Than and I get into the much-vaunted issue of the prior improbability of miracles. Is it really true that a miracle has such a low prior probability that no testimony can overcome it? Is it really true that one would have to throw out one's knowledge of science and the laws of nature in order to believe that a miracle occurred? Is it true that one would have to be able, on theism alone, to predict that God would perform a particular miracle in order to have reason to believe that a miracle occurred?We refute these misconceptions using detailed discussions of probability and the nature of miracles. Miracles, to be signs, need to have a backdrop of non-miraculous events so that they stand out. Than is even more inclined than I am to think that modern miracles occur, and yet that doesn't stop us from seeing the probabilistic modeling in a similar way.Here again is Than's blog post on these topics:https://www.inspiringphilosophy.com/blog/paulogiaits-time-to-stopHere is the Blais/Paulogia video that we are responding to:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6QenX4Oo78Here is just one of my articles on why we don't have to predict that God will perform a miracle in order to conclude that he has done so in the light of specific evidence:https://jat-ojs-baylor.tdl.org/jat/index.php/jat/article/view/201
