I know there is a fallacy in this, but I can't spot it

Hello
I got into a debate recently with a believer of a certain religion. Let's call them "Person 2".They used this as one of their arguments:

Person 1: your book says that someone once bent water out of their hands. This is biologically impossible; how can this be true?

Person 2: we can't go back then and find out, so we can't assume if this is right or wrong, therefore it can't be used as an argument against my belief.

What fallacy did person 2 commit here?
Also another person gave a different response. Can you help me spot the fallacy Person 3 commits too?:

Person 1: your book says that someone once bent water out of their hands. This is biologically impossible; how can this be true?

Person 3: the book says this was a miracle, therefore its supposed to be out of the ordinary and out of the norms.

I would say that both of these are not fallacies, rather just demonstrations of poor critical thinking skills (or applications of "faith"). In the first example, the person is claiming that just because we would not be a witness to the event in question, that no evidence can help determine the probability of the event, which scientifically, historically, legally, and theologically is completely wrong. For example, if I claimed that when I was five I rode a unicorn to Saturn, we can weigh the likelihood of that being true to alternative hypotheses (lying, dreaming, etc.) based on what we know about the world and people.

In the second example, this is just an example of someone substituting faith for critical thinking. One of the problems with this is that "it was a miracle" can be used for anything, and therefore, anything can be assumed to be true. Consider my ride to Saturn when I was five. It was a miracle. Of course, this wasn't written in an old book so those who think their old book is infallible and literal believe they are justified in their miracle claim. But there are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of "holy books" that all contain wild claims that are mutually exclusive so without going back to reason and critical thought, we have no way of evaluating the miracle claims.

Look up Russell's teapot, and argument from ignorance

If an event is not corroborated by evidence, reliable witnesses, or a pattern of similar experiences that are corroborated, then belief in it might well be blind faith, and we would rightly be suspicious. Not all faith is blind faith, however. We all have faith in gravity, because it is well corroborated.

A holy book isn't necessarily wrong just because it is considered holy or concerns matters out of the ordinary experience. The key is whether it can be corroborated. The Bible is well corroborated by evidence, by witnesses, and by a pattern of like-corroborated events. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has no corroboration.

What is bending water out of your own hands? Is this a unique talent performed by a certain supernatural being in a specific context at a certain time - because it doesn't seem especially impossible or even extraordinary. Either way it would be a matter of physics than biology. We "bend" water with our own hands all the time in a swimming pool, sprinkling with our hands, or simply swimming, so the claim is insufficient, and therefore meritless.

The description "your book" is meaningless, as well, without knowing the subject, title, genre, etc. If by "your book" you're referring to Stephen Hawking's Theory of Everything I should think it warrants further investigation. If however the book is Maurice Sendak's Mickey in the Night Kitchen, well then, we might dismiss it as poetic license.

Person 2: "we can't go back then and find out, so we can't assume if this is right or wrong, therefore it can't be used as an argument against my belief.
Who said anything about going back? To when, or where? And what does this have to do with bending water? This is a classic red herring as it is a distraction and has nothing to do with the physics of bending water, or the book that claims it as a miraculous event. We needn't go anywhere or read anything to determine whether one can bend water with one's own hands. To answer it we need only define the parameters of the experiment, model, rules and probable replicability. In other words, the scientific method.

You probably got a bunch of replies but I'll comment to practice myself. I still don't know if there's a fallacy so here's my messy work:

I would first try to understand what the problem is and then I would try to think of an example that I can dissect better but still make it so that its an acceptable analogy. Person 1 is arguing that bending water is impossible but person 2 says that we don't know that because we can't confirm that. So the idea is, you can't say that X is impossible because there is no way to disconfirm X. We can go further than that and say add a "therefore" in there. Therefore, my belief in X has not being under attack. Using this idea, let's come up with another situation:

Before I go on, we should take note that there's a hidden belief that Person 1 is making: science says that bending water is impossible. So it would be worthwhile to think of an example where science said, in recent times, that something was impossible but turned out to be possible. I couldn't find that but the next best thing is a list of things that science can't answer [1], like why we sleep. This will point out to the idea that science is not an ultimate authority on belief.

Example 1 Mark believes that we sleep because invisible fairies drop sleeping-dust on us. Science has not confirmed that. Therefore, there are no fairies doing that.

If anything, I'm leaning more to Person 1 in your problem committing a fallacy. Not proving something does not mean it's false.

Example 2. Science cannot prove that the earth is not flat (back in the days). Therefore, the earth is flat.

I would expand more on this but I have to go. Maybe later.

[1] www.cracked.com/article_1. . .