Now, compare that lie, to a lie which states that a man isn't performing any miracles, even though he is. How easy, or difficult, would it be to spread this lie, if the man were, actually, performing miracles?
First, lets look at some of the miracles. Are they minor, or are they extraordinary?
A man turning water into wine, is a miracle that may only sway the people who are present, and, clearly know that the jugs have been filled with water. Unless they personally saw the jugs being filled with water, and then being poured out as wine, they may not believe that a miracle actually happened. This is because they weren't present to see it happen, first hand. They can only rely on the testimonies of the people who did see it. So, larger groups of people may still be skeptical. After all, unless they were there, they just heard about it. They could conclude that it's a false rumor, or that the people, who saw it, were tricked.
However, what if a group heard that this man healed another man, who had leprosy? Let's also suppose that the group knows another person who has leprosy, and that, that person, with leprosy, goes to the healer, and returns, showing everyone that his leprosy is completely gone. A situation, like that, will be more convincing to the group who knows the man, because they know that the man had leprosy.
Now, lets say that that group, then, decides to see this healer, personally. That way, they can see him perform miracles, with their own eyes.
At this level, the lie can be easily refuted, because they, personally, have the opportunity to witness the healings, for themselves.
So, in these two cases, the bigger, more outrageous lie, is a lot easier to refute. Again, the lie is that a man is not performing miracles; even though he is. It takes more steps to refute it. However, it's easy to refute, because all skeptics are able to do so, on their own, independently. All they have to do is check it out, for themselves, and believe their own eyes. Juxtapose that to a group of people having to, merely, trust their government, on a vote count.
The "election fraud" lie is much easier to spread, because it's a lot more difficult for a group of people to, personally, verify that it's a lie. That group has to trust their government. They're not allowed to count every vote, with their own hands, and see the literal tally, with their own eyes.
On the other hand, a lie that a man isn't performing miracles -- a man that this group can go and visit, for themselves -- is a lot easier to refute, and, therefore, harder to spread. This is because each person, in that group, has the power to witness the miracles, personally.
I have, now, been able to show two things. First, I've been able to explain how, not all lies are created equal. Some are a lot easier to spread than others. So, the blanket statement that "lies can spread", although true, isn't equally feasible, in all cases.
The second thing that I've been able to show, is that, sometimes, it takes a lot of explanation to make a valid point. Sometimes, it can take time, and a thorough examination of what's logical and true. After all, it took me over a dozen paragraphs to successfully refute a single, misleading, over-generalized, statement.
So, when you prevent a person from being able to take the time to make a point, by limiting them to a few seconds before cutting them off, they won't be able to make the point. This doesn't mean that they don't have a valid point. It just means that they're not allowed to make it.
This is what took place, time and time again, during the call.
Unfortunately, when it comes to proving the existence of God, proving the validity of the Bible, and proving the fact that Jesus performed miracles, a painstaking, thorough approach, is necessary. There are no real shortcuts. Because of all of this, it's become clear to me that, making this case on a call-in show, would be very difficult. It would be a lot easier to make the case on paper, via articles. Or to even have a back-and-forth conversation, via typed E-mail messages. In those types of scenarios, no argument is forced to get rushed. Each person has a fair chance to make their case, without being cut-off, interrupted, or censored.
Fortunately, I've already written a lot about the topic that was discussed during that phone call. Not only have I written articles, I can provide a detailed, online, convesation between me, and an atheist, on this very topic. That conversation is exceptionally helpful, since the atheist raises many of the same questions that were rasied during the call. All anyone has to do, is read these materials.
Out of all of the questions that Eve and Alyssa asks, in the call video, only one hasn't been answered in my writings and online conversation. Even Alyssa's question about an illusionist, is discussed in my online conversation with the other atheist.
The one question that isn't discussed, is the question of "Why didn't God send Jesus, today? Why was Jesus sent to a time period where there were no cameras, or video capability?"
Because this question hasn't been answered in any of my articles, or in that online conversation, I'll answer it, here.
At first glance, this seems like a scenario that would make all the difference in the world. After all, video evidence is irrefutable. Aside from DNA evidence, there's no piece of evidence that's more compelling, right?
Actually, this isn't always the case. Think of it. Which is more compelling, being able to watch something on video, or being able to witness it with your own eyes? Which is more compelling, seeing photographs of something, or actually being healed, yourself, of a physical ailment?