Completely with you, you are arguing against miracles…..but your argument is begging the question…..you are arguing in a circle. I’ll attempt to show you that at the end. But first…………
1. This is big. This is what you are not accounting for when you speak against resurrection. Our definition and understandings of miracles is different. Yours is governed and limited by your epistemology of strict materialistic naturalism. Thus to you miracles are a violation of nature and must be naturally explained. I get it. You are begging the question for naturalism. Specifically more on that later.
At the end of the day, I am interested in the truth. And I am willing to consider whatever epistemological tool works best. So I put forward this challenge to you:
Show me a way to seek and reliably evaluate truth claims about the supernatural or spiritual world.
I am calling your bluff. I am asking you to define the epistemological tools
you used to construct the ontology you believe to be factual.
(1) Describe the ontology you have constructed where gods and spirits are allowed to exist and intervene in our universe,
(2) describe how such interactions work and how they are in conformance what we observe (the laws of nature), and
(3) describe the epistemological process you used to construct this ontology.