Evidence of Modern Miracles
Evidence of Modern Miracles | Dr. Craig Keener
The case is decided
It wasDr. Craig Keener.
Keener presented extensive eyewitness accounts, medical documentation, and statistical data to support the occurrence of modern miracles, while Huffman's questions, though valid, did not constitute counter-arguments or rebuttals. Huffman never challenged Keener's evidence or logic, effectively conceding the floor. The one-sided nature means Keener's arguments went unopposed, carrying his burden of proof by default.
Why Dr. Craig Keener won
- [1442s] Keener dismantles Hume's classic argument against miracles by noting that uniform human experience cannot be claimed when hundreds of millions assert otherwise.
- [1690s] Cites a survey of U.S. doctors where over half claimed to have witnessed miracles, undercutting the idea that miracles lack credible eyewitnesses.
- [2090s] References medically documented cases published in journals, including instant healing of 12-year blindness, addressing the demand for scientific evidence.
- [2430s] Provides the detailed account of Jeff Martin’s resurrection, certified dead for 40 minutes, with no brain damage afterward, illustrating a well-attested extraordinary case.
Where Eric Huffman scored
- [2587s] Huffman raised a legitimate existential question about why some pleas for miracles go unanswered, which Keener addressed theologically but not empirically.
- [1813s] Huffman articulated the common objection that belief in miracles is anti-scientific, prompting a clear rebuttal from Keener.
Closest callWhether Keener's theological response to the problem of unanswered prayers (a foretaste of future restoration) fully satisfies the existential challenge, given that it does not explain the selective nature of healings.
Crowd verdict
1 voteThe model called this for Dr. Craig Keener. Who do you say won?
Spread the verdict
Receipts attached. The link opens at the deciding moment.
Another case?
Try the next debate.