Abstract

This paper critically examines the deductive formulation of the No-Miracle Argument (NMA) proposed by Golemon and Graber (A deductive variation on the no miracles argument. Synthese, 201(81), 1–26, 2023). While the authors present their version as a logically rigorous alternative to the traditional abductive NMA, I argue that their deductive variant fails to deliver the promised advantages. The argument suffers from two main flaws. First, several key premises are structurally ambiguous, and on either plausible interpretation, the resulting argument is either invalid or unsound. Second, a crucial inferential step of the argument lacks deductive validity. Attempts to reconstruct or salvage the argument either fail to preserve logical validity or rely on unjustified probabilistic assumptions.