Religion wants us to hold that God reaches down to us to do miracles for us.  We take it for granted that miracles don't happen and there is no magic.  Some take it for granted that miracles or magic do happen.  So what is wrong with taking it for granted that there is nothing but nature which follows an accidental pattern and nothing happens outside that?  So there are no miracles?  

All people all the time mostly assume that things just happen like they would as if the pattern of how nature works is just there and nothing puts it there by intention.

We take it for granted that princes do not turn into frogs. We take it for granted that dead men do not rise again after three days in the tomb. We take it for granted in other words that the magical events called miracles are based on errors and fraud and that what happened is natural, not paranormal or magical or supernatural.
Religion opposes this intuition. Christianity claims that Jesus rose from the dead after being killed by crucifixion and lying three days in a tomb. Islam teaches that God supernaturally revealed a book written by God to Muhammad. There are all kinds of examples of alleged miracles.
Catholics reason that their religion is true because God did miracles to show it is the right religion and his creation not man's. This claim is arrogant for the evidence itself is based on the vice of belief in miracles. The evidence would be taken as referring to something strange and you would leave it there.  You only take that strange thing as miracle if you assume or believe in miracles in the first place.  The vice is you are using the evidence as an excuse for believing in miracles you already believe in.  It's a lie and an abuse.   Indeed, if the faith is really from God he will be expected to do miracles to show that it is from him.  He will not need lies and tricks to do that.
Religion uses miracle claims as part of its propaganda to get power and money and influence. There is no buzz better than the buzz of getting people to believe your ridiculous doctrines on your authority. Religious missionaries must be motivated by this buzz.
High Probability and Evidence
David Hume is right that we need better evidence than what we have got for saying, for example, that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead. Jesus needs to appear to top world doctors and let them test him. For some sceptics this will still not be enough. But that is their right. For many it will be enough. For enough of people it will be enough.  The claim, "God will not give us better evidence for so many people won't believe anyway," is a rationalisation. People are insulted for the sake of a religious doctrine.
The Christians lie and try to obfuscate the truth. They say Hume is assuming that the evidence will never suffice. They say it can and does. For example, they say it's true that it is very improbable for dead people to rise but the evidence says there was one exception: Jesus. It is more respectful to demand more evidence than to be satisfied with less in the case of a miracle. And that is what we sceptics do.
The believers say they believe that we need the evidence to tell us what to believe and evidence does at times show improbable claims to be true. That seems quite fair. But that is a superficial fairness. Why? Because it covers improbable natural events such as a middle aged woman looking like she is 20. But the supernatural is a totally separate question.
They have not dealt with the problem but sidestepped it. The problem is, what is naturally improbable must be believed if sufficient evidence says it happened but we need an even higher level of evidence for the supernatural. The evidence would need to be the best of natural. Not anti-natural.  Not unnatural.  But the best of natural.  For example, we would find the witnesses of an apparition of Mary would have a perfect memory of exactly what happened every second of the day they experienced the miracle.

Religion should provide the evidence that Jesus was alive after he died and say that if nature allowed that to happen then we have no answer for how.  Then you talk about miracles.  But all it does is jump in to look for a miracle.  That shows bias and shows their claims to respect nature which gives evidence are untrue.
Evidence tells us what is probable and improbable
We should only believe things when there is the highest degree of probability that they are true. Hume said that. And we agree. We do not believe that there are ten thousand year old queens running kingdoms in Egypt no matter how good the evidence is that there are.
The believers say that probability and evidence are not the same thing. They are different. But they are extremely closely related. Probability is what we think is likely to happen based on the evidence. It is evidence that tells us what is probable. For example, we know that drinking a mug of cyanide will probably kill us. That is because we have seen the evidence that cyanide is poison and kills people.
The Christians talk as if improbability is independent of evidence. It is not. Evidence makes probability and it makes improbability. Therefore if the evidence says that x is improbable it is stupid to say, "Oh it is improbable but the evidence says it happened".
Sometimes evidence comes up showing that the improbable has happened. But if you agree with the probable you have to admit that the improbable can happen. That is what probable means - what is most likely to happen not what is certain to happen. So you have to acknowledge and recognise the probable before you can acknowledge and recognise the improbable.
The lottery objection
Religion argues, "It is very improbable that I will win millions on the lottery yet it happens so miracles may happen." But miracles may be impossible and I can still win. It is just not the same thing!
You cannot say that though the chance of you winning a lottery is very low that you saying you won it is an extraordinary claim. Somebody has to win a lottery and it is routine.

It would an extraordinary claim if:

+ you were saying you won it when there is no evidence that you did
+ when the papers clearly name the winner which is not you!
+ that you won it and demons are hiding the proof and evidence
+ that you won it and a time warp ret-conned so that now the winner is or seems to be somebody else
+ that God did a miracle to make you win it

What about evidence?
What if I lie that I won? Christians will believe me without evidence apart from my testimony - which is not enough for an improbable claim. They are lying if they say that they believe in improbable things such as the resurrection of Jesus if the evidence is good enough. And just because they provide evidence does not mean it has led them to believe. Sometimes people make up their own minds before looking at the evidence and then use the evidence to make themselves look concerned about evidence and truth.
Probability and Miracles
The more probable a miracle is, then the less the evidence that is needed for believing in it.
If your philosophy tells you that you need a saviour to suffer and die for you for the forgiveness of your sins then it's probable in your view that that might happen or have happened.
The resurrection of the saviour from the dead might be probable but only under unique circumstances. But that does not mean we will be allowed to know that it has happened. It may be enough to know that it is needed and probably happened. It would not necessarily encourage faith in Christianity with its Jesus who rose from the dead.  The Christians are defeated when they try to verify that there were unique reasons why Jesus might have needed to come back.  No need, no resurrection.
What assumptions we make about what is probable determine what kind of events we will regard as true miracles. For example, the Mormon may think that Mormonism is the one true faith and that God hates all other faiths. This makes the Mormon regard Catholic miracles as so improbably true that if there is evidence for such miracles then it does not justify faith or belief.


As nature is what evidence appears in, you must always seek for an explanation for something that fits nature.  If there is not then keep being open and just say you don't know. None of that entitles you to bring in the supernatural.  The claim that what is improbable can be shown probable by evidence is a claim to keep it in nature.  If Jesus can come back and this overrides the improbability of a dead man not staying dead then you need evidence to show why this was absolutely needed and THEN you check for evidence that he did come back.  Religion cheats by skipping the tests for its necessity.  It goes straight to trying to show he rose.

No Copyright