EMCEE DARTH MALEK wrote:
For starters do not talk to the faithful about evidence. Faith by definition does not demand evidence.
So faith is the belief in something in the absence of sufficient evidence? Why does everyone agree that this is a really poor reason for believing in anything EXCEPT when it comes to religion? There is absolutely no reason why religious arguments/propositions shouldn't come under the same logical and experimental scrutiny that every single other aspect of life does.
As an outsider it seems he doesn't understand religion. As he concedes there are countless reports of miracles now as there were back then. Jesus's miracles are completely irrelevant to the claim of his divinity.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, but I can assure you he understands and is knowledgeable about a wide variety of religions. He's much more knowledgeable on the subject than most, religious or not.
As for miracles, they are such a flawed concept that it's almost not worth commenting on, but a few obvious points...
If God is capable of miracles, why are they so infrequent and random. It's extremely egocentric to think that your cancer remission is a miracle when somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000 children under 5 years old die every day, underserving of miracles I suppose.
Their has never been a miracle cure of something that doesn't naturally get better itself. Salamanders can regenerate their own limbs without divine intervention, yet apparently God can't do this for humans (or chooses not to?). But maybe if you have a form of cancer with a reasonable mortality rate you might get better if you pray (or don't) and that's considered a miracle?
As for Jesus's divinity, again their is no evidence to support this claim, and their exists numerous examples throughout history of immortals, divine births, miracle workers etc. It is highly unlikely that these accounts are true.