Sai Baba and Christianity, Why Miracles should not be Believed
I came about this topic of Sai Baba via Youtube videos of Sam Harris at a couple of presentations. He cites Sai as evidence that even assuming the Gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts there'd still be room to doubt miraculous claims.
Here's a link to what appears to be the official site of this godman, straight to the page on miracles, likely the most amusing page of the site:
Also, here is a link to the video of Harris if anyone is interested:
My question concerning this person deals especially with the evidence of his miracles--something which likely Christianity doesn't even possess with the Gospel accounts--namely, contemporaneous, living eyewitnesses. It would seem from the research here and there I've done on this topic that there is far more evidence for this person's divinity (solely as evidenced through the miracles purported by those that believe them to be) than there is for Christianity.
Yet I, and I am almost certain of this, all of you and myself, will continue to doubt, perhaps even in spite of previous claims you may have made (I have made them as well) to the effect of "well, if there were only living eyewitnesses that made the claims" or "if only there were video footage of Jesus' resurrection," we might come to believe a given person to be a supernatural force.
For the sake of discussion, and to perhaps keep this more analogous to Christianity, disregard the videos of him showcasing his somewhat obvious and cheap magic tricks and focus instead on the personal testimony of his supposed divinity.
The question that I'm going the long way of asking is what criteria is it proper to expect for claims of the supernatural? Given, as I have heard it said on this forum, that UFOs (not supernatural but extraordinary) also share a large body of mostly living eyewitness testimonies, why is that insufficient to warrant belief in the things they claim to evidence?