What Would It Take To Be Convinced?

[Esquilax]

Here's the problem with miracles.

Suppose you see an amputee's limb grow back, and you believe. What's special about you? Shouldn't all people in all times have the same opportunity as you? So, all people would need to see a limb grow back. 

But, if limbs have been growing back as far back as anyone remembers, and are still growing back now...there's nothing miraculous about limbs growing back. People would just label it as spontaneous regrowth. 

You could say that it doesn't have to be a limb growing back each time. It could be different signs for different people. But imagine such a world - nothing could be miraculous, as there wouldn't be supposedly inviolable physical laws to begin with.

Miraculous signs must necessarily be seen by few and communicated by mundane means to the masses.

See, I tend to disagree, just because I don't think rarity is the key factor in determining what a miracle is; winning the lottery is rare, for example, and that isn't miraculous. No, miracles require a divine source too, in fact they depend on that more than their rarity, given that you can have a miracle without rarity, but not without a divine cause.

And people couldn't label common limb-regrowth miracles as spontaneous regrowth except if that divine source is unclear, which is the key point of any potential confusion there; an unambiguous miracle could happen every day and still be miraculous. The problem is that theists tend to see miracles in highly ambiguous natural events, and so the bar for miracles is set there, when it needn't be.