The Miracle Audit: A Probabilistic Framework for Differentiating Anomalies from Supernatural Interventions

This paper proposes a rigorous epistemological framework for evaluating clai ms of supernatural intervention. Rejecting reliance on anecdotal evidence and the “God of the Gaps” fallacy, we introduce the Miracle Audit Rubric (MAR) . This instrument quantifies the credibility of supernatural claims across seven distinct variables: Ontological Weight, Causal Link, Epistemic Rigor, Environmental Context , Comparative Uniqueness, Statistical Significance, and the Gradient of Difficu lty. By applying the MAR to historical case studies-including the cures at Lourdes and t he origin of the Book of Mormon-we demonstrate that alleged miracles consistently fail to meet the burden of proof required to establish a suspension of natural law . We conclude that without a high-fidelity score on the MAR, supernatural claims are st atistically indistinguishable from natural anomalies and selection bias. Preamble: Epistemic Framework Stance: Methodological Naturalism. Objective: To establish a rigorous, falsifiable standard for evaluatin g claims of the suspension of natural law. Note on Terminology: This paper operates on the premise that claims of objective r eality require objective evidence proportional to the claim’s dev iation from established probability. All claims of “miracles” are treated as positive assertions o f causality that must overcome the null hypothesis of natural law.