(March 15, 2016 at 12:19 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(March 15, 2016 at 12:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: Using the same example above, are eyewitness accounts of the event, timing, and context sufficient to increase the probability of an event having a supernatural cause versus a natural one?
You're still arguing that low probability events equal miracles. No they don't. Low probability events equal low probability events. The probability cannot demonstrate that it has a supernatural cause, only evidence of an actual supernatural cause can do that. Eyewitness accounts to unexplained events, even if held to be reliable, even given certain context, do not show the supernatural.
Precisely. Miracles are a oart of the equation we have no business even getting to yet. None of the groundwork has been done first. Steve (not yours truly) wants us to go from "Something weird just happened, which only I saw. What are the odds?" to "Yay miracles!" and just leave it at that.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'