Evidence for Believing

[GrandizerII]

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.

We seem to be using different semantics again. Miracles are extraordinary events; if it is an event that you can set controls for in an experiment, then you are establishing an order to it. If it's an observable, predictable order of things, that fits neatly within naturalism — unless you're locking down naturalism to (reductive) physical materialism.

This to me sounds like you're saying that if the supernatural can be invoked, it can't be supernatural. I'm sorry but I don't see why one can't assume some form of order to the supernatural, especially if we wish to define supernatural in the sense that we can conceive of a means of establishing some form of evidence for it. Otherwise, it seems supernaturalism by definition is not evident.

I'm happy to go with that, but then why try to argue for evidence for supernaturalism?