Scrolling down two thirds of the way into https://metachristianity.com/platonism-and-be-ing-and-do-ing-and-pure-act-and-counterfactuals-and-moral-facts/ there is the bolded section labeled Can The Universe Be The Necessary Being? and it has several items/linked essays related to this ((including a few items from Jim (hillclimber) etc.)).

Why are you answering posts that are over two years old? Yer just being a pest and a Troll like yer lowbrow Gnu buddies. This is why yer kind are an intellectually inferior form of non-belief and if I lost my faith tomorrow I wouldn't disbelieve in yer knuckleheaded manner. I have some pride in my intellect. You OTOH are shamelessly postmodern.

Get lost Mike yer being a troll answering two year old posts.

No buying stolen property is immoral. Buying a stolen person can be moral if you intend to treat them in a human manner. In Theoretical slavery you don't own a person. You own the products of their labor and they are under yer command. It is not an intrinsically immoral thing but it is clearly as other scholastics said morally hazardous and gravely potentially evil. It is like having a dictator rule yer country. Such an institution is not evil in itself as you could have a kind ruler. But it is gravely potentially evil as the ruler could freak out and burn down King's Landing. Tyrannies are always evil but you could have a Democracy that is a tyranny if 90% of the population voted to take away the rights of 10% and treat them like chattel.

You didn't know any of this? Of course not. Yer a Gnu.

Matt Dilahunty has several videos on his show where he has confronted Christian callers with almost the exact question.
He takes each and every one to the cleaners.
Sunny Jim is nothing but a giant farking Arsehat. He behaves in this fashion on almost every thread he comments. I am just surprised his nurse allows him so much time on the computer and wonder why the other patients don't complain?

So you're basically saying "Prove the signatures saying his arm grew back weren't faked" and shifting the burden of proof.

This is a dismissal, not a rebuttal.

Where did Zola say that? His Lourdes book is apparently listed a sa novel, not a documentary.

Are you saying owning another person isn't intrinsically immoral? Even if you bought them from someone who kidnapped them?

“ Presumably, Catholics believe that praying or some other religious act is engaging some non naturalistic cause to heal or cure these people, or cause their diseases to go into remission. This is something science can test.”

From a scientific point of view, this would do nothing to show a non naturalistic cause since science only deals with natural causes and effects and, like you said, science failing to explain it is not an explanation. There is no difference from the scientific point of view between something unexplained and something supernatural and therefore, “this cause is non naturalistic” can never be a scientific conclusion.

This does nothing to refute miracles themselves but only show that if they do exist, their existence can only be shown through non-scientific means.