You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[Mister Agenda]

1) No matter how many time you guys repeat "argument from ignorance", it still won't be so. An argument from ignorance would be me asserting miracles happen because you can't prove they don't. I am not doing that. I am showing that logically, supernatural causes are possible and mathematically can be weighed against an event occurring as a result of natural causes.

2) Some have tried to circumvent the discussion by claiming supernatural causes do not exist--to which I replied is a positive assertion and will have to be proved.

Note the distinction between the two. Furthermore, there is nothing logically wrong with inferring some supernatural entity from evidence of supernatural causation.

1. You are not showing that supernatural causes are possible, you are claiming it. Until something has been proven to be possible, you can't apply Bayesian logic to it. Proving something possible is a necessary step for it to be meaningful to bring probability into it.
2. Pointing out that you have to prove supernatural causes DO exist before you can assign them a probability above zero is perfectly legitimate.

If you had the slightest evidence of supernatural causation, you would still have to prove supernatural entities; by which I presume you mean conscious intelligent beings with intent behind their supernatural interventions. If your evidence of natural causes was sand, you could not then infer people because you've got sand. If people are resurrected by supernatural means, it could just be something supernatural forces do sometimes. Maybe supernatural forces respond to humans with a particular rare blood type. There are steps between 'something supernatural caused something to happen' and 'God'.