How does one respond to the statement, “There is a doubtful probability that miracles can occur. The greater possibility is there is no such thing as miracles, so we should not believe in miracles.”
Rarity does not equal impossibility. Just because miracles are uncommon or not easily detectable does not mean they cannot happen. To reject them outright without investigation is to assume a conclusion rather than follow the evidence.
This argument automatically refutes the belief in miracles without looking at the evidence. The argument of supernatural occurrences is possible by definition. They could be happening constantly, with such ubiquity that it may slip our notice.
Just because we rarely notice miracles, such as water turning into wine or death rising, does not mean we should rule out the probability of them happening.
Identical twins are a rarity, with a likelihood of it happening in three out of every thousand births. But despite their rarity, it makes sense to believe in them.
By definition of the challenging argument, if we did not know the possibility of identical twins, we would automatically rule out the likelihood of them occurring since the chance of it not happening would be more significant.
The same principle applies to miracles; if we don’t know enough, then the chances are low. The more we know, the more evidence to our deductive reasoning.
We know that our senses cannot detect everything; we must be open to the possibility that there are additional things that our senses cannot tell us about.
The term “nature” is used to describe all that exists. Still, it doesn’t disprove the probability of miracles simply because the “supernatural” would just be exotic parts of “nature” that differ from what we can sense. There’s very much reason to have faith in the supernatural.
Just because miracles are uncommon, and just because we don’t know about them doesn’t mean they ultimately can’t happen.
May God bless you.