About Miracles Jar
Miracles Jar takes reported miracles seriously enough to examine them carefully — which means being honest about what the evidence can and cannot establish. We are not here to debunk or to promote. We are here to weigh the documentation and say, as plainly as we can, how likely it is that a claim has no natural explanation.
Our mission
- 1. To record the works of God — miracles, big and small.
- 2. To weigh them honestly— applying the scientific method, statistical thinking, and an evidence-based approach so you can judge for yourself what's true.
- 3. To give everyone a place to share — people of all races, creeds, and backgrounds telling their stories and encouraging the world with good news.
Who we are
We are just a team of volunteers, writers, techies, and every-day people who have experienced the hand of God and powerful miracles in our own lives — from blind eyes being opened, to tumors disappearing, to miracle babies. We are grateful for what God has done.
Whenever we share these stories, it seems to encourage other people and lead to even greater testimonies. So we built a place where everyone can get the good news — and add their own.
We’re honest about our tools, too. Today, most of our assessments are made by an AI research assistant — it gathers the sources, builds the evidence ledger, and weighs the natural explanations — and every claim names who assessed it. Our human editors review and put their own name to the verdicts, starting with the most prominent cases. The judgment is ours to stand behind, not the model’s — and we’d rather tell you that plainly than have you wonder.
Editorial standards
- Independence.Submitters never influence the assessment of their own story. Where the editors have a personal stake — including our own founders’ story — the page carries a visible disclosure and is held to the same standard as everything else.
- Corrections. Every probability is an estimate, and estimates get revised. When new documentation surfaces, in either direction, the assessment changes and the page shows it. If you spot an error of fact, tell us and we will check it against the sources.
- Sourcing. Claims cite the documentation we actually reviewed. When a load-bearing fact rests on a single source, or on testimony alone, the evidence ledger says so plainly.
How we look at a claim
We look at two things on every story, and we keep them apart so neither one colors the other:
1 · Does it break the laws of nature?
If the story is true exactly as told, would it break the laws of nature as we understand them — a regrown limb, a terminal cancer gone overnight? Some accounts don't break any law; they're extraordinary timing — the right person at the right moment. For those the question becomes: was it more than coincidence?
2 · Is there evidence it's true?
Did it actually happen as reported? Strong records, named witnesses, and independent investigation push this up; thin, late, or second-hand retelling holds it down — and a confession or a debunking drops it to the floor.
A claim only stands out when the answer to both is yes. We show each as its own dial, so a wonderful story on thin evidence is never mistaken for a proven one — and an ordinary event with airtight records isn't dressed up as a miracle.
How an assessment is built
For every story we gather the documentation and rank each source by how close it sits to the event — contemporaneous records, medical files, and sworn testimony count for more than downstream retellings. Each consideration goes into an evidence ledger, logged as pointing toward an authentic miracle, toward a natural explanation, or as neutral context, and rated weak, moderate, or strong. That feeds the two dials above, one plain-English bottom line, and a one-word tier — Gold standard through Disproven. Assessments are living entries: a better source, a debunking, or a medical follow-up moves them in either direction, and the page shows the change.
We never say “certain” in either direction. A claim is never provenmiraculous, and “no natural explanation yet” is never proven impossible. These are our honest, best reads of the documentation — not measured frequencies — and they move as better evidence surfaces. When the record is too thin to bear much weight, we say so on the claim rather than dressing up a guess as a finding.
Anyone can submit
Most miracle accounts never get written down. So you can share a story directly. New submissions post to the research queue marked “awaiting review,”and readers upvote the ones we should research and assess next. The story comes first; the assessment is added when we've done the work.
Get involved
We are all busy people who do this on the side — and we'd always welcome more help. If you have something to offer and would like to volunteer, email us at info@miraclesjar.com — or simply share a story.