Miracles by inviting Believing Oppose the Default

A miracle is an event that is not naturally possible. That does not mean it is necessarily impossible. There could be a power greater than nature such a god that can do it.
 
A default position is a stance you take on something that you hold on to unless it is proven incorrect. When somebody is accused of a crime, the default is, "Innocent until proven guilty".   We should know that when we are hit by advertisements that we should NOT treat them as innocent and true until proven guilty or deceitful.  We know that in science you cannot treat any discovery as correct and innocent of error until proven false.  You keep checking and checking.  You resist any faith creeping in.

A miracle is God supposedly advertising a religion or system of belief.  A miracle will be declared to you by those who wish to advertise something spiritual to you.  Why else would they be telling you?

To say that Jesus cured John's pneumonia just like that not saying much.  Believers have to admit that he might have just snapped his fingers.  Or he turned John's drink of water into some kind of cure, like a rapid antibiotic.  If John got better instantly we cannot know that.  It can happen in 50 seconds and that may look instant but it is not instant.  They can only say it was quick and they don't know the mechanism or the details.  Perhaps the water for a few seconds could cure all who drank it.  The cure for cancer is still the cure if it only lasts for a few seconds.  See what I am getting at?  A miracle claim despite all the lies overthrows what science says it has found.  This discourages science for it is easy to think, "What is the point?  I can experiment but I still know nothing."  And it puts religious theories before science ones.

A miracle claim is made. Is it a lie? Is it a misperceived event? Is it a faulty memory of an event? Is it a misperception caused by natural forces that science and nothing else can detect? Is it a supernatural misperception? Is it a psychic one? The odds are stacked against the account being right. The reality is that a miracle is improbable. It is one possibility against several.  To say you believe in the miracle is to hide the fact that it is only a random opinion you have got.

An opinion is very close to a guess or an assumption.
 
The person who says a miracle happened needs to be considered erring or fraudulent until it's proven that he is telling the truth. For believers, the investigator who says a miracle might not have happened needs to be considered erring or fraudulent until it's proven that he is telling the truth. If all religions had that attitude towards investigators there would be no need for missionaries for they wouldn't attract any converts. And the rift between religion and science would be total. The believer's stance is not remotely fair and is outright dangerous. It is tragic when religion seeks money and devotion from the poor and the uneducated.
 
With miracles we have to choose one of the following as a default position. We always need a default position. Once you leave the default position you take on the burden of proof. That means you get the obligation to justify the change of position.
 
1 Miracles are impossible.
2 Miracles are possible but never happened.
3 Miracles are possible and may have happened.
4 Miracles are possible and have happened.
 
Some add in "We don't know" as a default. This would imply that if God does miracles he is wasting his time. God would not do miracles if we should take that as our default. This is really the same as 2.
 
4 choices. 1 and 2 and 3 do not encourage belief in miracles. 3 only says we may think miracle may have happened not that they have.
 
It is three options against belief and one option - 4 - for them.
 
This alone shows that a miracle is very unlikely. Our default view should be some form of scepticism.
 
To say that a miracle is intended to call us to believe in a religion's message is just stupid. Why would God do a miracle to show us the truth or even to show off when we can only believe if we choose an unlikely default position?
 
Miracles by definition are very unlikely. If they are not then it follows that you can assume that you may not lock the house for it will magically lock itself. This is why 1 (Miracles are impossible) even it is dogmatic is not as dogmatic as saying miracles have happened. A dogma is an idea you hold on to regardless of how good the evidence against it is. The less dogma the better. The more dogma the more bigoted the believer is.
 
It is less dogmatic to believe miracles never happen than that they do.
 
Is an unverified but believable testimony against an apparition enough to justify our unbelief or to leave us undecided? It would be enough to justify being undecided.
 
The burden of proof is on the claimant of the miracle. If the claimant is very stupid then we cannot say for sure if they experienced a miracle from God. That eliminates the apparitions of Mary to Bernadette of Lourdes.
 
Some say, "There can be a lot of objections to any claim. Perhaps we should believe that miracle claims are true because if we wait until every objection is answered we will end up believing nothing?" The answer is that if we do that we will be credulous and running after the supernatural all the time. We will be fools. In normal things you can't wait until every objection is answered. It would be great if you could but you cannot.