I'm not the kind of person that goes onto a contrary forum just to argue. As I stating in my introduction I am more interested in the questions than in the answers. And I will reflect on the answers and retorts I have heard from each of you. Some of what I heard is as follows:
Any artifact could be a hoax.
All documented miracles are either too old to be confirmed or have been explained away.
Ontological proofs are semantic games and most theological concepts are incomprehensible.
Revelations to others are relevant only to the receiver.
Visual or auditory visitations are indistinguishable from hallucinations.
Prophetic announcements would have to be clearly stated in advance and occur exactly as stated.
Advanced scientific knowledge unknown to the author would have to be stated in a form later adopted by contemporary science, like identifying left brain/right brain functions prior to neuroscience (my own example).
Why should I care?
No theological claim is falsifiable.
Any artifact could be a hoax.
All documented miracles are either too old to be confirmed or have been explained away.
Ontological proofs are semantic games and most theological concepts are incomprehensible.
Revelations to others are relevant only to the receiver.
Visual or auditory visitations are indistinguishable from hallucinations.
Prophetic announcements would have to be clearly stated in advance and occur exactly as stated.
Advanced scientific knowledge unknown to the author would have to be stated in a form later adopted by contemporary science, like identifying left brain/right brain functions prior to neuroscience (my own example).
Why should I care?
No theological claim is falsifiable.
