Can't prove the supernatural God

[Angrboda]

Do you have an example of such a miracle that doesn't come from the bible?  We see modern day faith healers superficially exhibiting timing and context and such, yet digging into the actual circumstances, one finds that the appearance is largely deceptive.  If you can't rule out deception (or simple mistake), then how does context realistically relate to estimated probability?

Good question. I touched on this in the post above to Redbeard. 

Edited somewhat - Regarding the NT, these were big, purposeful (had context, taught lessons, proved a point), witnessed (many by large groups), and had theological significance (backed up Jesus' claim to be God, means of redemption, . We do not see these types of miracles anymore. This is also a reason I am not going to argue if so and so's brain tumor disappeared as a result of supernatural intervention. These types are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) theological significance. 

You asked for an example. I have spoken before about my brother-in-laws brain tumor as a teenager. Was having seizures. Scans found tumor. He was being prepped for brain surgery and they scanned to get the latest mapping for the operation. No tumor. The doctor has no explanation and the family and friends believe it was a miracle (to give further context, my father-in-law was a minister in a local church so there was a lot of people involved and a lot of people who cared). Since my worldview contains the supernatural, the NT explains the context of what we can expect if we pray for healing, and there seems to be no natural causes, I believe I am justified in agreeing with them. Can I say 100%? No. 

Thank you for the example. I share some of Mister Agenda's reservations, but I have a different question along the lines we were discussing before. How does this relate to the factors which you suggested we should turn to for assessment of the likelihood of a miracle, namely context and, for lack of a better term, cueing (saying "You are healed!" and the person suddenly being healed). The NT is context for how prayer can heal, but it's a very distant context and there appears to be no such cueing in your brother-in-law's case. Wouldn't that reduce your assessment of the prospect of it being a miracle correspondingly? I'm tempted to ask why, if it's good for the goose, is it not good for the gander, if you catch my drift? Why isn't poor support from context not evidence against the assessment of a miracle?