A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

I would say that if a supernatural event happens and is witnessed, then the likelihood of that event is directly correlated to the quality and quantity of witnesses and/or the physical proof--just like any event that ever happened.

This brings up another point. Just because an event is highly improbable does not mean it is a miracle. Christians should not describe every good thing that happens to them as miracles. I would perhaps adopt a working definition of 1) no physical explanation for the event whatsoever or 2) a highly improbable event happening in a timeframe to imply a purpose. For example, if someone is about to shoot you and a sinkhole open under them and swallows them up.

Regarding the Muslim miracles list from Wikipedia, I have a couple of observations. While splitting the moon would be a worthy of being called a miracle, there seems to be some debate if that was real, future or figurative. The trees moving would be cool. Evasion of capture might be improbable but not impossible. Spiritual journeys aside, the rest of the list consists of mainly manipulating food and water or prophecies. There was one healing a sick eye by spitting in it...I don't know.

Regarding the difference of Christianity, Jesus did do miracles, arguably more impressive than Mohammad--but that's not the point. The point was the resurrection AND the related message of atonement.

I realize you are trying to nail me down on was it even possible for Mohammad to do miracles. I would say no for the following reason: I don't think the Islamic religion/theology is the best explanation for our observations about God and reality. It seems illogical to me to think that God would work miracles in support of a religion that denies the basics of the one I believe in.

So literally, your response is no, they weren't miracles, and your reasoning is "i don't believe in that religion, so it's not true."

Pease tell me you can see how utterly dishonest that appears to us, when a muslim could say the exact same thing about christian miracle claims.

How is it dishonest to think another religion is wrong? They cannot be all right. Because of the very definition of a miracle requiring the supernatural, it is very much related to what religion is true.

---

That is not science. Science would say it does not know. That conclusion comes from the philosophy of naturalism.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Full Definition of PSYCHOLOGY
1: the science of mind and behavior
2a: the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group
b: the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity
3: a theory or system of psychology <Freudian psychology> <the psychology of Jung>

Underline mine.

You missed the point. The conclusion that the person in question was deluded would not be a proper scientific conclusion unless you posit there is no God in which case you have overstepped science and moved on to philosophy.