I see no line of any sort, fine or otherwise, magic is exactly what such claims are appealing to,
Magic
noun
- the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Indeed, and how do you differentiate between the two results?
I am dubious, as that looks suspiciously like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and most especially since the very definition of a miracle, is itself an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
miracle
noun
- an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
I have read about Superman and Spiderman, this doesn’t make the claims true.
Can you objectively evidence just one for us please, otherwise this is just a bare appeal to numbers, and it would be fallacious to argue the number of unevidenced claims makes them more likely true.
I don’t believe this to be true, what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this claim?
Again this hyperbole seems risible, when the claim is all that is being offered.
Yet they are both unevidenced superstitions, that make fallacious appeals to magic.
All talk of the divine is meaningless to me, unless you can demonstrate sufficient evidence, and sufficiently objective evidence, a deity exists, or is even possible, can you do this?