The seeming impossibility of a successful argument for Christianity

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

But when an ancient source describes something miraculous I can dismiss it. There's no hard evidence today that such things occur. There's no images. There's no videos. I can't even go somewhere to see the things left behind from a modern day supernatural event.

How do you define supernatural? Specifically, if a phenomena is regularly observed but not understood, is it natural or supernatural?

---

I never said supernatural events don't occur.

Not in so many words, but you back-doored your way there with talk of probabilities.

For purposes of discussion, let's say the supernatural is anything that involves God, angels, demons, spirits etc.

If a phenomena is observed but not understood, the best explanation for it is based on that which we know can occur. It should be the least ad hoc explanation.

And I'm still open to the possibility of the supernatural. It just doesn't look like a possibility.

---

There's no hard evidence today that such things occur. There's no images. There's no videos.

So evidence to you is visible evidence? What about magicians? What about exorcists? Unexplained medical phenomena like instant cancer cures? These aren't "no" evidence. They are evidence you claim to be misrepresented. You make this claim based on your theory that the supernatural doesn't exist, which comes from... I don't know, your indifference to these examples? Clarify if you will, but it seems to me you are begging the question.

Just watch some James Randi. Magicians? Yeesh.