, and preclusive presuppositions.
So you present evidence that isn’t objective or verifiable, and then accuse me of preclusive presuppositions. Got it.
Rich Stearns’ account stands.
Again, you fail to make the distinction between objective and verifiable.
Just so we are on the same footing here, the Glenn Morton account is not objective, verifiable evidence, correct?
As to the Stearn’s account, he is a guy who was highly qualified for a job that he eventually got. How is that supposed to be objective evidence for God?
Incorrect. It is very objective.
An unverifiable account is not objective evidence. Never has been.
I think I cannot lead this horse any closer to water.
Tying it back into miracles, this quote from Keener adds to a kind of cumulative case for the supernatural:
“Certainly most of global Christianity affirms the reality of miracles. Cuban Lutheran bishop Ismael Laborde, who shared with me his experience of miraculous healing from liver cancer, notes that it is hard to find Latin American Christians who do not believe in miracles… Retired Methodist bishop Hwa Yung, a Malaysian scholar, notes that Bultmann’s approach to the supernatural is irrelevant in Asia, and he suggests that antisupernatural Western Christianity is ‘the real aberration.’”
That would be an argument from popularity which is a logical fallacy.
My nephrectomy account may lead some horses closer to water.
I don’t believe that’s how a cumulative case argument works. A quick search and I found this:
“The cumulative case argument is a meta-argument that, while admitting each individual argument or piece of evidence may be imperfect, considered together they result in a stronger conclusion. It is also known as the argument from the abundance of arguments. Rather than aiming to prove the conclusion with certainty, the goal is to establish a conclusion is more likely to be true than false.”
“David Hume denied the existence of credible eyewitnesses for miracles. So we should ask, How often do dramatic healings happen? More often than many of us think.”
The multiple witnesses who have not perjured themselves and are reporting objective facts as recorded in their field journals count as objective evidence. (Some cannot tell the difference between evidence and scientific evidence.) Now we depend on the ingenuousness, the childlike innocence, of all the juries of one reading this who have not precluded possibilities in their presuppositions.
Taking a poll of how many people believe in miracles is not how a cumulative case argument works.
How much of that evidence is objective and verifiable?
What objective and verifiable evidence led Keener to that conclusion?
You are assuming they are objective facts from the beginning simply because someone utters them. That’s not how it works.
He did not want the job and was in fact resisting the idea?
So your evidence for God is that a business offered a highly qualified person a job that the person did not want? It would seem that this happens all of the time, does it not?
You be one non-ingenuous horse. I think we done.
I could be wrong, but it seems that it does, in establishing there are credible eyewitnesses for miraculous healings or providential events.
How many witnesses were there for these supposed miracles?