@SpiritRealmInvestigator This is a follow-up of my comment.

Just as Hume limits "miracle" unreasonably strict, which in terms of Summa Contra Gentiles Chapter 101 is only Degree 1, and some of Degree 2, Christians can talk so loosely that "miracle" covers more than Degree 3.

6) aesthetic appreciation, longing for greater fulfillment, 7) intuition giving meaning of life, things start making sense, 8) prophecy, word of knowledge, vision, 9) release from personal addiction, 10) healing by exorcism, 11) healing from cancer

Forgot this one: 3b) Transubstantiation

In all of them God can be assumed to be the agent, by doctrine. Does it automatically make them "miracle"? In my opinion that depends on us on how to define it.

I purposefully order them from most likely without a physical component (i.e. brain) to most likely with a measurable physical component (i.e. detected brain activity). Did I share with you an accidental discovery of how at the moment of death there is unexplainable brain activity accessing the memory areas that can explain people with NDE saw life memories come back? I also just learned of neuroscientific research related to aesthetic experience (#6) where they detect associated brain act.

Another consideration is the regularity of that type of event. For example, if it is a "normal functioning" of conscience to tell us of right and wrong, is it a miracle since God is involved by giving human nature conscience across the board? If some conversions are "natural" but some are "unexpected", but by doctrine the Holy Spirit is involved in every conversion, does it make the "unexpected" miracle but the "normal" (i.e. no detected special phenomena like myself) is not a miracle?

If by further research it is found that events #1 to #5 have no physical component, but #6 to #11 have physical component, does the "unexpected"-ness of #6 to #11 makes it a "miracle" simply because it has a physical component?

I hope I have given you enough material to consider how defining miracle can be fraught with arbitrariness, and thus it is safest not to restrict too much (like Hume) or be too careless (like some Pentecostals who indiscriminately call anything unexpected "miracle") and settle with Thomistic definition in Summa Contra Gentiles chapter 101. What do you think?

@GratefulDisciple - I like the Thomistic definition, it acknowledges that there are different degrees or gradations of miracles, which I agree with. Perhaps you may want to put together an answer to this question:

@SpiritRealmInvestigator I'm actually in the middle of editing the tag definition which I may simply point in my answer.

I take it back. I don't like to include biblical basis for it, because to me it's arbitrary.

Too many C.SE questions ask for "biblical basis" as though there is one. I prefer to call my tag definition "compatible with the Bible" because Hume's definition is definitely NOT compatible with the Bible.

After I post the tag definition (maybe you can only see it after approval), then we can discuss it in this chatroom.

My approach is a commonsensical Christian definition of miracle that is inclusive enough but without watering it down. Otherwise, you'll call every baby born a "miracle" because "ensoulment" is by God. Ensoulment would be #1B

@GratefulDisciple - There are many contradictory positions that are "compatible" with the Bible. For example, annihilationism and ECT are both compatible with Scripture, yet they cannot both be true at the same time. Does that mean that they both lack biblical basis? What counts as biblical basis for an interpretative hypothesis?

Another analogy: some see the similarities among species as evidence of common evolutionary ancestry, others see them as evidence of a common designer. Do the similarities among species count as evidence for any position, even if they cannot both be true at the same time?

One more angle to consider. By my definition, magic is not miracle, since the originating agent is NOT God, but men allying themselves with demons to counteract laws of nature.

Personal comment: I find that I like definition game. Maybe it's due to my enjoying being a system architect as one role in my career, where I have to write functional requirement documents that contains definition of data entities, for example.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator When I say "biblical basis" is what C.SE means by it: a doctrine, not necessarily derived solely from the Bible, but by the community adopting that theological position. So "biblical basis" simply means support from the Bible ("verse proofing") coupled with that community's interpretation.

What I mean by "compatible with the Bible" means that there is no positive assertion in the Bible that contradict a position, i.e. the Bible is silent or allows that position. Virginity of Mary is one. Praying for a saint's intercession is another. Catholic Transubstantiation is another.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator Conclusion They cannot both be true at the same time only from God's point of view which is unknown. God seems to allow contradictory doctrines but gives providence only to knowledge that leads to salvation. Only at the end will we find the true answer.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator This is a fallacious example. Why cannot it be both true at the same time? I'm rather persuaded with God guiding an evolutionary development. So his "design" is realized over time.

Going back the Biblical basis, I realize some Christians don't agree with me, they tend to be fundamentalists and exclusivists (about salvation of non-Christians). But I go with what I believe the early church believe, in that sola scriptura should be coupled with an orthodox interpretation, that "naked scripture" cannot stand alone.

Secondly, along with the history of the word "heresy" as "a path", there were many interpretations existing already, so orthodoxy allows them by defining "fence" so multiple interpretations can coexist as long as they don't violate ecumenically agreed doctrines such as the Trinity.

CONCLUSION: That way, mainstream Christianity today don't simply accept all positions that claim "biblical basis" like LDS or JW. Or too restrictive "biblical basis" like fundamentalists. There is a "safe area" where multiple interpretations can coexist, such as the 3 main branches of mainstream Christianity.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator I'm done editing it. I shared a PDF print out here for a "sneak preview" to you. When the tag is approved you can view it here.