Definition of "refuting a specific miracle"

[David Sklansky]

95% of the world realizes that this means that in cases where it can be examined thoroughly, there exists an explanation that follows the laws of science. Put another way, it can be duplicated without resorting to godlike intervention. Just like when Houdini or Randi explains or duplicates psychics tricks.

That is what almost all people think of as a refutation. We are not interested in the religous or non religious nuts who think otherwise. Obviously the ability to duplicate the trick doesn't logically prove the original trick wasn't miraculous. But even religious people realize it is strong evidence against it. Conversely if there was an event fully accessible and examined by present day scientists and magicians, that they were at a loss to explain, that wouldn't logically prove that it was miraculous. But it would be strong evidence of it especially if it was in conjunction with a biblical type prediction (because of the parlay price).

Of course almost everybody already knew and understood this except for the religious nutcases and the highfalootin philosphers. So I apologize for wasting your time.