[kosta50]

The first thing an anti-God, anti-Christ activist must do to unsettle a shallow-rooted Christian is to establish the rules of engagement

Paranoia will destroya...as they say. There is no strategy and no anti-Christ (except in some people's convoluted minds). It's just that some rational people will not sit idly and let others portay their fantastic stories, supsertitions, fanatsies, hallucinations, and what not as "facts"without a challenge to prove them as facts.

They just call their bluff.

[Alamo-Girl]

They just call their bluff.

Actually, they call God's bluff.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

Not a smart move though they love to call themselves "bright."

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. – Revelation 19:11-16

And again,

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [literally, muwth muwth or “death death”]. – Genesis 2:17

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. - Revelation 21:1-8

God's Name is I AM.

[count-your-change]

And you are one of these “rational” people? What makes you so?
Is it rational to demand proofs for “their fantastic stories, supsertitions, fanatsies, hallucinations, and what not...” if, in fact, that “rational” person believes that no such “proof” can possibly exist?
Rather like going to the ice rink to drill holes and fish under the ice, isn't it?

[grey_whiskers]

It's just that some rational people will not sit idly and let others portay their fantastic stories, supsertitions, fanatsies, hallucinations, and what not as "facts"without a challenge to prove them as facts.

You're making a very common mistake.

There are lots and lots of purely historical events without any question of the supernatural, which would themselves fall for "lack of evidence" if put to the more rigorous tests used to screen out putative stories of miracles, etc.

You may answer, "ECREE."

That's good, but giving something purely naturalistic the "Mythbusters stamp of approval" as CONFIRMED when it is merely "plausible" is also a false positive.

But the real issue is deeper: it is the a priori assumption that "miracles do not happen" and must be explained away or dismissed.

Saying "the laws of nature prove there are no miracles" is merely a symptom of confusion, because the laws of nature are ex post facto empirical descriptions, based on observation under controlled conditions.

And real scientists are the first to tell you one verified counter example is both necessary and sufficient grounds to uproot a model or a law of nature (cf Newtonian vs. Relativistic laws of motion.)

Secondly, there is both a theological / religious (especially for the Christian) and a scientific problem with ECREE.

For the Christian, it is well recorded that "He could do no mighty works there because of their lack of faith". If you try to experiment on God to test miracles, then He knows. And your lack of faith may hinder His power: or, He may just get pissed that you have the nerve to think of yourself worthy to "experiment" on Him.

(Malachi's "put me to the test in this" notwithstanding, because that was a specific challenge to people within a covenant with Him to live up to their end of the bargain as far as offerings, not a general beer-drinking wager where God "double-dog-dares" humanity to take him on.)

For the scientist, the problem is that the very precondition which is accepted as making science possible -- that of "uniformity of causes in a closed system" is the thing which is being tested.

And if you can't guarantee what the causes are, you can't control for them, nor can you vouch for the integrity of the system being tested.

It's like the old brain teaser / joke out of Games magazine some 25 years ago or so.

A bunch of people are traveling by train through...let's say France.

They see a brown cow.

The first man speaks up: "Look, all cows in France are brown."

The second one corrects him: "No, all cows in France on that side of the train are brown."

The third one goes, "No, that's not quite right, either. All cows in France on that side of the train are brown on at least one side."

The fourth man (a Games Magazine reader) corrects them all: "The correct formulation is, 'All cows in France on that side of the train are brown on at least one side at least part of the time."

Cheers!