Making the lame walk again.

[Rayaan]

The phenomena, in each of these cases, is the belief. A phenomena is an observable occurrence, none of these things qualify as such, since their occurrence has not been established at all.

Yeah, none of those things have been established to be true empirically as of yet, hence they are just beliefs. There were at least eye-witnesses to some of those miracles, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the miracles are genuine.

Surely there must be some example of a miracle that isn't wholly comprised of a belief in miracles?

If a miracle was not wholly comprised of a belief, then it would have to fall under the area of science and observational methods.

However, again, miracles - physical miracles, that is - are thought to be separate from science.

In any case (just to be thorough), I don't think the belief in any of these things is inexplicable...and it has been reproduced many times.

And which of those things have been reproduced exactly? And how?

How can you make a determination between their experiences and the "genuine article"?

That is simply determined by my faith in the Quran as the word of God, but I have no evidence for that. I also trust the accounts of people who claimed to witness the said miracles even though I do not believe that they are necessarily 100% infallible/truthful in whatever they say.

If a modern pistol were transported into the very distant past and fired once as a demonstration...no one would be able to reproduce that event, and no one would be able to explain that event with the laws of nature, at least those known to them. Why is this not a miracle, and how might it even differ from the contents of those beliefs in miracles you mentioned above.

But that's an "if" scenario, and there weren't any eye-witnesses for the pistol being transported into a very distant past either.

You're seem to be using some other (as-yet unspoken) criteria besides reproducibility and the understanding gained by reference to the laws of nature.

As I said just now, the other criteria is the information presented in the Quran, just like Christians use the Bible as their criteria.

The reason for that is because I'm talking about "miracles" from a religious point of view.

I don't think you've actually given me much to weigh in on with regards to a difference between either the beliefs or the "lesser miracles" that follow. If the only difference being referenced is our varying level of knowledge with regards to natural law (which would seem to be the case here) then I think that the "difference" between these two types of things is much more a difference in our ability to explain any given thing...I haven;t seen a difference between the events themselves established, and aren't we being very generous with words like "event" to begin with?

The difference is that one of the types of miracle defy physical limitations, while the others are just "unexplained," but are not necessarily violating the (known) laws of nature.

Between two inexplicable things, how do we determine that one is a miracle and the other is not?

To me, something is regarded as a "miracle" when it is:

1. Based on Quranic teachings
2. Has documentation from others (though not always necessary)
3. Physically irreproducible
4. Does not conform to our scientific understanding of reality
5. And are not magic tricks, hehe.

I could also say to myself, "Phew, I passed the hardest exam which I didn't even study for. That was a miracle!"

But there, I used the word "miracle" in a secular context, not from a religious point of view.