Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Well for me, it appears most atheists or agnostics demand empirical evidence to believe.
I submit that the Judeo G-d and the Christian God (one in the same of course for a Christian) has provided more than a multitude of signs and wonders that are very apparent and real and simply cannot be explained in the natural. That is the evidence for God.
Not in all cases, but in many hundreds of cases it is simply the testimony of a number of eye witnesses. And the response of the skeptic is nothing more than "the testimony of the eye witness is the most unreliable of evidence." Really? That's lame. Especially when the events number in the hundreds. Everyone is a liar. Sure. If one waits until God appears to them in their own bedroom, well good luck with that.
Then there are other miracles that are observed by far more than 10,000 eye witnesses such as at Fatima and Zeitoun, Egypt. Again, all liars? Then we have science who have de facto proved the inexplicable qualities found in the Shroud of Turin. Again, the counter explanations just do not hold up. All they speak of is agenda to me.
As a matter of fact - there is no proof, - and mass hallucinations are fairly well understood.
It just takes a believing group, - and one person to say - LOOK! Mary in the clouds! Did you see her?
For instance the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima obviously wasn't a miracle. The sun didn't really dance in the sky.
1. It would have been noticed elsewhere.
2. There would have been consequences.
3. They were told to stare at the sun, - which can obviously cause eye problems, including spots, double images, jumping eye, causing the sun to appear to jump, etc.
But very obviously NO MIRACLE.
*
*