>>12060
with miracles people refer to 2 things:
unlikely yet natural events that then get attributed to god for no reason other than their unlikelihood. Even if some or all of them were real, by definition these are indistinguishable from chance, so one should not count them as valid evidence to believe in a god. It's like their believers think events with small probabilities never happen (their probability is zero rather than low) unless they are caused by a god. Another interesting point is that these things are only god's authorship if you like them. When they cause suffering it's either nature, or god's mysterious plan working for something greater, or if you want to attribute it to active agency yet don't want to blame god there's always the devil.
Secondly, people call about desirable events that are claimed to be completely impossible (i.e. supernatural). The arguments in favour of their impossibility are tantamount to a fallacy from ignorance, and thus allegedly require attribution to a god. Suspecting a natural explanation or a hoax is completely unthinkable, like >>12062's virgin of Guadalupe which looks exactly like a rather mediocre Renaissance painting compared to what mere mortal painters in Europe were doing at the time.
>CAN YOU PROVE IT WASN'T MADE BY GOD?? NO?? THEREFORE IT WAS MADE BY GOD
Among other things, god is how fucktards deal with randomness and the unknown.
There's actually a third case. Phenomena that is fully understood and known for not being caused by gods but people keep calling it a miracle.