Evidence for Believing

[GrandizerII]

It's still very weak evidence because it's not been established that the healing was because of a miracle rather than spontaneous healing for which we have potential physiological explanations. And we do need to set up something like an experiment (or similar) to establish whether miracles can happen (by observing that miracle healings significantly more frequently occur right after praying to God as opposed to not, for example ... even though we would still need to go beyond that as well to make sure). If miracles only happen very selectively, then we can't say we have conclusive evidence.

And I know you're Catholic, but many of us don't take "church approval" seriously around here. It means nothing to us.

If it was a testable, verifiable phenomenon that spontaneous remission occurred significantly more frequently during or as a result of prayer, we should look at some powerful psychosomatic (natural) cause, like perhaps another order of magnitude in the placebo effect. If something is observably repeatable within the order of empirical phenomena such that you can form an inductive conclusion from predictable data, that makes it less likely to be a miracle, not more likely.

Yes, it's not an "end-all, be-all" procedure but such observations could still put us on a good starting point for seriously considering the plausibility of miracles. We would have to go beyond just this basic experiment to establish the reality of miracles of course (say different controls, e.g. "praying to rocks").

But more importantly, this seems a concession on your part of the difficulty of attaining conclusive evidence for miracles.

ETA: Nevertheless, I disagree that repeatability of observations means they can't [likely] be supernatural/divine.