Bitbutter

A long list of miracles are attributed to Sai Baba, for instance it is claimed that he 'materialised' a live monkey during an interview–he maintains that this was no conjuring trick, but that he was using devine power. Why don't I believe him? Because I believe that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and I'm not aware of extraordinary evidence that supports Sai Baba's claim.

If James Randi were to set up a controlled test of Sai Baba's powers, and was unable to demonstrate that he is a fraud, I would assign a greater likelihood to the possibility that Sai Baba is telling the truth. But in the absence of such a test it doesn't seem premature to assume that there is nothing paranormal going on. My guess is that most of us would agree.

Which seems more likely to you:

1. The reports are true; Sai Baba performs miracles
2. There is some other explanation for the fact that thousands of people claim that he performs miracles

Which seems more likely to you:

1. The miracles that Joseph Smith (the father of Mormonism) described really happened
2. The miracles that Joseph Smith described didn't happen

Which seems more likely to you:

1. The miracles described in the Qur'an really happened
2. The Qur'anic miracles didn't really happen

Which seems more likely to you:

1. The miracles ascribed to Krisha really happened
2. Krisha's miracles didn't really happen

Which seems more likely to you:

1. The miracles described in the bible really happened
2. The biblical miracles didn't really happen