Why are miracles acceptable as evidence but not other things? Sye: he's a cessationist, so miracles as evidence is tongue-in-cheek — if you believe in miracles today, go do them; otherwise that evidence is unavailable

Sye clarifies: he is a cessationist (signs and wonders have ceased). His point about miracles being the only biblical evidence is partly tongue-in-cheek. He is not opposed to evidence in general; he is opposed to granting autonomous reason to unbelievers. His actual claim is that when Paul declared the resurrection at Athens, he was stating a fact, not constructing a probabilistic argument.