No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[FallentoReason]

Hi FTR

How would you explain water into wine as a non believer?

To me, I might suggest that the onlookers senses were fooled by some kind of mind games. By slight of hand, magicians/ religious pretenders of the day were sometimes masters. That was quite easy. People were skeptical when people got up from the dead, saw when they were blind etc... how would you react? I know I wouldn't believe it, and that's without the aid of any technology that we have and they wouldn't have.

All these things are reliant on faith. Nothing is concrete proof.

I'm not quite following you... all I basically said was that you've stated that miracles are objectively a natural thing. Therefore, it doesn't matter what my "explanation as a non-believer" might be, because whatever the *true* explanation is will be reducible to natural processes, according to you. This means that asking how exactly water gets turned to wine and why humanity hasn't stumbled onto such a process a rather fitting couple of questions relative to your stance on miracles.

---

What I love about your OP is the irony. You've essentially attempted to turn the atheist's request of "explain yourself" into a redundant request by simply saying "can't". In other words you've claimed that the intersection of God and supernatural miracles is an empty set, but in doing so, you've created a set which annhialates your goal: the intersection between God and *explainable natural miracles*.

There was a repeat caller on the Atheist Experience this week that reminded me of what Frodo's been trying to achieve in this thread so much; whenever he was asked for evidence for his claims of a god, he would answer that god was a non-physical being, therefore there can be no evidence for him that we can perceive, and... that's it. It was almost as if he believed that his inability to provide anything substantial to back up his claim was enough for his claim to be taken seriously, and that's mirrored in Frodo's position here almost exactly.

It's the shell game all these theists play when they make recourse to non-physical gods, or "absolute minds," or gods that use natural processes exclusively in their actions: saying that is nothing more than admitting you have no reason to believe what you do... and then somehow expecting that the knowledge claim you've just made about the being you've admitted you can have no evidence of in order to formulate a knowledge claim is somehow true anyway.

It would actually make more sense to believe in supernatural occurrences as that gives you something definite between the divine and its creation. Moulding those two into one thing by claiming that the divine moves *like* its creation is a step backwards. It's conspiracy theory territory!