True, which means that our reason must be used to temper faith. Reason tells me that each of the "miracles" you brought up have several warning indicators that they are probably fabrications.
Never forget the act of reasoning can be mislead by following wrong premises.
That's why pure faith precedes the process of reasoning.
Always check your premises.
And you can only deal with premises through pure faith.
Bad premises, false conclusions.
1. They happened a long time ago, or in a far-away land, thus removed from the scrutiny of the first world press. (In some cases both) Which means that they are left open to being wildly over-exaggerated. (Note: First world press coverage doesn't necessarily prevent this, but in my opinion, more coverage and thus more skeptical scrutiny helps reveal the truth.)
True.
It's wise to start with the benefit of the doubt.
Agnosticism is best starting point.
2. The photographic and video evidence is either blurry or non-existent.
Physical world burden.
3. First-hand accounts from reliable witnesses and experts are also non-existent.
How do you know they're not reliable witnesses? What makes you cease your benefit of the doubt? This is the very "cat's jump", be very careful in this moment.
I'm sure I could go on if applied more thought to this but I think my point is clear.
I still have the impression that you tend to accept the position of Scientism.
If I accepted these miracles as true based on the provided evidence, then to remain consistent I would also have to accept Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Alien Abductions as true.
Do you really think these things are exactly the same Christian theology?
Like miracles, however, I choose to simply view those events with skeptical disbelief until I find some evidence that the events in question couldn't easily be a fabrication or a false perception.
My question is: what kind of evidence are you expecting?
You don't need to tell me.
Can you be honest with yourself and say you are not biased to Scientism?
