You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[Cyberman]

It's not our job to prove something is not a miracle. It's your job to demonstrate that it is. The very fact that you're quibbling over definitions and the burden of proof shows that on some level you recognise the dearth of miracles available to examine.

So, are you not taking the positive position that miracles do not exist--you are just saying that there is no evidence for them.

No, I take the position that I will not accept that miracles do occur until sufficient evidence is presented to justify accepting them. I won't say there is no evidence - anything you want to present is evidence - I merely say that thus far what little has been offered as evidence doesn't actually evidence the thing it's meant to.

Of course if you're going to dilute the definition of "miracle" to something like "a really improbable event", then fine; miracles are real. But then the question arises: "so what?" Winning the lottery is a miracle now? What a depressingly low standard.

Others say there is evidence for them.

Great - let's see if it stands up to scrutiny.

We look at each one and assign probability and when we do that, then is seems likely that miracles have happened.

Even if you could assign numerical values to these things, and that is one hell of an 'if', what is the cutoff point between an unlikely event and a miracle? And why?

I think one of your problems is frequency. You can't use frequency as a probability theory. Scientist are looking for infrequent events all the time. Secondly, we are not talking about random events--we are talking about an event caused by a supernatural free agent. In such a case, an event might be caused precisely because it is infrequent.

I think you need a healthy dose of Occam's Razor, to be honest. Oh, and please stop strawmanning me.