Making the lame walk again.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Miraculous things have simply not been explained by science "as-of yet". It's a goose and gander issue if you choose to couch it in such language isn't it? I can imply that they will be as easily as you can imply that one day evidence of a miracle will materialize. That's what I'm wondering about. I don't actually expect you to establish the existence of miracles amigo. I was just wondering how, when presented with a possible miracle..one might decide...should that event ever occur. Consider the rest an unrelated aside. I'm a meander-er

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

Wouldn't any miracle that were an event...not just the belief that an event happen, also fall under the same? Otherwise how would we even know that it couldn't be explained? There has to be more than belief even in the case of miracles, or so it seems to me.

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

Why do we think that, that was another question I had. Also, if that were so...then what of the above? What sort of evidence might we one day find that a miracle actually occurred that is "separate from science"?

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

The belief that a god could control the heavens, trans-mutate substances, resurrect the dead, etc. All of these beliefs have occurred more than once. They're reproducible beliefs by brute force of our reproducing them (many, many times).

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.

Then why all the fuss about science or what can be reproduced? If the Quran is the arbitrator then why invoke another?

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

Absolutely, it is an if scenario. But I didn't offer it as proof that such a miracle occurred, only to show that at any given moment we (and those in the past) may be in a situation where we witness an event that is not miraculous, but fits the criteria you mentioned before deferring to a holy book. Did our ability to mis-attribute or misunderstand things stop at some undefined point? Is it no longer possible for us to be ignorant of natural law?

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.

In what way is this book supposed to be able to make a determination between two inexplicable (at least to us) things? How is this supposed to be accomplished? I think even here, again, you may be leveraging something else, some other criteria.

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.

How do you know whether or not something is violating known laws of nature if it;s unexplained...this is precisely what I'm asking you. You assume that the one..though you cannot explain it, is not violating any natural law...and simultaneously assume that the other, that you cannot present, does. Why? Are you sure you're not the peasant staring at my pistol in wonder?

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.

Wouldn't the first make all the rest superfluous? If the Quran describes a miracle that is in no way miraculous..then wouldn't you be obliged to continue considering it as such anyway? If the quran described something which we never explained but did not declare it a miracle then it could never be thought of as such, could it? I'm surprised that you have found such an easy distinction between "secular miracles" and the ones espoused in your narrative. I can't say that this looks so cut and dry to me. I don't see how "Quranic teachings" are going to prepare us to weigh in on every miraculous thing that may occur (even if we just grant them the authority to weigh in on their own contents for the sake of discussion) Rayaan.

2 is unneccessary, to you even, so why include it?
3 can just as easily be presented for things which are not miraculous (but in the context of the discussion who are we to say that everything isn;t miraculous...maybe every single thing that happens at every scale is a miracle, even the explicable things)
4 is an appeal to ignorance

Meh.