Atheist Armin Navabi writes that "a person surviving a disease believed to be terminal only shows that the disease may not be fully understood or that the prognosis was not accurate." Using miracles as evidence for God would be an argument from ignorance. Because, "no matter how unlikely an event is, it doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation would be more likely." to claim that the Bible is evidence for God is the fallacy of begging the question and is no different than saying, 'This is true because I believe it." He goes on to say, "Just because something is written in a book does not mean that it's true." Is this what Christians are doing when they claim that God's existence is proven by Scripture? Can the Bible be used in our case for God's existence?

Let's take a deeper look at chapter 3 of "Why There Is No God" by Armin Navabi and see how we can better understand his points and respond to his arguments. I hope to show you how Christians can use miracles as evidence for God. An open Q&A will follow my discussion of the chapter.