An Argument against the Argument against Miracles

[Don Mc]

According to Hume's famous "general maxim" against the confirmation of miracles in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish." The basic idea is that the laws of nature being what they are, and human nature being what it is, the probability of a miracle is always lower than the probability that the testimony given for it is simply false. In this Hume seems to have anticipated the logic of Carl Sagan, who popularized the idea that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

While this principle appears rational enough at first blush, there are reasons to think it's not sound. First, it was Hume himself who spelled out the problem of induction that there is no logical basis for inferring future outcomes from past experiences. Assuming there exists a set of well-defined "laws of nature," those regularities would seem to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. But if the laws of nature are descriptive, there is no reason to think miracles cannot or should not occur. Second, the argument against miracles is essentially circular. Hume asserts that there is "uniform experience" against the resurrection, for example, adding that a man risen from the dead "has never been observed, in any age or country." The question of the resurrection, however, is precisely whether or not Jesus was observed by his disciples to have risen from the dead. To say that a resurrection event was never observed because there is "uniform experience" against it is to beg that question (and we should bear in mind that there is equally uniform experience that life does not arise from nonliving elements yet here we are). Finally, while it's true that human nature has the potential to corrupt the testimony of eyewitnesses and the writings of biographers and historians, it also has the potential to corrupt the field reports, lab results, journal articles, textbooks, etc., that lead us to accept the same scientific theories thought to render miracle reports implausible or even impossible. The problem of "confirmation bias" among humans, and scientists in particular, is well documented.

Evidently underlying popular skepticism of miracles is a belief that miracles are inherently, extremely improbable. But that seems to hold only if a miracle is defined in naturalistic terms. After all, the proposition "A man rose from the dead by natural processes" appears considerably less probable on its face than the proposition "Jesus Christ rose from the dead by the power of God." As Paul put it, "Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?" (Acts 26:8)

Questions for debate:
Are miracles improbable? If so, how improbable are they and why?
Could historical evidence for a miracle give us good evidence for theism?

[FarWanderer3]

How do you rule out alien intervention for the existence of a baby?

The same way you do?

miracles explanations are not - as you're constantly claiming - "unfalsifiable" but rather could be falsified in most if not all cases and in theory could all be falsified entirely by proof of absolute determinism or materialism? Your reliance on rhetoric over reason perhaps says something about the validity of your conclusions

I have no idea how one might falsify divine intervention as an explanation, even in principle. You will have to explain.

[Mithrae]

How do you rule out alien intervention for the existence of a baby?

The same way you do?

I generally try to accept the most parsimonious and comprehensive theory to account for known facts, which would relegate ad hoc explanations such as aliens and leprechauns to a backseat status pending more specific evidence. Bluegreenearth by contrast seems not to accept parsimony and comprehensiveness as the metrics for a viable explanation and seems to insist that instead every known and unknown alternative must be falsified(??)... or something like that; despite several requests it's not even clear yet what he means when he talks about 'explanations' or labels something 'unfalsifiable.'

miracles explanations are not - as you're constantly claiming - "unfalsifiable" but rather could be falsified in most if not all cases and in theory could all be falsified entirely by proof of absolute determinism or materialism? Your reliance on rhetoric over reason perhaps says something about the validity of your conclusions

I have no idea how one might falsify divine intervention as an explanation, even in principle. You will have to explain.

Surely you are aware that many purported miracles have been debunked? How was it done, if there was no way to do it even in principle?

As I said right there in the bit you quoted, in general terms proof of absolute determinism and/or materialism would rule out the explanatory merit of divine intervention in all cases (proportional to the strength of proof, I suppose). In specific cases, finding the hidden wires used to pull off a hoax, learning the witnesses' histories of mental illness or gullibility, discovering the previously-unknown bodily mechanism which allows the regrowth of amputated limbs, having the aliens in orbit visit the UN headquarters and laughingly show off the technology which enabled them to have their little jokes before making formal contact... In other words, either ruling out divine intervention directly or finding any better explanation.

Also good to see you back

[bluegreenearth]

Explaining it as a miracle situates it within a broader, coherent theory with better scope and parsimony than currently competing alternatives. That's what an explanation is. You can assert otherwise 'til you're blue in the face, but unless you can actually offer a better, consistent definition and some valid reasons for favouring it, your assertions count for very little. Claiming that some process occurs due to, say, the law of conservation of energy doesn't describe how or why that law functions either, but (pending some attempt at a coherent answer to my earlier post) presumably you don't deny that the coveted 'explanation' status. And that's a scenario where there is no involvement of agency which we know tends to confound absolute descriptions to begin with.

ex-pla-na-tion
/eksplnSH()n/

noun
1. A statement or account that makes something clear.
2. A reason or justification given for an action or belief.

Given the common definition of "explanation" above, it would appear that claiming an unexplained event was caused by a miracle wouldn't serve as an explanation for how the even occurred.

How do you rule out alien intervention for the existence of a baby? You're just repeating the same tired old assertions and flawed arguments I've already addressed. Can you not even be honest enough to acknowledge that miracles explanations are not - as you're constantly claiming - "unfalsifiable" but rather could be falsified in most if not all cases and in theory could all be falsified entirely by proof of absolute determinism or materialism? Your reliance on rhetoric over reason perhaps says something about the validity of your conclusions

You are misunderstanding how falsifiability operates in a pragmatic epistemology. Where I can rule-out alien intervention, I will rule it out. However, if I am unable to rule-out alien intervention in a particular situation, would I be justified in concluding that alien intervention was the explanation? If I accept the alien intervention explanation in a situation where it couldn't be ruled-out, how would I have ruled-out the infinite number of other unfalsifiable explanations competing with it? How did you rule-out alien intervention for every single unexplained event you label as being a miracle? Also, for the record, I never claimed to have reached a conclusion about unexplained miracle claims except to acknowledge where I don't currently know whether the cause of the event was a divine miracle, some other unidentified supernatural force, or some unknown natural force. As far as I can tell, it is the people claiming to know miracles occur that are relying on rhetoric over reason.

[FarWanderer3]

I generally try to accept the most parsimonious and comprehensive theory to account for known facts, which would relegate ad hoc explanations such as aliens and leprechauns to a backseat status pending more specific evidence.

A disembodied omnipotent agent is just about the least parsimonious explanation I can imagine for anything, unless I were to already presuppose such a thing exists. Even aliens and leprechauns I wouldn't consider so lacking in parsimony.

miracles explanations are not - as you're constantly claiming - "unfalsifiable" but rather could be falsified in most if not all cases and in theory could all be falsified entirely by proof of absolute determinism or materialism? Your reliance on rhetoric over reason perhaps says something about the validity of your conclusions

I have no idea how one might falsify divine intervention as an explanation, even in principle. You will have to explain.

Surely you are aware that many purported miracles have been debunked? How was it done, if there was no way to do it even in principle?

As I said right there in the bit you quoted, in general terms proof of absolute determinism and/or materialism would rule out the explanatory merit of divine intervention in all cases (proportional to the strength of proof, I suppose).

It would, but you are implying that it is possible to prove absolute determinism/materialism. I don't think you can back that up, or want to for that matter.

In specific cases, finding the hidden wires used to pull off a hoax, learning the witnesses' histories of mental illness or gullibility, discovering the previously-unknown bodily mechanism which allows the regrowth of amputated limbs, having the aliens in orbit visit the UN headquarters and laughingly show off the technology which enabled them to have their little jokes before making formal contact... In other words, either ruling out divine intervention directly or finding any better explanation.

None of these scenarios falsify divine intervention. "Falsification" isn't done by finding an alternative theory, but by showing the theory itself to lack viability. Aliens taking credit for the resurrection, for example, increases the plausibility that aliens were responsible; but it doesn't make divine intervention any less viable as an explanation than it was before. In fact, lowering the viability of divine intervention as an explanation is categorically impossible under any circumstance, and that's exactly the problem.

Also good to see you back

Thank you, but don't expect too much

[Mithrae]

Explaining it as a miracle situates it within a broader, coherent theory with better scope and parsimony than currently competing alternatives. That's what an explanation is. You can assert otherwise 'til you're blue in the face, but unless you can actually offer a better, consistent definition and some valid reasons for favouring it, your assertions count for very little. Claiming that some process occurs due to, say, the law of conservation of energy doesn't describe how or why that law functions either, but (pending some attempt at a coherent answer to my earlier post) presumably you don't deny that the coveted 'explanation' status. And that's a scenario where there is no involvement of agency which we know tends to confound absolute descriptions to begin with.

ex-pla-na-tion
/eksplnSH()n/
noun
1. A statement or account that makes something clear.
2. A reason or justification given for an action or belief.

Given the common definition of "explanation" above, it would appear that claiming an unexplained event was caused by a miracle wouldn't serve as an explanation for how the even occurred.

In our scenario of a Prophet praying immediately followed by the regrowth of an amputated limb, attributing that event to answered prayer fits both of those definitions; divine intervention would serve as both the reason or justification for the event and be an account which makes clearer how and why the limb regrew. Would you like to pick another definition?

How do you rule out alien intervention for the existence of a baby? You're just repeating the same tired old assertions and flawed arguments I've already addressed. Can you not even be honest enough to acknowledge that miracles explanations are not - as you're constantly claiming - "unfalsifiable" but rather could be falsified in most if not all cases and in theory could all be falsified entirely by proof of absolute determinism or materialism? Your reliance on rhetoric over reason perhaps says something about the validity of your conclusions

You are misunderstanding how falsifiability operates in a pragmatic epistemology. Where I can rule-out alien intervention, I will rule it out. However, if I am unable to rule-out alien intervention in a particular situation, would I be justified in concluding that alien intervention was the explanation?

If there were some observation or circumstances lending credence to the alien intervention theory, yes. If someone who professes prior communication with aliens beams a message out into space asking for an object to be materialized at their location and an object is indeed materialized there, only a kind of zealous terrestrial dogmatism would lead anyone to deny that pending contrary information the best explanation is indeed alien involvement... and denying that it is an explanation at all would really be on a whole new level of self-delusion!

Also, for the record, I never claimed to have reached a conclusion about unexplained miracle claims except to acknowledge where I don't currently know whether the cause of the event was a divine miracle, some other unidentified supernatural force, or some unknown natural force. As far as I can tell, it is the people claiming to know miracles occur that are relying on rhetoric over reason.

Your conclusion - an apparently dogmatic conclusion which you seem utterly unable or unwilling to justify, question or even discuss - is something along the lines of
"To demonstrate where an explanation is possible is to disprove the potential for the explanation to be impossible. If you cannot disprove the impossibility of the explanation, then it is unfalsifiable and cannot be known as possible or impossible."

You remember that it was when I questioned you on this that you resorted to insults and ad hominem, don't you?

Perhaps it would help in clarifying what you even mean if we consider the proposition that "it impossible that all matter and energy in the universe behaves and interacts identically under identical circumstances; as explanations for observed phenomena, that kind of appeal to physical laws simply cannot work." How would you go about disproving the potential for a 'physical laws' explanation to be impossible? This was my third original objection to your argument, obviously - how would you prove an explanation such as physical laws to be 'possible' - to which you objected that science is not in the business of proving unfalsifiable claims... but now you're asserting that demonstrating such a thing to be possible is really the disproof of its potential impossibility.

[Mithrae]

I generally try to accept the most parsimonious and comprehensive theory to account for known facts, which would relegate ad hoc explanations such as aliens and leprechauns to a backseat status pending more specific evidence.

A disembodied omnipotent agent is just about the least parsimonious explanation I can imagine for anything, unless I were to already presuppose such a thing exists. Even aliens and leprechauns I wouldn't consider so lacking in parsimony.

If we were to presuppose the existence of a material reality (which would be necessary for "disembodied" to be a meaningful term) there might be some merit to that. Otherwise, idealism/mental monism is actually much more parsimonious than physicalism/material monism, since the former does not posit the unknowable existence of non-mental stuff and the latter even introduces an additional problem with the so far insoluble hard problem of consciousness. Positing the existence of a singular, universal Mind would seem to be the simplest version of idealism (though of course neither a monotheistic God nor omnipotence are required for the occurrence of miracles).

Surely you are aware that many purported miracles have been debunked? How was it done, if there was no way to do it even in principle?

As I said right there in the bit you quoted, in general terms proof of absolute determinism and/or materialism would rule out the explanatory merit of divine intervention in all cases (proportional to the strength of proof, I suppose).

It would, but you are implying that it is possible to prove absolute determinism/materialism. I don't think you can back that up, or want to for that matter.

'Prove' is perhaps an even more relative term here than usual, but at least in theory it should be possible to both prove absolute determinism in human 'choices' and disprove quantum indeterminacy - two of the main hurdles to justification for determinism in general - or to both solve the hard problem of consciousness and (perhaps, though this is a bit harder to imagine) devise a means of experiencing other beings' qualia (providing at least some basis for asserting an absence of consciousness in trees, bacteria, rocks etc.) - thereby making materialism the most viable theory. Philosophical 'proof' seems unlikely at this point, but that would be another route too; for example I would opine that substance dualism is disproven inasmuch as philosophy can prove or disprove anything, in that it's conceptually incoherent.

In specific cases, finding the hidden wires used to pull off a hoax, learning the witnesses' histories of mental illness or gullibility, discovering the previously-unknown bodily mechanism which allows the regrowth of amputated limbs, having the aliens in orbit visit the UN headquarters and laughingly show off the technology which enabled them to have their little jokes before making formal contact... In other words, either ruling out divine intervention directly or finding any better explanation.

None of these scenarios falsify divine intervention. "Falsification" isn't done by finding an alternative theory, but by showing the theory itself to lack viability. Aliens taking credit for the resurrection, for example, increases the plausibility that aliens were responsible; but it doesn't make divine intervention any less viable as an explanation than it was before. In fact, lowering the viability of divine intervention as an explanation is categorically impossible under any circumstance, and that's exactly the problem.

The sum probabilities of all mutually exclusive, exhaustive possibilities must equal 100%: If we have 90% confidence in one explanation, all other explanations (and the unknown) can only add up to 10%. Hence if 'miracle' had been the strong leading explanation for an event (at say 60% confidence) but then aliens explicitly taking credit and demonstrating how they'd done it led to a 90% confidence in that explanation, it would radically reduce the viability of the 'miracle' explanation for that event. Same goes for finding the hidden wires of a hoax, obviously.

Are you really arguing that no miracle claims have ever been debunked/falsified?

[bluegreenearth]

In our scenario of a Prophet praying immediately followed by the regrowth of an amputated limb, attributing that event to answered prayer fits both of those definitions; divine intervention would serve as both the reason or justification for the event and be an account which makes clearer how and why the limb regrew. Would you like to pick another definition?

No. Correlation is not causation.

If there were some observation or circumstances lending credence to the alien intervention theory, yes. If someone who professes prior communication with aliens beams a message out into space asking for an object to be materialized at their location and an object is indeed materialized there, only a kind of zealous terrestrial dogmatism would lead anyone to deny that pending contrary information the best explanation is indeed alien involvement... and denying that it is an explanation at all would really be on a whole new level of self-delusion!

If this and if that. Are you able to reliably demonstrate where an unexplained event was a miracle caused by a supernatural god or not? It is perfectly alright that you can't because it doesn't mean your belief is false. I'm only pushing back here because you are claiming to know the unknowable. I don't have a problem with people who acknowledge where they simply have faith in the occurrence of miracles rather than confidently asserting that they know miracles occur. Just admit where you have faith that those unexplained events are miracles, and we can move on to another topic.

Your conclusion - an apparently dogmatic conclusion which you seem utterly unable or unwilling to justify, question or even discuss - is something along the lines of
"To demonstrate where an explanation is possible is to disprove the potential for the explanation to be impossible. If you cannot disprove the impossibility of the explanation, then it is unfalsifiable and cannot be known as possible or impossible."

You remember that it was when I questioned you on this that you resorted to insults and ad hominem, don't you?

If you are going to interpret constructive criticism as insults, then maybe you shouldn't be engaging in debates. Also, you should probably refresh your understanding of what constitutes an ad hominem and other fallacies before accusing others of using them. Better yet, try evaluating where fallacies might exist in your own arguments rather than adopting a doxastically closed posture. At least I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility of being mistaken about something and have done so on various occasions in other conversations I've had with people on this website.

Perhaps it would help in clarifying what you even mean if we consider the proposition that "it impossible that all matter and energy in the universe behaves and interacts identically under identical circumstances; as explanations for observed phenomena, that kind of appeal to physical laws simply cannot work." How would you go about disproving the potential for a 'physical laws' explanation to be impossible? This was my third original objection to your argument, obviously - how would you prove an explanation such as physical laws to be 'possible' - to which you objected that science is not in the business of proving unfalsifiable claims... but now you're asserting that demonstrating such a thing to be possible is really the disproof of its potential impossibility.

The observed existence of the universe's physical properties (i.e. laws) disproves the claim that their existence is impossible.

[FarWanderer3]

I generally try to accept the most parsimonious and comprehensive theory to account for known facts, which would relegate ad hoc explanations such as aliens and leprechauns to a backseat status pending more specific evidence.

A disembodied omnipotent agent is just about the least parsimonious explanation I can imagine for anything, unless I were to already presuppose such a thing exists. Even aliens and leprechauns I wouldn't consider so lacking in parsimony.

If we were to presuppose the existence of a material reality (which would be necessary for "disembodied" to be a meaningful term) there might be some merit to that. Otherwise, idealism/mental monism is actually much more parsimonious than physicalism/material monism, since the former does not posit the unknowable existence of non-mental stuff and the latter even introduces an additional problem with the so far insoluble hard problem of consciousness. Positing the existence of a singular, universal Mind would seem to be the simplest version of idealism (though of course neither a monotheistic God nor omnipotence are required for the occurrence of miracles).

I am something of a neutral monist. Metaphysically speaking, I see idealism and materialism as a distinction without a difference. For that reason I immediately see your objection as not mattering at all, because regardless of whether the world we live in is at base idealistic or materialistic, whatever it is that we call "bodies" are still something; and they are a "something" that is universally associated with causally effective agency. So I actually disagree that the term "disembodied" is meaningless in this context even given a metaphysically idealistic reality.

Surely you are aware that many purported miracles have been debunked? How was it done, if there was no way to do it even in principle?

As I said right there in the bit you quoted, in general terms proof of absolute determinism and/or materialism would rule out the explanatory merit of divine intervention in all cases (proportional to the strength of proof, I suppose).

It would, but you are implying that it is possible to prove absolute determinism/materialism. I don't think you can back that up, or want to for that matter.

'Prove' is perhaps an even more relative term here than usual, but at least in theory it should be possible to both prove absolute determinism in human 'choices' and disprove quantum indeterminacy - two of the main hurdles to justification for determinism in general - or to both solve the hard problem of consciousness and (perhaps, though this is a bit harder to imagine) devise a means of experiencing other beings' qualia (providing at least some basis for asserting an absence of consciousness in trees, bacteria, rocks etc.) - thereby making materialism the most viable theory. Philosophical 'proof' seems unlikely at this point, but that would be another route too; for example I would opine that substance dualism is disproven inasmuch as philosophy can prove or disprove anything, in that it's conceptually incoherent.

I don't buy it. I firmly believe these are entirely philosophical problems rather than scientific ones. Quantum indeterminacy is a useful scientific model, but it is at best a set of random outcomes within a set of non-random parameters; it's hardly supportive of free will. Not that I think it's even applicable to metaphysics in the first place. If it were completely random in all facets, it'd just be noise and obviously not a viable scientific model at all.

I am not sure how one could prove absolute determinism in human choices. I don't recall for a source, but I have heard that we already have technology that can detect a choice in the brain before we even consciously "decide" upon it. But I don't see why one has to be conscious of their choice before they make it in order for it to be "free".

And as for "consciousness" and "qualia", do we even have a scientific definition for them? Where do you even start?

In specific cases, finding the hidden wires used to pull off a hoax, learning the witnesses' histories of mental illness or gullibility, discovering the previously-unknown bodily mechanism which allows the regrowth of amputated limbs, having the aliens in orbit visit the UN headquarters and laughingly show off the technology which enabled them to have their little jokes before making formal contact... In other words, either ruling out divine intervention directly or finding any better explanation.

None of these scenarios falsify divine intervention. "Falsification" isn't done by finding an alternative theory, but by showing the theory itself to lack viability. Aliens taking credit for the resurrection, for example, increases the plausibility that aliens were responsible; but it doesn't make divine intervention any less viable as an explanation than it was before. In fact, lowering the viability of divine intervention as an explanation is categorically impossible under any circumstance, and that's exactly the problem.

The sum probabilities of all mutually exclusive, exhaustive possibilities must equal 100%: If we have 90% confidence in one explanation, all other explanations (and the unknown) can only add up to 10%. Hence if 'miracle' had been the strong leading explanation for an event (at say 60% confidence) but then aliens explicitly taking credit and demonstrating how they'd done it led to a 90% confidence in that explanation, it would radically reduce the viability of the 'miracle' explanation for that event. Same goes for finding the hidden wires of a hoax, obviously.

Why are you assuming it has to be a zero sum game? I used the word viability specifically to indicate it wasn't.

Here are a few definitions for "viable":
able to work as intended or able to succeed
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed
able to be done or likely to succeed
capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately

If I go from a state of being outside my house to being inside my house, then to explain that change in state one could suppose I entered through the door, or they could suppose I entered through the window (we'll limit it to those two to keep things simple). Common sense would suggest the door is the more likely explanation, but both explanations are completely "100%" viable so long as we presume I have the means to do either. The window explanation would lose viability if, say, the only windows were on the second floor and my access to a ladder was in doubt.

The problem with divine intervention is that it is always a viable explanation for anything, therefore it is unfalsifiable.

Are you really arguing that no miracle claims have ever been debunked/falsified?

Colloquially, sure. But that's rarely what's meant when the term "falsifiable" comes up in matters of epistemology.

[otseng]

Can you not even be honest enough to ....

Moderator Comment

It's best to avoid questioning the honesty of another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Mithrae]

Your conclusion - an apparently dogmatic conclusion which you seem utterly unable or unwilling to justify, question or even discuss - is something along the lines of
"To demonstrate where an explanation is possible is to disprove the potential for the explanation to be impossible. If you cannot disprove the impossibility of the explanation, then it is unfalsifiable and cannot be known as possible or impossible."

You remember that it was when I questioned you on this that you resorted to insults and ad hominem, don't you?

If you are going to interpret constructive criticism as insults, then maybe you shouldn't be engaging in debates. Also, you should probably refresh your understanding of what constitutes an ad hominem and other fallacies before accusing others of using them.

bluegreenearth wrote: The rest of your argument, to be completely honest, is so obviously and absurdly disingenuous that it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response because it was clearly offered in bad faith. When you are ready to argue in good faith, I'll take your perspective more seriously.

Feel free to demonstrate that these rude accusations are in any way even accurate... and if you manage that then you can attempt to show how they are 'constructive criticism.' If you are unable or unwilling to engage with someone's arguments, that's okay - presumably no-one is forcing you to be here - and projecting "bad faith" and disingenuous attitude onto them as an excuse for your failure to support your position is at least understandable, if not particularly impressive. Having had a couple of days to cool off and yet still trying to pass it off as 'constructive criticism' is really scraping the bottom of the barrel though

Perhaps it would help in clarifying what you even mean if we consider the proposition that "it impossible that all matter and energy in the universe behaves and interacts identically under identical circumstances; as explanations for observed phenomena, that kind of appeal to physical laws simply cannot work." How would you go about disproving the potential for a 'physical laws' explanation to be impossible? This was my third original objection to your argument, obviously - how would you prove an explanation such as physical laws to be 'possible' - to which you objected that science is not in the business of proving unfalsifiable claims... but now you're asserting that demonstrating such a thing to be possible is really the disproof of its potential impossibility.

The observed existence of the universe's physical properties (i.e. laws) disproves the claim that their existence is impossible.

No it doesn't. It proves the behaviour/properties of the things which we observe; it doesn't prove or even imply anything about the behaviour or properties of things which we haven't observed (or 'disprove the impossibility' of those behaviours/properties in things we haven't observed) without first adopting the presumption that matter and energy behave and interact the same ways in distinct but comparable circumstances... which is exactly the idea whose impossibility you are trying to disprove.

Pending a non question-begging response to this difficulty, it seems clear that the problem I raised all the way back in post #5 still stands unchallenged no matter how many double negatives are thrown at it: Your argument that we must first have "a reliable demonstration that claim X is empirically possible" undermines the idea of universal physical laws (or presumption of consistent behaviour/properties beyond the scope of observation) as much if not moreso than specific observations explained as miraculous.

In our scenario of a Prophet praying immediately followed by the regrowth of an amputated limb, attributing that event to answered prayer fits both of those definitions; divine intervention would serve as both the reason or justification for the event and be an account which makes clearer how and why the limb regrew. Would you like to pick another definition?

No. Correlation is not causation.

Proof of causation was not specified in the definition you quoted, so evidently you do want to change your definition? If you want to stand by the definition you quoted, then obviously the occurrence of a miracle would be an "explanation" in that scenario and to a greater or lesser extent for various other reported events such as the 'miracle of Calanda': So we can lay to rest the contrary claims throughout your past dozen or so posts as being mistaken, at best.

If there were some observation or circumstances lending credence to the alien intervention theory, yes. If someone who professes prior communication with aliens beams a message out into space asking for an object to be materialized at their location and an object is indeed materialized there, only a kind of zealous terrestrial dogmatism would lead anyone to deny that pending contrary information the best explanation is indeed alien involvement... and denying that it is an explanation at all would really be on a whole new level of self-delusion!

If this and if that.

Can we infer from the lack of a direct response that you agree alien involvement would be an 'explanation' in that scenario, and indeed the best explanation pending further information? And that denying it to be an explanation at all would be rather absurd, arbitrary criteria such as demanding precise details of how the technology works notwithstanding? You claim elsewhere in the post that you are "willing to acknowledge the possibility of being mistaken about something," but at least in this case current evidence suggests that willingness to acknowledge that 'possibility' does not translate into actually conceding when your arguments have been refuted, or shown to be inconsistent internally or with common sense.

This looks more like an attempted diversion away from the logic:

Are you able to reliably demonstrate where an unexplained event was a miracle caused by a supernatural god or not? It is perfectly alright that you can't because it doesn't mean your belief is false. I'm only pushing back here because you are claiming to know the unknowable. I don't have a problem with people who acknowledge where they simply have faith in the occurrence of miracles rather than confidently asserting that they know miracles occur. Just admit where you have faith that those unexplained events are miracles, and we can move on to another topic.

Setting aside your continued misuse of the word "unexplained" according to your own definition, this obvious strawman attempt kind of implies that you haven't really been approaching the discussion with an intent to actually communicate at all. Nowhere have I said that I believe any particular event was a miracle, nor have I ever said that I 'know' or believe or 'have faith' that miracles occur in general terms. Quite the opposite, I've made a point of emphasizing that "I generally try to accept the most parsimonious and comprehensive theory to account for known facts." Your attempt to paint my position and frame the discussion solely in terms of 'reliable demonstration' and 'knowledge' versus 'faith' suggests a kind of black-and-white/absolutist thinking which I find generally doesn't match the nuances of reality very well to begin with; but more to the point, suggests quite a remarkable failure of communication for which I suspect the kitten's share of the blame lies with me

Strawman aside, what I actually have conveyed in my posts was firstly a critique of your argument against the probabilistic viability of miracles (regarding which you haven't refuted any of my four points, and as we see above the third in particular seems to be a bit of a sore spot) and outlined an argument for the high probability that 'miracle' is the best explanation in many thousands of healings observed by experts in their field (to which your response amounted to the sophistry of asserting that I "cannot know if confirmation bias was a factor or not" rather than actually showing any problem in my reasoning or offering a counter-argument of your own). At this point I think it's pretty safe to say that productive communication is scarcely any more likely going forward than it's been so far.