Choice and Providence

And I already asked what event (even one you don't know about) cannot have a natural explanation (and of course that doesn't include events that would be considered natural, there are plenty of those)

Almost no event comes to mind except for a sea breaking apart like in the Red Sea, or a football going through a wall and remaining intact, or a person just flying through the air. But of course, these are events I don't think of.

I'm sure that if you see the Red Sea splitting, you'll try to give it a scientific explanation, and the same goes for other things. If it were a one-time event, then these would be speculations that cannot be verified (even if you had a really good simulator), and maybe you'd even go for a quantum case with a tiny chance (if the sea has a 10-to-a-million chance of splitting at any given second, you could expect it to happen once, and the fact that it would happen in your lifetime is not surprising because your lifetime is not objectively special). If it were a recurring event, then it would already become an empirical phenomenon even if it is strange and has not yet been explained, just like the fact that sometimes there is an inverse relationship between the temperature of something and its freezing time - it's a strange thing that probably has no explanation at the moment, but it simply remains a scientific puzzle. I suppose that a rain of frogs or jellyfish suddenly falling from the sky would also seem plausible to you, if it were not a well-known (and not really explained) phenomenon.

I don't see where you're going. You asked what I would refer to in the conference, and I answered. In addition, this whole discussion doesn't seem relevant to me, because even if I don't refer to anything in the conference, so what? Does this prove that there are miracles? It means that it is impossible to prove the existence of miracles and the question remains for our common sense. According to my (common sense?) sense, as long as it is not proven that there are miracles, there are no miracles.

This is very relevant because you claim that there were miracles in the past, and I say that there is nothing new under the sun – either they were not or they are still there today (I do not rule out the possibilities that there were and are no longer there, but there is no reason to assume it because the only thing that has changed is our perception and not the behavior of the world), and each of the possibilities is very different from your opinion.
This is even more relevant when you remember that every divine intervention in the world is a miracle, and this also includes His speaking to a person, that is, prophecy. Here too, science will claim that every person who claims prophecy has a natural explanation, and you will probably also send *everyone* who claims prophecy to the hospital. And again, you will have to claim that there once was and now there is not. But this claim has no justification. Of course, the question of prophecy is much more important than the question of miracles.

So it's not.
Miracles in the past were diagnosed by prophets (and the Torah itself). They can know. In extreme cases, I will also diagnose miracles (as I wrote to you, and you continue to ignore it for some reason).
And beyond that, I don't send anyone to the hospital who sees miracles in ordinary cases, but simply disagree with them.

A. It is a bit circular to say that miracles were diagnosed by the prophets because prophecy itself is a miracle (and I am sorry that you just wrote that in the comments to the heresy column and the blasphemy).
B. You did write that you would diagnose miracles, but I argued that if you were honest enough with yourself, you would see that this was not true (I don't like people telling other people what they really think, but you started it). You are welcome to explain why a rain of jellyfish is less of a miracle than a sea breaking apart. If I didn't know that such phenomena exist, it would seem just as strange to me. In any case, when I encounter such a phenomenon, I will ask what can explain it (which is exactly what you will do). David Copperfield removed the Statue of Liberty and that doesn't seem any worse to me than a football going through a wall. So he admitted in advance that it was a trick, but I suppose that even if he hadn't said it was a trick, but had said that he had powers and would really make the Statue of Liberty disappear, and you were in the audience, you would probably think there was a trick here. This is probably also what would happen if you saw a football go through a wall. If this football didn't go through a wall in the open field but in a laboratory, you would probably start thinking about your physical theories. I don't see any difference between a football going through a wall and a piece of paper causing a cannonball to recoil backward, but when Rutherford saw something similar happen in the laboratory, he realized that his physical theory was probably wrong and didn't think it was a miracle. I'm sure you would think the same if you saw it happen in the laboratory. In short, I don't think you've given enough thought to the situation in which you would diagnose miracles (it's much easier to believe in miracles that way, just as it was much easier for you to believe in the Torah from heaven when you didn't examine the arguments of biblical criticism because that's not interesting; after you examined it, we heard other hymns).
C. I didn't say that you send to the hospital those who see miracles, but those who claim prophecy. My argument was that prophecy is also a type of miracle and that there is no way to diagnose it either. That today anyone who claims it will be sent (even by you) to a psychiatrist, and the prophets of old were no different. There is no reason to think that if you met Jeremiah you would think differently than you would think of any modern prophet.

By the way, the claim that miracles were diagnosed by the Torah is very nice because you are essentially saying that you learn about the laws of nature from the Torah. From what you say, if I had a physical theory to explain the hailstones falling down the slope of Beit Horon, then this theory would be disproven by virtue of the prophetic words that it was a miracle. It is certainly an interesting idea, but I would have expected to hear it from people like the one who is now being laughed at in your column in the context of medical statistics, not from you.

Well, that's a real waste of time. A scientific experiment is something that is repeatable, and as such is not a miracle. The Torah says that there will be prophets and there are criteria for examining them. If you believe in the Torah, you believe in prophecy. What does this have to do with our day? Are you claiming that there are prophets today? I think we are repeating ourselves and exhausting ourselves.

I'm glad you agree about a scientific experiment.
I still argue that there is no case where you would think you are seeing a miracle (e.g. the disappearance of the Statue of Liberty).
I equally argue that there is no case where you would think that the person in front of you is a prophet.
Relegating miracles and prophecies to the past is meaningless. It only gives you the option to believe in the Torah without any justification. If there is no scenario in which you would believe in a miracle or a prophet today, this will also be true of the past. And again, if you see David Copperfield parting the Red Sea, I'm sure you wouldn't think it was a miracle.