When it comes to miracles, an open-minded agnostic
has two sets of propositions to consider.
Here is the first set:
P1: If an event is impossible in naturalism, then it is a miracle.
P2: If a proposition is known to be impossible, it
is near-certain to be disbelieved.
P3: Christians claim to have experienced miracles.
C: Therefore, there's a reasonable chance that
miracles occur.
Here is the second set:
P1: If an event is impossible in naturalism, then it is a miracle.
P2: If a proposition is known to be impossible, it
is near-certain to be disbelieved.
P3: Atheists claim to have experienced no miracles.
C: Therefore, there's a reasonable chance that
miracles do not occur.
In my view, set 1 ought to seem more reasonable to an open-minded agnostic than set 2. Here's why. If miracles occur because God performs them for our benefit within the context of relationship, then you'd expect that in the vast majority of cases, Christians are the most frequent people to have experienced miracles in terms of God's providence. But equally, if miracles occur because God performs them for our benefit within the context of relationship, then it is to be expected that most atheists have not experienced a miracle that would convince them God exists.
Therefore, given the astronomically high number of claims of the miraculous in the world, you'd expect set 1 to have a higher probability of being the right set of propositions than set 2. Much like, if there were a group of people in the world who couldn't see the colour red, you'd expect them to be the people claiming there are no such things as red experiences, even though a lot of other people are claiming to have had them.
