(March 15, 2016 at 11:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if those stories weren't lies or exaggerations, they are still, at best, eyewitness testimony.
(And we have no reason to think it was even written by eyewitnesses.)
Eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to establish supernatural causation. The reason for this should be obvious.
Using the same example above, are eyewitness accounts of the event, timing, and context sufficient to increase the probability of an event having a supernatural cause versus a natural one?