If nobody objects I will be making changes to the Miracle article to incorporate Catholic beliefs about the miracles performed by Christ described in the Gospels. Catholics find many miracles in the Bible, including healing miracles, raising the dead, multiplying fish and bread, transforming water into wine, and others. I object to the article stating there is only one genuine reference to a miracle because there is no other way to magnify Christ's divinity other than to read the Gospel writers' stories of His acts to describe God's intervention in the natural order. Nate 19:34, 13 November 2010 (EST)
- I don't object. More information would be welcome.
- I tried to find a way to search the New American Bible online for its references to the term "miracle", but was unsuccessful. Perhaps you find one. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:56, 13 November 2010 (EST)
- Finding references to the word would be helpful. So will be defining the term and how we know miracles. They are expressions of God's intelligent intervention, not accidents beyond our understanding. I will add some material on this. Thank you. Nate 20:03, 13 November 2010 (EST)
Problem with the gambler's fallacy
Isn't the use of the gambler's fallacy in the article incorrect? The gambler's fallacy (as the article correctly points out) says that if you throw a dice nine times and none of those throws produced a six, it is now more likely to be a six. I.e. the probability of throwing a six is greater than 1/6.
The argument against miracles in the article is that if an event has a fixed probability and you do something more times, then you would expect that event to occur more often. E.g you would expect to get more sixes if you throw a dice 100 times than if you only threw it 10 times. Richardm (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2016 (EDT)