The universe being is a miracle which flouts cause and effect. That can only happen once because it is now here.
I'm going to combine my response to this with a partial reply to the OP. The reason for combining and the reply bring only the first part of an answer is because I think there is an internet rule to be instituted which is the more wrong something is in a small number of words, the longer the answer will be to unpack it and point out the problems, or in short if something is only 1% correct, it will take 99 times the amount of writing to point out why.
So let's break this down to that for Vlad, the definition of a miracle based his statement above is something that flouts cause and effect and only happens once. I will deal with these separately, and then link to the part coverage of the OP.
For something to 'flout cause and effect', the first problem is that linguistically this means that a miracle in Vlad's view is something that happens at random. If there is no cause, then there is no supernatural claim. So we have to help Vlad a little here and insert that it flouts a natural cause and effect. This causes problems in that we haven't established either that cause and effect are objectively true or that any causes are natural.
To understand the problem of cause and effect not being objective, we need to understand that it us a pattern seen from a subjective point of view, and then validated inter subjectively. It nay be that we are all in the matrix or indeed there is only one thing thinking (the problem of hard solipsism). Further even if we exclude these sort of thought experiments, the idea of cause and effect is based on our viewpoint and induction. We examine them as if it is a proven 'kaw' when it is simply an inductively derived observation.
This takes us on to ther separation of causes into two types, natural ones which Vlad seems to think we have proved, and non natural ones which he thinks sonehow flout the idea of cause and effect. The natural causes that we use to explain are based not upon objective proof of the cause and effect link but a basic assumption of how we investigate the external world. This is that assumption that we can investigate such a world as if it is consistent and that if we see something that we can ascribe a cause to consistently then whatever we observe within that method of naturalism is the cause. Those causes though could all be non natural, some non natural, or it could change from minute to minute. For let's remember, the rule of cause and effect is flouted by these non natural causes.
So let's move on to Vlad's second pillar of miracles that something only happens once. When he raised this previously I pointed out that everything in our experience only happens once. It might have similarities, I may be go to the loo a few tines a day as will billions of others but each of these are unique happenings spatially and temporally. In that case there is the possibility of ascribing the view that indeed everything could be miraculous, indeed if this is a deity with the omnus, then arguably it must be because this will be the vest of all possible universes, though one where free will cannot exist - but since that doesn't seem to what Vlad is saying we will leave such discussions for some other time.
Nio, again as with Vlad's first pillar, we may need to unpack this to make much sense and the best that I can make out if it us that thus us some special category of event which by its nature happens only once, and has no similarity with any other event. Now what this presents is a case of Vlad being generous with his urine to out out the bonfires of such as Hope and Alan Burns who make miracle claims for people getting better from illness, and finding contact lens; events which have multiple similar events.
Tgaty, of course, doesn't make Vlad wrong but it also presents problems for some of the more significant, pace Alan Burn's contact lens, miracles claimed in Christianity - resurrection. Since there are multiple claims of resurrections, then by it happening more than once and given that they are not unique in the way Vlad wants to posit for the universe, they too are not miracles by this approach.
That leaves us with the universe then starting. Now even if none if such hypotheses as multiverses, prior universes, steady state universe, expanding and contracting universes are actually true, Vlad would need to disprove them to make the claim that this universe is unique in such a way to satisfy his second miracle pillar.
Even were he to do that, the singularity of the incident at some time cannot be used to extrapolate that it us always going to be unique, the old problem of induction that keeps a coming.
And worse, the pillar is simply an assertion that if something only happened once that it is somehow non natural, it isn't method.
So to try and lunk this back to the OP. The problem of induction haunts Vlad's position but it's all ignored in the IO too. Induction rests on the assumption that allow us to say x causes y, and we investigate that on the basis of probability. It rests on an assumption that inter subjectivity is useful and for the sake of its own consistency we ignore hard solipsism. Given that we cannot use it to rule out events that contradict the rules we derive, so we cannot use it to state anything about the actual causes. It does not rule out non natural causes, indeed as already mentioned by the way we use it it simply assumes natural causes.
And that I think is enough for this episode of 'Thinking with Mother'
