Indeed. Accordingly, if one is going to argue that the gods must exist because this occurrence testifies to their existence, and if one is then confronted with people saying that they do not find the evidence that it did happen to be of a kind and character sufficient to demonstrate the occurrence of something apparently impossible, one cannot invoke the existence of gods as making the occurrence less improbable. One has got to turn to evidence of the occurrence itself, not to a philosophical whip-around where one assumes the very fact in issue. When that process is followed, of course, it becomes plain that evidence of such a kind and character does not exist, and then the theist winds up arguing that the gods exist because something otherwise impossible happened, and that it’s reasonable to believe that this impossible thing happened because the gods exist.