My idea of God does not forbid miracles outside Christianity.
It’s not enough that evidence be consistent with your hypothesis. To count in favor, it must be more consistent with your hypothesis than its converse. One of the key insights rationalists derive from Bayes is that you cannot ignore the false positives. You use both sides to compute the likelihood ratio.
If you are equally good at explaining any outcome you have zero knowledge. The strength of a model is not what it can explain, but what it can’t, for only prohibitions constrain anticipation. --Yudkowsky, Your Strength as a Rationalist
(Also, if you think that gods may be willing to perform miracles for other religions, that makes it very difficult to use miracles as evidence for your God in particular, as opposed to some other power.)
It’s not enough that evidence be consistent with your hypothesis. To count in favor, it must be more consistent with your hypothesis than its converse. One of the key insights rationalists derive from Bayes is that you cannot ignore the false positives. You use both sides to compute the likelihood ratio.
(Also, if you think that gods may be willing to perform miracles for other religions, that makes it very difficult to use miracles as evidence for your God in particular, as opposed to some other power.)