Can you articulate a methodology whereby an objective determination can be made between a TRUE miracle, and an innocent mischaracterization of natural phenomena?
Sure- Christ restored the head of the man whom Peter removed it from- I’d say that is a miracle- God parted the Red sea- I dunno bout you, but I’ve never seen the waves of a sea held back, and the depths uncovered so that people could walk across on dry land- Christ also walked on water demonstratign His supernatual mastery over nature. He also turned water into wine with a word- Rose fro mthe dead, raised people fro mthe dead- resoted sight, and healed leporasy instantly- on several occassions.
These ‘healing crusades’ that modern day charlatans perform are nothing of the sort- While some people ‘might’ be healed of somethign miraculously like cancer though, is too obscure to really call a TRUE miracle difinitively, as it ‘could have’ been just natural remissions which do occure spontaniously for unknown reasons even in people who have no faith- The healing sermons today rely on the power of suggestions to ‘heal’ things that can’t really be verified, and which can’t really be confirmed- Christ’s Miracles were no such thing- they were undeniable.