A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

How is your position on miracles not circular?

Well, let me educate you. But do remember that we talked about this dictating other people's positions to them; it's awfully rude.

1 There is no God.

Not a part of our position, but please don't just senselessly leap to the contra-positive.

2 Miracles are the supernatural work of God.

Also not a part of our position, as miracles could either work through natural means caused by a supernatural source, or be supernatural but not caused by a god. Don't assume everyone else is bound by your definitions.

3 Therefore, miracles are impossible.

Since one and two are incorrect, three cannot be true.

4 The gospels contains reports of miracles.
5 Therefore, the gospels contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.
6 Therefore, the gospels cannot be trusted.
7 Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
8 Therefore, there is no God.

So, you're adding the strawman fallacy to your- quite impressive!- list of them, now?

Is there any other evidence for the existence of God than a miraculous event? You will not accept conclusions like first cause, fine-tuning, complexity of life, human consciousness therefore God. You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

If you believe miracles are from god, then of course you'd need evidence of the existence of god (not those question beggy, arguments from ignorance you listed here) before you should believe in miracles; it's irrational to believe in the effect with no indication that the cause exists. The problem is that what you're doing is saying that if god exists, miracles are possible, and since you believe in miracles- let's not forget you've not mentioned any specific examples of those- then therefore god must exist, since you've defined miracles as things that god causes, and they're possible if you believe in god.

Or, are you saying that if we knew the gospel writers to be eyewitnesses then you would believe in miracles.

Eyewitness testimony, even at its best, is to be disregarded if it conflicts with the available objective evidence. Since we have no indication that miracles or gods are even possible, there is no reason to accept eyewitness testimony of events that contradict everything we know to be true about the way reality works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I understand your distinction of defining miracles as events that God causes is the same as saying if God is possible miracles are possible. I will not use that argument again.

So we are left with if a hypothetical "miracluous" event occurs then we know:

1. Its cause is not natural
2. It may be a supernatural random event (no purpose)
3. It may be a supernatural directed event (purpose)

If purpose is evident in a supernatural event, why can't we conclude a purposeful supernatural being?

There is no logical reason to say that a supernatural event can't be witnessed. What makes it different than any other event witnessed. The witnesses use the same sense data. It is not logical that the event itself has the power to make sense data unreliable.

Why isn't "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" special pleading?