It's not a "talking point" it's a good point, and I have found responses to it by apologists to be severely lacking and amazingly sparring in details. Your response here is illuminating. /1 https://twitter.com/RandalRauser/status/1247302718328193025

First you offer a comparison between a skeptic of testimony as a basis for knowledge (which I am not) pointing out a supposed inconsistency between belief in a mundane claim that conforms to our background knowledge and one that wildly violates our background knowledge. /2

In the case of the resurrection of Jesus vs. miracles for Sathya Sai Babba (or Joseph Smith, or others, we've got loads of em!) we have multiple independent witnesses to their miracle claims - claims that do go against our background knowledge of how the world works. /3

I don't have to deny miracles are possible, merely that in most common experience, we do not observe them with any regularly. In Sai Babba's case we have living people who will attest to his miracles. In Jesus we have 2nd/3rd/Nth hand accounts, anonymous ones mostly. /4

And as I've pointed out before, we know there are false miracle claims added to the gospel narratives about Jesus. Early Paul is 2nd hand testimony of creeds and his own "vision". I have reasons to think the accounts are any more plausible than the ones for the Babba. /5

What's more, historians don't have any basis for this either, which is why the historical method is silent about miracle claims. If you want to say you have a basis because of properly basic beliefs becuase your parents told you Xtianity is true or a sense of the divine /6

Then all that does is void out the evidential weight of the resurrection as a historical argument. It works because of your background beliefs being brought up in a Christian home. That's fine as far as it goes, but it's not belief on the basis of historical evidence. /7

I've read apologists try to explain why we should believe the bible but they appeal to moral teachings, where the miracles are supposed to validate the theology, which entails the moral teachings. Given moral disagreement, all this does is reinforce beliefs of your culture. /8

Oh and there's plenty to object to in Jesus's moral teachings, nor does it mean that flawed people can't do miracles as well (the bible has apostles and murderers -Paul do miracles). It is supposed to validate their teachings or theology. /9

Finally, if you say there are reasons to believe the bible's miracle claims are credible where others are not then YOU can give me one, not reference multiple books for me to go off and read. Why? Well for this reason:

10/10