No True Scotsman would believe in miracles.

Cory,

1. Are you talking about the, "No True Scotsman.." fallacy?  I must confess, I've not heard of the "Scotsman Fallacy" besides that one. 

But I think I'm following your argument in that I've made the definition of "miracle" to be too complex to happen.
I tried to admit to this in my original post when I said that it should really be entitled, "Why I don't believe in miracles."

I full on agree that if miracles happen, it's possible that they will be rooted in natural causes.  But my argument is, and I haven't changed this: If we are going to use miracles as PROOF of god's existence, then they must be supernatural.  I'm not trying to say this in order to say there are never miracles. My reasoning behind this statement is because if there's a natural cause for a "miracle" then that's all the more explanation there needs to be. 

For example: If someone survives a horrible car accident, it may be because god made sure the seat belts worked.  But if they survived the car accident, it may just be because they were wearing a seat belt. Surviving the car accident is evidence that the seat belt worked, but not evidence that god exists, even if god had everything to do with it.

My point isn't to say there are no miracles, but to set up a standard for how miracles could actually prove the existence of god.  If you can come up with a way for a miracle to have naturalistic origins, and yet still be proof of god's existence, I would love to discuss that with you.  The problem I am finding is that in order for it to be proof, we have to find a situation where god is the only explanation.  In order to rule something as being divine in nature, we have to rule out all other possibilities.  This is the heart of scientific testing.
Call it lack of creativity on my part, but I can't think of any other way in which a "miracle" can be proof of god's existence without there being an unnatural event. Otherwise, we haven't taken out all of the other possibilities it could be.

2. You said, "That said, it wouldn't matter if a million people said you had no cake in the box; if 2 people saw you do it and could testify that there was cake in the box, all the people in the world couldn't make such a thing untrue by not believing it. There is simply cake in the box and someone besides you said there is. Now whether or not people want to believe your eyewitnesses is a different story, and clearly this is where we are reaching our impasse." The problem I have with this statement is, if you tell me there's cake in the box, and I don't believe you, all you have to do is open the box and show me the cake.  I don't have to take it on blind faith or human testimony that there's cake in the box.  You can give me real evidence to prove that the cake exists.

As far as credibility is concerned: It doesn't matter if someone is a cop, a lawyer, a criminal, a priest, someone of fantastic moral values, etc. People see the world based on their perceptions.  If someone "sees" what they perceive to be a ghost then that's what they will tell you they saw. They can be telling what they consider to be the truth, even if in reality, all they saw was an odd shadow. Not only that, but it's a well known documented phenomena that people's perceptions and memories can be altered through intentional and unintentional suggestion. This is true for individuals as well as with groups.  In many cases, the power of what a group says will significantly alter what someone's perceptions are. Here and here are two fantastic video examples of this.  There is nothing magic going on in either video, it just happens to be people who are being taken advantage of under mass suggestion.  Benny Hinn may be able to knock people over, but he'll never be able to grow someone's arm back by smacking them with his jacket.


So no, I don't accept human testimony as evidence of god, and it doesn't matter if they are of fantastic moral value or not, or if there are hundreds of people testifying or not. Human perception is just far too unreliable. Like I said before, there is a difference between courtroom truth and actual truth.


3. I'm looking forward to your arguments.  I agree that if you can prove that Christ is who Christians say he is, then that's pretty fantastic evidence for God.  Unfortunately, I think you'll find with me, that's easier said than done.


I wasn't deliberately holding out on you about my knowledge of the Bible.  My journey to atheism has come with a lot of investigation. I don't take my dis-beliefs lightly.


-Mike