The thing that would lead me to believe that it is a colloquial use of the word miracle is the quantifier "minor" before it. What exactly would constitute a minor as opposed to a major or median miracle in the divine intervention sense?

More to the point, I don't think that even if there is no readily available physical explanation for a given event, say that there is actually no understanding of how it is physically possible for this guy to walk again (which I see no reference to in the provided comments) how exactly would this be evidence of a 'miracle'? In order for it to truly be evidence of miracle in the divine intervention sense of the word wouldn't one need some understanding of the nature of a miracle, say the process by which miracles are manifested, in order to reasonably conclude that such an occurence should be attributed to the category of things we would call 'miracles'?

I would be more than willing to concede that if the doctors could find no physical explanation for his recovery that it could be attirbuted to unknown causes but without any criteria by which we can classify something as divine intervention it is ridiculous to consider anything evidence of such an occurence.

Quick question - if it is divine intervention that he is not going to be paralyzed, where is the divine intervention before an accident like this happens?

This dovetails into a pet peeve of mine...

A theist goes to his doctor and finds a mass on or in his body. They do a biopsy and discover that the mass is cancerous. He has surgery, endures months of chemotherapy and radiation treatments and the cancer goes into remission.

His response: Praise God! Jesus healed me of cancer!

WTF? I'm not against using the tools that are available but give the doctors and the science some credit also. Or at least give God credit for giving you the cancer in the first place.

Spinal concussion is a funny beast.  It can paralyse you for good or be temporary.  Most prudent consultants don't say anything until the swelling goes down.  In addition, a full recovery can be unlikely - you can be left with pins and needles in your hands or feet amongst other things.  Sure, not enough to be debilitating, but an annoying reminder.

My stepfather had a spinal accident so that's how I know.

link

Just because somebody chooses not to believe that "something" is evidence doesn't negate the fact that it may very well be evidence.

Well, no. The thing is, if you can't isolate a variable, it seriously affects its validity as evidence. If I have a headache and I respond by: taking aspirin, taking acetaminophen, applying a pressure point, practicing a Hopi purification rite, drinking herbal tea, and taking a 30-minute nap; which of these things do I call a cure when my headache goes away? If it works out, great, but this exercise ain't science.

The point is that we really have no idea - we have beliefs and opinions and, in some instances, we have facts - but that's ALL we have.

Nothing more - nothing less!

That's a common attitude I call the "Whatever!" stance. "Everyone's got an opinion, so all opinions are on level ground." That's a slap in the face of legitimate research, the benefits of which are hard to argue against from behind the keyboard of an amazingly cheap and sophisticated tool that only developed through extensive research, and through conclusions and hypotheses with results that actually mattered. There is such a thing as expertise, experience, knowledge; and there are informed and uninformed grounds to speculate.

 I'm not entirely sure you understood the point I was trying to make at all.

My guess is that Eddie Van Halen's opinion about the playability of a new type of guitar, for example, would carry alot more weight that some CA who has never picked up a guitar in his life.

My guess is that Tom Brady's opinion about the calibre of a particular's team's cornerbacks and safety's, for example, would carry more weight than my wife's opinion.

My guess is that David Ortiz's opinion about a certain pitcher's fast ball would carry more weight than an individual who has been blind from birth and never played a day of basebal in his life.

The above are "earthly" endeavours - they are activities in the natural world - things that we can see and hear and 'feel".

 But be my guest - please tell me all about the "scientific" research pertaining to the biblical account of the resurrection, for example.

Please provide me with ONE credible link that provides conclusive proof that the resurrection, for example, NEVER happened and couldn't possibly happen.

Tell me all about the 'legitimate research" that's been done that conclusively PROVES that a man named Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead as the Scriptures say.

Looking forward to your response. 

I did. It just isn't any good. I've heard it before, and I tried to look surprised this time, I really did.

Oh, but the "CA," your wife, and the blind person have a "different kind" of knowledge of those things that's outside your conventional sense of knowing. They understand them on another level that isn't demonstrable in any way, and can't be articulated at all, but should nevertheless be given equal time and credence.

Is that an argument for or against it?

The precedent that it has never happened since? A knowledge of biology that rules out the possibility of being dead for three days waking up? That we know that the sky is just our refracting atmosphere and not a portal to another dimension? That people don't generally levitate? How about that's there's not a shred of evidence in its favor? Do you really believe that something that completely defies all logic and our knowledge of nature; a complete suspension of everything our accumulated research tells us is, without a drop of evidence, is no less than 50% plausible?

Give me evidence that conclusively proves you don't have a wood sprite living in your eyebrow.

You wrote that like you actually offered proof yourself - I wish you did.

What you originally was a story about human medical professionals busting their humps to keep a guy alive and keep him functioning as a human. You just offered your opinon (echoed by the opinions of others in the article) that "God did it".

Theists tend to swear by confirmation bias as "proof" that their God is on the job. You look at the few successes and gloss over the myriad failures. 

I, uh... really? You didn't pick up on the irony? Hmm. I hadn't planned on this contingency. OK... change of approach: be literal.

You made an allowance for the possibility of resurrection based on us "not knowing" for certain that it didn't happen. The possibility would require a complete suspension of natural principles -- something which has never been demonstrated. If all that's required for a prospect to be viable is that it hasn't been specifically excluded as a possibility (specifically proved false rather than just not being supported AT ALL), you don't have much basis not to believe almost anything, no matter how absurd. You defended your position by calling our understanding of nature "earthly," which I take to mean "natural," implying that there is another model of physics, biology, etc., in which a resurrection would make sense. Since that third space has never been demonstrated at all, in any way, you can question its validity, or open your mind to the "other kind" of knowledge your wife has about guitars, and start promoting her on the "We just don't know!" tour.

Duh ... that's why I followed up my foray into latin with the phrase, "my friend" ... =)

Do you have this same argument with other Christians who claim they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists?

Or do you just say "Amen"?

 Just asking...

If you read my original post - I mean really read it - and look at the words (and try not to assume that just because I said "ABC", I really meant "XYZ&quot, you will see that I'm not making any claims.

And I'm entitled to believe whatever I want - without having to 'prove" a damn thing.

I love my wife, but can I "prove" it - NO..!!!!!

Should I have to prove it - NO..!!!!!!!!!!!

Fair question. 

In my opinion, anybody who claims that there is absolute proof that God exists - or doesn't exist - doesn't really know what they're talking about.

Like I said, all we have is "I believe that God exists" or "I don't believe that God exists" and that's about it in my opionion.

It's kind of like love, isn't it..??

It can be experienced, but I'm not sure it can be explained..!!

But best of luck to anybody who wants to try.

Here's what that sounds like to me:

"We don't absolutely know that there is no god, and we don't absolutely know that there is a god, therefore each person's opinion on the matter is as good as the next, since it is only an opinion."

Wrong. What if a person isn't arguing from an absolute position? In fact, most people (most atheists I've met anyway) don't! It's a question of probability.

Just because we can't say anything absolutely does not necessarily mean that both sides of the fence are equal in terms of their probability.

Applying this to your miraculous injury example, it's true that some will say that the recovery was miraculous. Some will say it was not miraculous, that it was strange but perfectly natural.

We cannot absolutely prove that this was not some kind of divine intervention, and we cannot absolutely prove that a divine being had nothing to do with it. But we can ask ourselves which of the two is more likely.

Miracles, magic, and supernatural beings always lose the probability game by a landslide.

Furthermore, whenever science fails to offer an explanation, you can't just assume it was God. That's a lazy brain at work. 

I'm not sure what the point of the original post is, if not to say, "What if an unverifiable theory can be used as evidence?" I think that would be the most concise way of putting it.

As with any similar question, we're going to save ourselves a lot of time by defining what evidence is; particularly, what criteria must be met for something to qualify as evidence.

Evidence, as a noun, is defined as:

Moving on, in the case of the original post, we are asking if the impression that we don't know how a patient recovered from a condition that he was unlikely to recover from can be evidence of a miracle.

Miracle:

There are two non-supernatural definitions to which we can already say the patient's recovery relates. It was unusual and surpassing expectations, so it could be called a miracle in this sense. However, to another doctor, it may not be considered unusual, so the term is essentially a figure of speech.

Is it a supernatural miracle? How can we observe anything that exists outside of the natural world, and if it is outside, how can it then do anything in the natural world when its very nature excludes it from ever being part of the natural world? I would say no, and not just that it was not a supernatural miracle, but that supernatural miracles can never occur.

Back to the issue of using unverifiable theories as evidence: Even if something unverifiable, such as the idea that an OJ Simpson robot murdered Nicole Simpson as a prank by extraterrestrials who then took the robot back into space, could be grounds for belief, we don't consider to have knowledge just because there is some evidence, but because we have an overwhelming amount of evidence.

In the case of the recovering patient, the idea that a supernatural miracle has somehow occurred is at best a deluded possibility, while on the other side of the pancake, we know that the patient was treated by doctors and extensive research was used in treating him-- and the research itself amounts to evidence. So we can at least say it was far more likely that it was not a supernatural miracle, which is what knowledge is really about: probability. When we say we know something, we mean that it is the most likely to be true.

Another way to show this is the case is to try to live by using unverifiable theories as evidence. There sure would be a lot of them! Gee, I think I'm walking and talking and seeing, but maybe I'm in a simulation or maybe my senses deceive me, maybe I can only do what I want to do by doing the opposite! But how you can know if you're doing anything if the unverifiable theories count as evidence too? According to the OP, you can't. And this is why we know that we can know, and unverifiable theories don't amount to evidence.