The Plausibility That Jesus Returned to Life and Flew Away

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I find myself in voluntary pandemic related confinement to my house with nothing much to do. So I thought I would start an argument.

These quotes are taken from the "What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?" topic.

"Acts very specifically indicates that Paul went three days without drinking. Three days without drinking, especially in an arid climate, is considered being at deaths door. So Paul was severely dehydrated. What are the symptoms of severe dehydration?" Hallucinations. Paul believed that during his period of incapacitation he met Jesus, who had been executed some years earlier. -- Tired of the Nonsense.

"We today have every reason to DOUBT, however, that during his incapacitation Paul actually met with and spoke with AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD BEEN DEAD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Such a claim is NOT historical, since it contradicts all common experience, and common sense." -- Tired of the Nonsense

Christianity is founded on the premise that Jesus died but arose again on the third day. Would anyone like to discuss (disparage or defend) the plausibility of the claim that a corpse ACTUALLY returned to life and subsequently flew away?

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Sorry, that is preposterous.
Even assuming a omnipotent god, it wouldnt like notice, much less even care about the microbes on this planet (us).
If it did care, I wonder what we could do that could even attract its attention.
If we did attract its attention, it would likely be the same as mold attracting our attention in the basement.
And so on.
The probability even with your assumptions is so close to zero as to be negligible.

[bluegreenearth]

The problem with speculating on the plausibility of a supernatural resurrection is that we cannot determine if such an event is even possible in the first place. How do we calculate the plausibility of something like a supernatural resurrection without first presupposing the existence of a supernatural cause? What would be the justification for presupposing the existence of a supernatural cause? Such a presupposition amounts to circular reasoning in the context of the resurrection argument. This is because the resurrection account is misidentified by apologists as evidence for the claim that a supernatural cause (God) exists when the supernatural resurrection account is just another version of that same claim. In effect, the supernatural resurrection argument is nothing more than a vacuous tautology. What is the point of arguing that a supernatural resurrection proves the existence of the Christian God if you have to presuppose the existence of the Christian God in order to make the argument work?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Because such a thing is contrary to all common experience.

Kudos for recognizing that 'common' experience is an important qualifier here. But it's a rather vague/arbitrary qualifier, isn't it? There have been numerous reported observations of "reanimated corpses," and such reports are not an idiosyncrasy of one particular demographic; they can be found in many different cultures and every historical era down to the present.

We should be wary of trying to stack up 100% of evidence against a particular conclusion simply by defining our terms in such a way that we get the result we want. Quite the opposite in fact, I would argue that if trying to honestly assess the probability of a particular rare or paranormal event we should first try to presume that one or two events of that kind have occurred elsewhere. The reason is that in the case of rare events, there may not be a statistically significant difference between the presence or absence of a few occurrences within a narrow scope: Zero occurrences may not be significantly different from two (or even a dozen) occurrences. It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket a few thousand times and using the absence of any jackpot wins as a basis for arguing that any other claims of a win are probably false.

Asserting that zero confirmed reports in "all common experience" is a significant point of data in this discussion is a form of circular argument: It is an assertion that if resurrections can/do occur, their occurrence should have been noted within the scope of whatever it is we mean by 'common experience,' which obviously involves assumptions about the expected probability/frequency of resurrections to begin with.

2017 thread on the topic: Probability and rare or paranormal events; the problem with a frequentist approach

Humans do not possess the superpower that would be required to know with absolute certainty what may or may not ultimately be possible. So humans are forced to rely on empirical observation as the standard for determining what is or is not possible. As a result humans have developed what are known as the laws of physics, which we use to separate out the things which are physically possible from the things which are not physically possible (things which are in violation of the laws of physics). It is of course always possible that we may have to modify our current understanding of the laws of physics as new information be comes available. In the meantime, we have been having considerable success with the current understanding of the laws of physics. The remarkably rapid rise of modern technology is a testament to this fact.

The laws of physics represent the highest state of confidence that we have attained in understanding the universe we live in. The laws of physics are derived from much observation and experimentation resulting in achieving exactly the same result repeatedly and without fail. The application of these laws have led to working computers, smart phone and all of the other technological marvels of our rapidly changing technological world. If the laws of physics are NOT inviolate as we now believe them to be, we are in the embarrassing position of having no idea why our technology works at all!

Ancient people worked on a different theory of how the universe works. Since they did not yet possess enough technology to acquire the information needed to explain the natural phenomenon going on around them, lightning, thunder, earthquakes and the like, they made up answers. They imagined solutions for which they otherwise had no means to answer. There is an obvious difference between careful observation and experimentation which leads directly to working technology, and simply imagining answers based entirely on assumptions.

So, where were all of these modern marvels in Jesus' time? The laws of quantum physics are exactly the same today as they were 2,000 years ago... or a billion years ago for that matter. However, by in large the ancients used a different method for reaching conclusions then the empirical method. They imagined! What ancient peoples did not understand they simply made up reasons for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method of reaching a conclusion. It really had no practical value, other than to create the illusion of providing an answer, even though in reality the answer that was imagined into existence had no connection to anything valid and true. Sadly, many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through much trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old "make it up and declare it to be true" presupposition method. So, I don't "presuppose" that there is no deity and therefore no ACTUAL paranormal events. I simply see no point in arbitrarily making up the existence of an invisible Being with infinite powers to contravene the laws of physics where no such Being is obvious. In fact, the existence of an infinitely powerful invisible Being that possesses the power to manipulate the laws of physics at will contradicts everything we believe that we know about how the universe works. This is the inevitable face off between ancient make believe and modern knowledge you see. Which do you suppose will win out over time?

I doubt the existence of paranormal events. There are only events which we do not yet understand, or events for which we as yet have insufficient evidence to make conclusive conclusions.

Could I be wrong? Sure! But that's the fun of learning. On the other hand, the hallmark of modern science has been the ongoing recognition that everything that occurs can inevitably be understood to be the result of natural processes rather than supernatural (paranormal) processes.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

If there is a omnipotent God and that was his will then I would say the probablility of it happening would be 100%..


Logic,


JW

IF there is an omnipotent God, ...

Is your point based on your own confirmation bias and faith ( I say faith: because you cannot prove one way or the other if there is or is not a God, so you are expressing an opinon without proof which some define asnthe very definition of faith ) ? I dont happen to share your "faith" but you are welcome to argue assuming what you believe is true, it is however helpful to admit that is what younare doing. For example you might say : "If what I believe about the origin of the univers is true... how likely is it.." ect. Or you could simply state in your OP "Presupposing the (unproven) truth of naturalism.. how likely is it ..."

Of course you can do as you please but there are some seasoned debators here (and at lease one person good at posting memes), so we all know an unproven premise when we see one.

Enjoy the rest of your thread,

JW

You cannot prove one way or the other that there is, or is not, an Easter bunny. The best any of us can do is list the reasons why a thing may, or may not, be true.

But don't run off. I asked you a very specific question.

Is God omnipotent, or is God fallible?

If you run off with out providing an answer, I am afraid that you might leave the impression that you are unable to answer the question. God's omnipotence, or not, is pretty central to Christian theology. Wouldn't you agree? It's not a question a Christian should choose to run from in terror.

[Divine Insight]

The probability even with your assumptions is so close to zero as to be negligible.

Truly. In fact, it wouldn't even be "close to zero", it would actually be zero because for an omnipotent entity to do such an ignorant desperate thing would be a contradiction to his supposed omnipotence in the first place.

Any God stupid enough to create a situation where he has to have humans brutally crucify him on a pole so he can offer them undeserved amnesty for having been ineptly created by HIM, would clearly not be an omnipotent God. This would be an extremely impotent God of seriously limited intellect and questionable sanity.

So there wouldn't even be any probability that an omnipotent God would behave in such an impotent way in the first place. It wouldn't even be a low probability. It would be a non-existent probability (i.e. a probability of exactly 0%)

How can religious people think that it would be an intelligent plan for a creator to have created totally inept and inherently evil humans only to devise a plan of having them brutally beat him and nail him to a pole so that he can offer them undeserved amnesty for having been so ineptly created in the first place?

I seriously cannot understand the minds of religious people. How can they think that this religion makes any sense?

We could have created a religion where an omnipotent God created inferior humans and explained to them that they would make stupid mistakes and bad decisions and even potentially actually desire to do evil things.

He could have even explained that life will be a test to see if they can pass it and earn a potential prize of everlasting life.

But that scenario is NOT the basis of any of the Abrahamic religions.

And it's certainly not the basis of Christianity where Christianity holds that no human can even merit their own salvation and that the only way to obtain it is to have it offered to them as a free gift for having condoned having their creator brutally crucified on a pole.

I mean, come on. How long are they going to continue to make apologies for this obviously flawed theology?

It's time to move on folks. If you want to continue to believe in a God, that's fine. But at least move over to a God mythology that make some sort of sense. To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God.

Sure we all like the higher moral values Jesus TRIED to bring to this culture's immoral religion. But let's face it, the religion was already doomed long before Jesus came along to try to salvage it. It's just an indefensible theology. Why not accept this and move on to better ideas?

The idea of Jesus being our penal substitute because we are incapable of being decent people is quite frankly an insult to both the God of this religion as well as all of humanity.

It's a religion that makes no sense at all.

Plus, because of what the religion requires, anyone who defends it really has no choice but to openly confess that they believe they are a terrible person who deserve to burn for eternity in hell.

How could they not believe that? The religion requires this. If they thought they were worthy of their own salvation they wouldn't need Jesus to be offering them undeserved amnesty as their penal substitute.

Even if the religion was true that would only be a terrible statement about the ineptitude of both humans and our creator God. Nothing would survive in this religion as being sane or intelligent, not even the God who supposedly created and planned the whole thing.

There is nothing that can save this theology. It's just a really bad mythology.

How can people not see this?

[Mithrae]

We should be wary of trying to stack up 100% of evidence against a particular conclusion simply by defining our terms in such a way that we get the result we want. Quite the opposite in fact, I would argue that if trying to honestly assess the probability of a particular rare or paranormal event we should first try to presume that one or two events of that kind have occurred elsewhere. The reason is that in the case of rare events, there may not be a statistically significant difference between the presence or absence of a few occurrences within a narrow scope: Zero occurrences may not be significantly different from two (or even a dozen) occurrences. It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket a few thousand times and using the absence of any jackpot wins as a basis for arguing that any other claims of a win are probably false.

Asserting that zero confirmed reports in "all common experience" is a significant point of data in this discussion is a form of circular argument: It is an assertion that if resurrections can/do occur, their occurrence should have been noted within the scope of whatever it is we mean by 'common experience,' which obviously involves assumptions about the expected probability/frequency of resurrections to begin with.

2017 thread on the topic: Probability and rare or paranormal events; the problem with a frequentist approach

Humans do not possess the superpower that would be required to know with absolute certainty what may or may not ultimately be possible. So humans are forced to rely on empirical observation as the standard for determining what is or is not possible. As a result humans have developed what are known as the laws of physics, which we use to separate out the things which are physically possible from the things which are not physically possible (things which are in violation of the laws of physics). It is of course always possible that we may have to modify our current understanding of the laws of physics as new information be comes available. In the meantime, we have been having considerable success with the current understanding of the laws of physics. The remarkably rapid rise of modern technology is a testament to this fact.

The laws of physics represent the highest state of confidence that we have attained in understanding the universe we live in. The laws of physics are derived from much observation and experimentation resulting in achieving exactly the same result repeatedly and without fail. The application of these laws have led to working computers, smart phone and all of the other technological marvels of our rapidly changing technological world. If the laws of physics are NOT inviolate as we now believe them to be, we are in the embarrassing position of having no idea why our technology works at all!

I think you're mischaracterizing the situation a little. If we consider the things which have occurred within our galaxy... within our solar system... on this planet... on the land surfaces... in populated regions... within the past century... visible within the narrow spectral range accessible to our eyes... humans have observed only a fraction of 1% even of that incredibly narrow range of events, with provable or scientific observations being an even tinier fraction of human observations as a whole!

We've also observed fractions of millionths and trillionths of events in the oceans, in remote regions, in outer space and in prior centuries, and from those observations inferred quite a bit beyond that. Even from such a small sample size we can perhaps reasonably infer quite a lot about how things normally behave, at least within the scope of what we most commonly observe, with our ideas' predictive capacity and the success of technologies built on them offering considerable confidence that we're on the right track, as you've noted.

But even as we're on the right track about what normally occurs, it would be obviously absurd to extrapolate from such a tiny sample size any kind of conclusion about what cannot occur. The laws of science are descriptive, not prescriptive and certainly not proscriptive. The way in which you're trying to use the laws of physics is philosophical, not scientific, and it's one heck of an extrapolation that you're trying to make in order to do so! Especially since (as I noted) there are widespread and often prima facie credible* reports of observations which are difficult to fit into current scientific understanding and occasionally directly contradicting scientific laws. (*For example, reports confirmed by multiple not-obviously-unreliable witnesses, such as the sworn testimony of four medical workers to the regrowth of an amputated leg in the 'miracle of Calanda,' or the thoroughly-documented and investigated 'miracle' cures at Lourdes.)

One needn't gullibly assume that all such paranormal reports are correct - many if not most are undoubtedly cases of misperception, misunderstanding, delusion or even outright fraud - and indeed one needn't even be convinced that any particular one is ironclad. But all it takes is for one really 'supernatural' event to pretty thoroughly undermine your argument, which means that to make this argument you must first dismiss all such anomalous reports as somehow irrelevant or invalid to the point you are making.

Yet your opening premise (which I agree with) was that we must rely on observation for determining what does or has occurred in reality: Whatever merit there may or may not be in dismissing even prima facie credible reports of paranormal events in other contexts, it clearly has no merit in this context. If we are going to be honest in trying to consider the probability of any particular paranormal event, or even simply rare event, then the appeal that it is against all 'common' experience (or that there are zero 'confirmed' reports of that type or whatever other wording sceptics since Hume and probably before have used) simply will not do. If anything, to avoid that fallacious probability bias we should instead try to presume or try to tell ourselves that there have actually been one or two occurrences of that kind, before assessing the available evidence for the case in question.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Mithrae]

A skeptic named Brian Dunning wrote the following alternate explanation for the alleged Miracle of Calanda:

"Medically, Pellicer's story is improbable, but not impossible. 55 days after the injury, he said, his leg was amputated due to advanced gangrene. In a crushing injury like the one he suffered, gangrene may take from 48 to 72 hours to set in, and once it does, you're gone from sepsis in as little as a few hours. Nobody lives 55 days with a gangrenous injury. If his skin was not broken, or if any breaks healed cleanly, it is still possible that the wound could have developed internal gas gangrene weeks, months, or even years later. But the appearance of gas gangrene is inconsistent with the condition allegedly reported by the doctors, which was "phlegmonous and gangrenous", meaning open and wet, and "black". Without an actual examination, we can't say for certain that Pellicer's story is impossible; but the version of the story that's been reported raises a huge medical red flag.

This red flag is sufficient to prompt a closer examination of the documented evidence. And there is one thing that jumps out. It's a giant, gaping hole. In case you haven't fallen into it yet, or seen any large buildings or 747s get swallowed up in this hole, I'll point it out: There is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone.

But what about all those witnesses who knew him with one leg? Allow me to offer an alternative version of what might have happened, that requires no miraculous intervention, and is still consistent with all the documentary evidence we have. Pellicer's leg was broken in the accident as witnessed and reported, but like most broken legs, did not develop gangrene. His uncle took him to the hospital at Valencia (a documented event), where he spent five days " during which his uncle presumably went back to his farm " and his broken leg was set.

The next 50 days he spent convalescing as his leg mended. Unable to work during this time, he was forced to earn a living as a beggar, and found that the broken leg did wonders for the collection of alms. Once his leg was sound, he reasoned that if a broken leg was good, a missing leg would be even better. He bound his right foreleg up behind his thigh, got ahold of a wooden leg, and traveled to Zaragoza, home of the great Basilica " someplace where he wasn't known. For two years, the young Pellicer enjoyed the relative financial success of panhandling among the Basilica's devotees as an amputee with a sad story.

Eventually he made it back home to Calanda, where his plans were accidentally foiled when the existence of his complete, sound leg was revealed when his parents saw his feet sticking out of his blanket. At that point, the miracle story was a perfect cover. Many, many people had known him as the man with one leg, and now everyone could quite plainly see that he had two. There was no way he could lose.

I'm not accusing Miguel Juan Pellicer of being a fraud, but I am pointing out that there is a far more probable alternate explanation. Faking blindness, infirmity, poverty, and all manner of ailments is hardly unheard of among beggars. It is now, and has been for millennia, a pillar of the profession.

Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated " or that he was even treated at all " at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial. The trial did find that no leg was buried where he said it was at the hospital, but this is exactly what we'd expect to find if it had never been amputated. Although this lack of a buried leg is often put forth as evidence that the story is true, it is actually a lack of evidence of anything.

We have evidence that he was admitted to the hospital in Valencia with his uncle. We have notarized first-hand statements that a scar was visible on his leg where he had been injured by the mule cart. We have numerous statements that he was well known in Zaragoza as a one-legged beggar. All the evidence supports Pellicer being a beggar with a popular and time-honored gimmick who was caught, not with his hand in the cookie jar, but with his feet out of the blanket. It is only through the introduction of a new assumption, that of the existence of unprecedented supernatural intervention, can the alternate explanation of a miraculous restoration be found consistent with this same evidence. This is where Occam's Razor comes into play: The most likely explanation is the one that requires the fewest new assumptions.

We can't say that the Miracle of Calanda is not genuine, and we can't prove that Miguel Juan Pellicer's leg was not miraculously restored. But we can say that the evidence we have falls short, and is perfectly consistent with no miracle having taken place."

As for the miracle cures at Lourdes, the Vatican concedes that the percentage of cures at Lourdes is no greater than the incidence of spontaneous remission of serious maladies in the general population.

[Willum]

Flying away, easy.

Returning from the dead, after three days... impossible.
With that being a reasonable definition of resurrection.

I have posted a challenge before where I allowed everything but the fatuous, "God can do anything," as an answer to the challenge: I don't think even something with unlimited power could resurrect.

I mean think about this:
Could Andre the Giant resurrect?
No.
Could Heracles resurrect?
No.
Could a creature with the power to quench the Sun resurrect?
No.
How much power is necessary to resurrect?

I don't think it is possible, no matter the power of the deity.

[liamconnor]

"Acts very specifically indicates that Paul went three days without drinking. Three days without drinking, especially in an arid climate, is considered being at deaths door.

I have heard this argument before and it is historically bewildering to me. Critics point to the fasting first, and THEN to what prompted the fasting. That is, they think taking the sequence out of order tells all. I can't quite figure this out. Here is the argument as they SHOULD but DON'T present it:

"Paul went to Damascus without any incidents;and randomly (that is KEY, RANDOMLY) he decided to fast for three days; after this period he had delusions, one of which was a foggy memory about his trip to Damascus. From this delusion he became a Christian. The argument here seems to rely on Paul randomly (WHY WAS HE SUDDENLY FASTING FOR THREE DAYS?) deciding to fast. That is, historically speaking, he traveled to Damascus as he planned. He had no incidents along the way. He gets to Damascus all ready to arrest wayward Jews and the first thing he decides to do is...fast?! And for three days???

It is far more historically plausible that Paul fasted BECAUSE he had an inexplicable occurrence on the way to Damascus. That is, he was on his way to Damascus; he had an experience which led him to believe that he was in the wrong regarding Christians. He gets to Damascus understandably bewildered. He is a Pharisee. Fasting was a typical reaction to unusual circumstances in Judaism.

I suspect, however, that the argument of the OP is not historical but juridical. That is, in a courtroom, it doesn't matter what happened to Paul along the way to Damascus. The fact that he decided to fast afterwards negates any testimony he might have.

This argument is of course not historical. And no one here would stand by it absolutely.

"We today have every reason to DOUBT, however, that during his incapacitation Paul actually met with and spoke with AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD BEEN DEAD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Such a claim is NOT historical, since it contradicts all common experience, and common sense."

First of all, very bold for quoting yourself. I am not even sure Trump has done that.

Your statement needs so much refining that I apologize to other readers for my inability to do so, but I give my best

I first of all ignore capitalization, which is of course emotional but not an argument. This is not criticism of the OP, I do it to; I just know that indicates emphasis, not argument.

The OP here says that we have every reason to doubt that Paul met someone "who had been dead for several years."

This obviously is ridiculous. Christians claim that the person in question was NOT dead for many years. I understand that the OP thinks he was, but surely the OP should present the situation in at least a semi-non biased way...? The OP has failed to represent the actual argument of Christians. As far as arguments go, this is a cardinal sin. The hardest work in attacking a position should be spent in understanding the position.

Such a claim is NOT historical, since it contradicts all common experience, and common sense."

Well, of course it "contradicts" common experience. The records all present it as a miracle, a term which by definition is something outside of common experience. If it didn't contradict common experience, those who witnessed it wouldn't be amazed. Those who wrote about it would have no reason to write. They wrote about it BECAUSE it wasn't common experience.

The argument here is really an assumption, not an argument: it asserts, "no God can introduce an event into nature which does not interlock with nature's past".

(I understand that was a hard statement to understand. I am rather tired due to this whole Corona stuff. If any wish, I will explain that comment)

This argument was established by Hume and I cannot understand why it continues since it is nothing more than a word-game: Everyone knows that a miracle is an exception to common experience; Hume simply declared that exceptions to common experience cannot exist, and so he ruled out miracles. But he gave only a declaration, no argument. There was NO REASONING behind it.

Christianity is founded on the premise that Jesus died but arose again on the third day. Would anyone like to discuss (disparage or defend) the plausibility of the claim that a corpse ACTUALLY returned to life and subsequently flew away?

[/quote]

I would love to. However, I find that discussing on the public forum gets jumbled with all the contributions; within an hour one can't even find one's correspondence as some people start talking about matters that barely have a tangential contact with the OP.

This is the most frustrating part of this forum; good conversations get derailed in a minute or less.

I would also love to discuss it on a one-on-one, but I also know (from experience) that the typical response of skeptics and atheists to one on one invitations by Christians is, in effect, "I don't engage with Christian opponents who....blah blah blah". The reasons are all the same.

So then, where am I left? I cannot discuss it on the public domain, because the public will drown it out. I cannot discuss it one on one, because you will not engage me one on one. Where does that leave me?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to Mithrae]

A skeptic named Brian Dunning wrote the following alternate explanation for the alleged Miracle of Calanda:

. . . .

"Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated " or that he was even treated at all " at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial."

Yes, Dunning's article was the most-cited 'rebuttal' I found while researching the topic: So perhaps it's telling that this claim, the best that 'sceptics' have to offer is, quite simply, a lie. As I noted above, sworn depositions were collected from at least four of the medical workers at the hospital - including Diego Millaruelo, the Master in Surgery who amputated the leg, Juan Lorenzo Garcia a mancebo who buried it, and professor in surgery Juan de Estanga who continued treatment of the leg for a few months afterwards - which I tracked down and Google-translated in the thread I linked above.

As for the miracle cures at Lourdes, the Vatican concedes that the percentage of cures at Lourdes is no greater than the incidence of spontaneous remission of serious maladies in the general population.

A source would be nice?

It is apparently true however that miraculous healing is not restricted to Catholic shrines (the RCC just happens to be better than average at documenting reports from its members). In fact surveys have "suggested that 73 percent of U.S. physicians believe in miracles, and 55 percent claim to have personally witnessed treatment results they consider miraculous"

The anecdote about your friend is an important point, and obviously there'd be plenty of patients who erroneously call success on a 1% or 10% treatment a 'miracle' (presumably meaning merely providence), and doubtless some doctors too. But what fraction of those doctor-reported miracles should we imagine that scenario covers? I can imagine four broad scenarios here:
1 > Doctor flat-out wrongly reports/concludes a miracle (eg. success is claimed as a miracle, when there was only a 90% probability of failure)
2 > Doctor error in assessing the medical situation (ie. supposes a 100% probability of failure, when other doctors would have given a better prognosis)
3 > Limitations of medical science in assessing the medical situation (ie. a natural healing which simply wasn't yet properly understood)
4 > It really was a hopeless situation, miraculously healed

There are over one million physicians in the USA, which based on that survey implies well over 500,000 first-hand reports of medical miracles from obviously intelligent, obviously educated experts in the field. How likely is it that any particular expert is mistaken (#1 or #2 above)? 50/50 odds that they simply got it wrong? Let's say that there's an 80% probability of doctor error in any given case - an absurdly high assumption, but never mind. That still leaves 100,000+ credible expert miracle reports, to be explained either by limitations in medical knowledge (#3) or by genuine miracles (#4). So what percentage of those can we legitimately assume are 'explained' by limitations in medical knowledge? 80%? 90% even? That would still leave 10,000+ genuine miracles in the USA in the past five or six decades. A philosophical naturalist needs to 'explain' - more correctly, just blindly assume - 100% of those credible expert reports as simply limitations in medical knowledge. It's not a rational position, it's just an article of faith.

---

Of particular interest, we should note that if miracles do not occur we should strongly expect the highly intelligent, well-educated group which doctors represent to have significantly lower rates of belief in miracles than the less intelligent, less educated averages of society. But if miracles are provided by a benevolent deity, we could reasonably expect that a lot of those miracles would come in the form of healing and hence be unsurprised by a high rate of belief in and witness of miracles in the medical professions.

Checking a few sources, belief in miracles among the general American public is put at around >72% (2007 Baylor survey, Q22), "roughly 80%" (2012 HuffPost article in which I originally found the quote above) or 66% (2016 Barna article). Belief in miracles among American doctors does not seem to be significantly different from that at ~75%.

Claims to have witnessed miracles among the general American public lies around 23% (2007 Baylor survey, Q26), or perhaps a bit above 29% among Christians specifically (based on reported witness of "divine healings" in a 2006 Pew survey). In this case, reported witness of miracles is much, much higher among doctors, at 55%.

Thus quite aside from the mere numerical argument of doctors' reported witness of miraculous healings, the comparison and the fact that even this intelligent, educated subset of the population are just as likely to believe in and much more likely to have witnessed miracles is precisely the opposite of what we'd expect if miracles do not occur, but highly consistent with the scenario in which they do.

My initial point of course was simply that it is an abuse of statistics/circular argument to suppose that reference to all 'common' experience or zero 'confirmed' reports is a significant point to raise in discussion of any particular case: So even if there were no really credible evidence for the occurrence of miracles, it would be appropriate to try to presume that one or two events of that kind had occurred elsewhere before assessing the evidence for the particular case in point, simply as an effort to avoid that fallacious bias to which we are so prone.

But the prevalence of testimony from medical experts about their own witness of miracles - at a far higher rate than among the less intelligent and less educated general population at large - actually lends itself to pretty near 100% confidence that miraculous healings do in fact occur. Usually not clearly violating the observed patterns of physics at large, but evidently contrary to the normal course of nature. Such surveys of doctors' testimony provide the breadth of evidence suggesting that whatever alternative explanations and sometimes ad hoc explain-away-the-evidence speculation may be raised for any particular case (or even outright lies in the case of the most popular 'rebuttal' to the Calanda report), it becomes far more obviously just an article of faith to dismiss all such expert testimony; the thorough investigation and documentation of the committees at Lourdes provide more in-depth evidence, numerous reports which are highly plausible individually even if no single case can be absolutely proven beyond all contrary speculation; and while not exceptionally convincing on its own right, the Calanda report is certainly significant evidence which is noteworthy as being a particularly spectacular or sensational case - perhaps even on par with the restoration of a whole body only three days dead.


So, again: Can critics agree to begin all discussion of particular cases with the presumption that at least one or two events of a similar kind have occurred elsewhere? Or is this fallacious statistical bias evident in such phrases as "contrary to all 'common' experience" so deeply ingrained that it simply cannot be discarded?