An author named Craig Keener put out a two volume work entitled “Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts” (Baker Academic, 2011).
I perused both volumes, read the sections on references for modern miracles, and was fascinated to discover that Keener did not intend to establish any particular miracle claim as true, but rather, to show that miracle claims are made more frequently than most people think they do.
What is the point of telling the miracle-denier that miracle claims are made more often than he or she thinks? Is it not to open them up to the possibility that some modern miracle claims are true? If so, then how can Keener think his work is respectable, when he never tries to establish as true any of the modern day miracles that he provides myriad references for? Does he seriously expect skeptics to follow up those leads and research them?
I have an argument rationally justifying miracle-skeptics to just dismiss all miracle claims that originate outside their city of residence. Namely, that the kind of thorough miracle-investigation that would guard as much as possible against fraud or mistake, would consume so much time, money and resources, that such investigator would not have any time left to conduct his or her own life. They would have to be super rich super lonely people not wishing to do more in life than travel the world to meet and interview miracle-claimants and their allegedly baffled doctors, etc.
I posted such argument to my own blog, and posted similar material at Christian apologetics blog Triablogue in response to their discussion about no medical proof of missing limbs being restored. Steve Hays responded to me, and I replied to him.
I looked up Keener on the internet and found the part of his website devoted to discussion of miracles. That is a blog space that allows comments, but when I clicked on “leave a comment”, I got “comments are closed”, for each miracle discussion that I tried to comment on.
I would like Keener to personally respond to my argument that says atheists and skeptics are rationally justified to arbitrarily dismiss all claims of medical miracles that originate outside their own cities of residence, on the grounds that miracle-investigation sufficiently comprehensive to guard as much as possible against fraud or mistake, would be so expensive and time consuming that the investigators would have no time left to conduct their own private lives. I would also like to invite Mr. Keener to provide me with the one miracle claim from the modern world whose evidence he thinks is the most compelling.