Replying to both you and Jar...
Jar writes:
However, miracles are by definition an act of volition of some supernatural being and so by definition are not repeatable unless that supernatural being decides in this particular case to repeat. I looks then as though true repeatability is unlikely since each miracle requires the consent and cooperation of that being.
The question, as I interpreted it, was what would it take to convince me that what someone else believes actually has tangible reality, i.e., is actually something true about the real world. The particulars of the definition of miracle aren't important because there's no evidence for any of them, as well as no evidence for the additional details that render miracles inaccessible to study. People are free to ignore unsupported beliefs at no risk to themselves, though with some exceptions. For instance, one shouldn't ignore the beliefs of a religious sect that thinks one is the devil and should be burned at the stake.
jar writes:
Percy writes:
I would need repeatable, observable, testable violations of known physical laws.
When something is, as miracles are, the result of an act of volition of some individual, they are not necessarily repeatable, so expecting such behavior makes little sense.
As little sense as it might make to you, what process would you suggest that is superior for judging whether a purported phenomenon has tangible reality?
My main point was that most people around the world hold weird beliefs, many of them not even remotely religious. The propensity of people to believe weird things is not persuasive toward changing the approach to assessing what is real and what is not. In fact, it is persuasive in the opposite direction, that one must practice vigilance against all the claims of the various groups of the flim-flam, the paranormal, the pseudoscience and the religious.
Please note that I'm speaking informally and am not suggesting that the evidence says there's no such thing as miracles. I'm saying the evidence provides no support for the existence of miracles.
Also keep in mind that if you believe that you've provided enough to convince me of your take on miracles, then since what you've provided is equal to what anyone could provide for their own individual take on miracles (i.e., nothing), I could therefore be convinced tomorrow to a different view since it is all equally persuasive (or equally unpersuasive depending upon your perspective). Not the kind of converts you want, I don't think.
anastasia writes:
Therefore, I find it funny when someone says they would believe in God if they saw a miracle. Or, when they say they would tentatively believe in miracles with proper proof. Chances are, they wouldn't, because they are neglecting the key word 'belief'. If they believed in miracles to begin with, they would find them abundant.
True. Miracles are in the eye of the beholder.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2