Realized I was way too vague, should clarify what I mean is that human testimony is significantly less trustworthy than most believe it to be, even including mundane and non-spiritual subjects (like court testimony, for example—even well-intentioned people trying to be accurate are far more unreliable than one would naively expect). This means we should discount it suitably with regards to all subjects, perhaps a little more so if the testimony is similar to common delusions or religions with contradictory gospel or something. I would not rely on the testimony of a single human making any sort of extremely unusual claim, if I can help it (especially if there are significant negative downsides if they’re wrong).
So yes, if someone believes miracles are extremely common, this argument wouldn’t hold, though I don’t think most believers tend to, well, believe that.
I’ve read a number of books arguing for the truth of various religions (mostly Orthodox Judaism, though I have also seen some great Islamic and Christian stuff) and they tend to emphasize how incredible, how insane it is that God would choose to take a personal interest in us through miracles (and giving us prophets, etc.). Some books even specifically talk about how unlikely it is that anyone would lie about such improbable events, as the proof that such events must have happened as reported! After all, why would someone who is deliberately lying and afraid of being caught make up such specific and bizarre details like are seen throughout the Bible?…
Realized I was way too vague, should clarify what I mean is that human testimony is significantly less trustworthy than most believe it to be, even including mundane and non-spiritual subjects (like court testimony, for example—even well-intentioned people trying to be accurate are far more unreliable than one would naively expect). This means we should discount it suitably with regards to all subjects, perhaps a little more so if the testimony is similar to common delusions or religions with contradictory gospel or something. I would not rely on the testimony of a single human making any sort of extremely unusual claim, if I can help it (especially if there are significant negative downsides if they’re wrong).
So yes, if someone believes miracles are extremely common, this argument wouldn’t hold, though I don’t think most believers tend to, well, believe that.
I’ve read a number of books arguing for the truth of various religions (mostly Orthodox Judaism, though I have also seen some great Islamic and Christian stuff) and they tend to emphasize how incredible, how insane it is that God would choose to take a personal interest in us through miracles (and giving us prophets, etc.). Some books even specifically talk about how unlikely it is that anyone would lie about such improbable events, as the proof that such events must have happened as reported! After all, why would someone who is deliberately lying and afraid of being caught make up such specific and bizarre details like are seen throughout the Bible?…
The Catholic church requires a person to facilitate two miracles to gain sainthood. That makes miracles more common then those events in the bible.