This is a challenge to Christians and their “apologists”:
Suppose a stranger came up to you in a coffee shop, and described themselves as a Christian who believes in the full deity and humanity of Jesus, the Trinity, salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone, and the full inerrancy of the Protestant version of the bible, who said they had, under direction from Jesus Christ, successfully mated a bird with a dog, and the resulting offspring was a dog with natural flying ability and used by God to spread the gospel. Suppose the stranger shows you video footage on his laptop, that shows what looks like a real dog with real biological wings on its back, flying around the room the way a bird would, and the dog can be seen moving its jaws and emitting a voice that says “repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ”.
How conclusively would you require the alternative explanations to be refuted, before you would actually believe this video is showing a real biological dog with real biological flying ability?
Would it be about as conclusively as the skeptic requires naturalistic explanations to be refuted before they will believe that a miracle-claim is true?
What would be your reaction immediately after watching that video for the first time?
- the video is likely faked
- the video is not likely faked
- viewing the video, without more investigation, is insufficient to rationally justify drawing even a tentative conclusion