I'm posting another exchange I had with a village atheist at Victor Reppert's blog:
Which is why, when asked why these kinds of things only happen in stories, you point out that they don't just happen in stories -- because they also happen in stories. Got it.
Apart from what you personally experience, everything else you believe about the world is based on testimonial evidence. Records, "Stories." I've pointed you to multiple resources containing well-documented miracles.
Calling them "stories" is unintelligent. Historical knowledge, including the history of science, is transmitted through "stories." Reported events.
Discerning people distinguish between true and false "stories". You, however, have a circular, unfalsifiable position where no matter how much evidence is provided, you dismiss that as something which only happens in "stories".
All these are entities or phenomena that exist in reality, and not just in stories. Why do you suppose that the magical events that occurred in the New Testament don't ever happen in reality, but are only recounted to us through stories? Are there no events that you think only happen in stories, and aren't real?
Most of what you think you know about reality is based on secondhand information. You don't directly observe most of what happens in the world. You're in no position to distinguish between "reality" and "stories" when your information about "reality" is mediated through reports. Your posture is anti-intellectual and self-refuting.
Apart from logical contradictions, we don't have an inborn knowledge of what's possible. That's something to be discovered. We learn about the world through observation or revelation.
Most of what you believe about the world is based on secondhand information. Reported places, reported events, reported fauna and flora, &c. He can only call things "stories" if he can distinguish between reality and stories. He can only use reality as a benchmark if he has access to reality.
But he lacks direct access to most of what he believes about the world. He relies on records, reports, testimony, "stories".
He still hasn't figured on that his invidious contrast between "evidence" and "stories" is viciously circular.