The Term 'Miracle' is a Misnomer--No Such Thing Exists

I hope that it is enjoyable for both us as debaters, as well as for our readers as they work through this issue with us. I also see that my opponent is new to the site, so I want to welcome him to the DDO community. On with the debate. Opening RemarksIt is important to note that this debate is necessarily semantic. Often times debaters will exploit a weakness in a semantic aspect of heir opponent's debate, when the debate is otherwise not semantic. While this is not necessarily dubious, it is often seen as poor conduct or poor taste. However, this debate is different. For you see, although we are debating the existence of miracles, we are debating it on somewhat semantic terms. As my opponent has noted in his argument, if we were to define miracles in a different way then this debate would be moot. Furthermore, his entire argument rests on the definition of a miracle rather than on the ontological existence of said phenomena. Second, I would like to note that as my opponent is pro and instigator of this debate, he possesses what is known as Philosophic Burden of Proof [A] This means that he is responsible for positively proving his arguments beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. My task as Con is simply to cast that reasonable doubt. I can either do this by mounting my own affirmative argument to the contrary of his, or simply by attacking his argument. Simply put, I a not required to prove that miracles exist but am only required to prove that his argument does not work. ResponseMy opponent begins his argument by providing a definition for Miracles. For sake of space I will not repeat it. However, in his argument he fails to follow that definition strictly. Since my opponent has cast out the concept of God in this debate and the first definition relies on divine interaction, we must accept only the second part of the definition since my opponent has clearly dismissed the first. As such we are left simply with a highly improbable event. The noted New Testament Text Critic Bart Ehrman seems to agree. In a debate with William Lane Craig over the historicity of the Bible he says "What are miracles? Miracles are not impossible. I won't say they're impossible. You might think they are impossible and, if you do think so, then you're going to agree with my argument even more than I'm going to agree with my argument. I'm just going to say that miracles are so highly improbable that they're the least possible occurrence in any given instance. "[B] As such we see that the term miracle need not only apply to events that violate natural law. By the definition given by my opponent, if I stand at one end of a basketball court and close my eyes and throw the ball to the other end. .. and make a basket, it is a legitimate miracle. This is indeed a highly improbable and extraordinary (outside of ordinary) event. Furthermore, there is a flaw in my opponent's syllogism. In a syllogism the conclusion is only true if the premises are true. Beyond that, as Pro my opponent is required to prove all premises that are not common and accepted knowledge. In P3 of his syllogism he states that "Nothing can be known to us outside of what our senses tell us. " This is not only an unproven premise and begs the question, but it is false. My opponent himself notes that there are exceptions. Descartes's quote is one, but the various theories of quantum mechanics are another. Many of these theories are derived entirely from mathematical formulae and have nothing to do with sense data. Furthermore, my opponent's epistemological statement is only reflective of on school of epistemology, namely empiricism. Many epistemological systems would say that we begin life knowing everything and we must only remember it (Plato's Innatism). Thank you, I look forward to the next round. Sources[A] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[B] . http://www.philvaz.com...