MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7129454802 · doi:10.21697/spch.2025.61.a.14

Two Unsuccessful Objections to the Apologetic Worth of Miracles

2025· article· pl· W7129454802 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Larmer

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Philosophiae Christianae · 2025
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)AgnosticismCausationPropositionNatural lawFalse accusationSubject (documents)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I examine two common, widely used, objections to the apologetic worth of miracles and argue that they are unsuccessful. These are: (1) the objection that it would take an inordinate amount of evidence to establish the occurrence of certain events such as the Resurrection of Jesus, and (2) the objection that even if such events could justifiably be held to have occurred, it would be more rational to attribute them to unknown natural causes rather than supernatural intervention. Using the views of David Basinger, found in his 2018 Cambridge Elements monograph Miracles, as a foil, I argue that both objections are mistaken. ---------------------------------------- Received: 12/05/2025. Reviewed: 15/10/2025. Accepted: 18/11/2025.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia Philosophiae ChristianaeSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207