wnope

...is nothing.

A miracle is an occurence with an ultimate causal mechanism that lies outside of "nature." By its very definition, it is extremely rare.

But is "rare" the right term?

Let's say there is a pen in front of you. We can calculate the odds that the pen will simultaneously dissipate into enough energy to create a small atomic bomb (e=mc2). Thus, we neither are afraid of (most) pens as explosives or sources of alternative fuel.

However, what are the odds that the pen will do something miraculous? The answer, however you give it is meaningless. Any variables you assign need to somehow quantify how "probable" a given action is. Probability stems from repeated observation and empirical investigation. To suggest something is "probable" is to suggest a method of calculating (even hypothetically) the chances of the occurence. But a miracle is not empirical in nature nor do miracles repeat themselves constantly. We cannot say with any degree of probability if a miracle will occur.

Say you are an Israelite at the red sea. Moses is standing in front of the sea with his arms spread out. What are the odds that a miracle will occur?

There is no answer. There is no way to predict a miracle nor detect its presence until after the fact. There is no level of "probability" that calculates how likely the reed sea was to open up.

Assume there is an occurence that is being analyzed for "miraculous" properties. Let's say that an empirical standard for how "likely" something is to occur is used and the chances of a certain thing happening is close to null. Note that the possibility of an empirical condition is never actually "impossible" since that presupposes knowledge of everything that is possible. Human knowledge is constrained to saying "of null significance."

Assume, then, the occurence has a null probability of occuring. If you ask the converse, what is the probability of a MIRACLE occuring, however, you run into the previously mentioned fact that miracles cannot have calculuated probability.

I contend that no matter how unlikely a situation is, one cannot coherently posit that a low probability of the occurence can ever equate to a high probability of a miracle. Thus, the very appeal to miracles shall always be flawed no matter how it is invoked.

Amedeo

You can take all this a bit further. Let's go back to the concrete example of Moses. You ask, What are the odds that a miracle will occur? And you say that there is no way of calculating the probability, because miracles are not empirical in nature, do not repeat themselves, etc. etc. Well, these explanations leave the matter in a bit of haze, since the world or, at least, human history, is packed with unique events and there is no way you can predict the repetition of one of them. But this impossibility of predicting does NOT imply that unique things do not happen.

So, looking at Moses with his outstreched arms, you cannot predict any probability of a miracle occurring, but can you predict its possibility? At this point, consider what the miraculous parting of a sea entails: A force has to be INTRODUCED into the water, so that there is an area of separation and MOVING apart. A billiard ball does not move unless a force is applied to it. A body of water does not move apart unless a force is applied to it. (Along the statement of the law of inertia, we can say that any physical effect is due to the exertion of a physical force.) So, a miracle involves the introduction of a new physical force into the physical world-system. The creation of an apple-tree involves the introduction of a new physical thing [which is dynamic and can be translated into forces] into the physical world system. Such introductions are NOT like the introduction of my breath into the world, which is a return of what I breathed in [...with all provisos to be explained at this point...]. My introduced breaths are such that in the course of time there is a balance in the breath-transfers in different directions. In the case of miracles and creations, there is no balance, there is not conservation [in time] of matter/energy: the totality of the physical system is affected by the ADDITION of a new force of body. Contrariwise, the annihilation of something (such as the causing of the absolute disappearence of the apples from a tree) is a SUBTRACTION in the total physical system. (Only transfers are relatively isolated events which, to repeat, do not disrupt the constancy of matter/energy, or invalidate the first law of thermodynamics.)

I cannot conceive the possibility of a miracle or a creation, since I cannot conceive the cosmic CONSEQUENCES of either the addition or the subtraction of a physical entity; but I know it cannot be inconsequential, as in the case of transfers. So, whatever the consequences might be, they would be noticible, since they depart from the conservation of matter/energy.

While we cannot say that miracles or creations are impossible, we can never affirm the occurrence of a miracle or a creation which does not evince world-wide consequences [kataclysmic or otherwise]. All the known historical reports of miracles are about unusual changes, are not about absolute appearences or disappearences, and, at any rate, are isolated phenomena, whether it's a sea that opens up for a while, or the sun that stops moving for a while.

There is no evidence that a miracle or a creation ever happened, and, in view of the laws of physics and the unpredictable consequences of their occurrence, we can say that we have no grounds for admitting of their possibility.