> Miracles are not the root of why I consider Christianity to be rational. That's not how this works. If you make the claim that some system of beliefs is rati

> Miracles are not the root of why I consider Christianity to be rational. That's not how this works. If you make the claim that some system of beliefs is rational, you have taken on the burden of proof that central claims of that system of beliefs are rational. > They're a possibility; a side-effect, not a proof. No, they are a central claim of the system of beliefs that you claimed to be rational. > I'm simply leaving the possibility of their being more than nature open and finding that opening filled. That's part of why I find it rational. Could you define what you mean by "rational"? As for that middle paragraph of yours ... I'm sorry, but that mostly suggests that you haven't even tried to understand the counter-arguments. It's a pile of well-known fallacies that really shouldn't be that hard to figure out if you cared. Those arguments have been used and refuted for ages.