> How is that relevant to the question of whether it is rational to believe it actually happened in that particular instance?
If there is evidence for it occurring, then yes that would be rational, regardless of how unlikely it seems for an event to occur.
> How is that relevant to the question of whether it is rational to believe it actually happened in that particular instance?
Forgive me, it seemed that you were dismissing the virgin birth and the resurrection as irrational because you considered such events as not being possible or to unlikely to occur.
> Is it rational to accept as truth something purely because you can postulate it?
No. You can postulate reasons for and against miraculous reports, but it is not rational to believe that some proposition or its negation is true unless there is evidence for it.
> If there is evidence for it occurring, then yes that would be rational, regardless of how unlikely it seems for an event to occur.
Which isn't an answer to the question?
> Forgive me, it seemed that you were dismissing the virgin birth and the resurrection as irrational because you considered such events as not being possible or to unlikely to occur.
I am not dismissing them, I am asking how it is rational to consider them true.
> No. You can postulate reasons for and against miraculous reports, but it is not rational to believe that some proposition or its negation is true unless there is evidence for it.
Correct. So ... how is it rational to believe that either of those Christian doctrines is true?
I acknowledged as much. I mistakenly didn't see you as asking "how it is rational" but as asking "how could it be considered rational?". This is why I hadn't answered your question and instead chose to note that such events haven't been proven impossible.
> So ... how is it rational to believe that either of those Christian doctrines is true?
There is historical evidence for those events occurring, and there are hardly any counter claims that amount to more than just speculation.
If that same kind of evidence were presented to you about a figure in a different religion, would you agree that that figure also was born to a virgin or came back from death?
What if the same kind of evidence were presented about some other person, not related to a religion? Would you agree that that person was born to a virgin or came back from death?
If there is evidence for it occurring, then yes that would be rational, regardless of how unlikely it seems for an event to occur.
> How is that relevant to the question of whether it is rational to believe it actually happened in that particular instance?
Forgive me, it seemed that you were dismissing the virgin birth and the resurrection as irrational because you considered such events as not being possible or to unlikely to occur.
> Is it rational to accept as truth something purely because you can postulate it?
No. You can postulate reasons for and against miraculous reports, but it is not rational to believe that some proposition or its negation is true unless there is evidence for it.