If you were convinced that God exists, how would your attitude towards miracles (be it the Resurrection of Christ, or other miracles, like Marian apparitions, charismatic gifts, etc) change?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A question for atheists and agnostics
- Thread starter CatholicSoxFan
- Start date
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
It wouldn't change.
Consider the claim that the cookiemonster is the creator of black holes. Now consider that somehow that monster's existence is confirmed... The claim that it has anything to do with black holes is still unsupported.
Claims fall and stand on their own merrit.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 42,847
- 45,938
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
I guess it would depend on my understanding of God. Since I am generally skeptical of the paranormal and supernatural, quite apart from the divine, I expect I would become something like a deist, and it would not affect my skeptical attitude toward miracles.
Upvote
0
Gadarene
-______-
- Apr 16, 2012
- 11,461
- 2,507
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Labour
I don't see why a belief in God should precede taking miracles more seriously.
Part of the prob with Christianity is the lack of evidence for such events which are in turn cited as evidence for God.
There seems to be a tendency for many Christians to accept miracle claims uncritically, certainly not on a case by case basis.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Not even a little bit.
Even assuming the existence of a god, we would still be left having to assess 'miracle' claims on their own case by case basis.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Proving miracles happen would be more likely to convince me deities exist than proving deities exist would convince me that miracles happen. Because they have a sort of cause and effect relationship, with miracles always being the effect (thus they must have a supernatural cause, by how I would define miracles as defying natural laws of nature) but since deities themselves can exist without actually causing miracles (while miracles could not exist without some supernatural cause) they aren't proof of miracles.
But to be frankly honest, I would still probably give miracles more consideration if you proved deities existed, but it wouldn't be the first thing on my mind.
Upvote
0
Interesting. But if a miracle were proven to have happened, couldn't the naturalist just say that maybe one day there will be a natural explanation (insert 10 hour rant about lightning and Zeus)?
Upvote
0
jayem
Naturalist
- Jun 24, 2003
- 15,426
- 7,164
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Same for me. Just because I believed in a supreme being doesn't mean I'd accept claims of other supernatural events.
If the OP is Catholic, he should know that the Church is generally very skeptical of miracles, apparitions, and such. They're supposed to investigate miracles thoroughly before they're accepted as support for sainthood.
If the OP is Catholic, he should know that the Church is generally very skeptical of miracles, apparitions, and such. They're supposed to investigate miracles thoroughly before they're accepted as support for sainthood.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Depends. The sky turning purple for a day might one day have a natural explanation (chemicals contaminating the atmosphere), but, say, a person's limb growing back after being a stump for years overnight probably wouldn't (assuming no medical intervention).
But if it does have a natural explanation, then it isn't a miracle to me.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
You touch an interesting subject which I would consider to be one of the core issues with theistic beliefs.
The problem lies in the obscure nature of a miracle and its problematic definition. Mostly, it is meant to note an event that suspends / violates the laws of nature. On the surface, that sounds pretty straight forward. But how would you know?
What are the laws of nature? Those really are just models that we created to explain the inner workings of the universe and everything it contains. And it is very much a work in progress. When you think it through, claiming something is a "miracle" quite simply is an argument from ignorance in desguise. It's incredulity. "I don't get it, therefor... miracle". That's what is really being said.
See, the event -whatever it is- still has no explanation. Calling it a "miracle" is simply an assertion based in ignorance.
Furthermore, "miracles" are defined as thing that simply cannot happen. We don't know all the actual laws of nature (instead of our tentative models that can only ever approach reality). But assuming that there is an actual set of rules by which the universe and everything it contains work, then by definition nothing can happen that violates those rules.
More then that, if 1 or more gods exist - then they are part of the objective reality in which we live. Whatever plain they "exist" on is an actual plain that exists and is thus part of existence as we know it. If these gods can reach into our plain / dimension / universe and make stuff happen, then these abilities are part of the rules that govern reality and existence.
That is what people call a "miracle". God(s) reaching into existence and mixing things up. So to accept that such a thing can happen, I'm going to need a demonstration of the causal chain of events. And THAT is how you explain a phenomena. By demonstrating (or hypothesizing and consequently successfully testing) the causal chain of events that lead upto the phenomena in question.
In other words, the "supernatural" does not exist by definition. Because the natural is everything that exists. Including gods, if they exist.
Upvote
0
Paradoxum
Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
- Sep 16, 2011
- 10,712
- 654
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well if there's a God, then I suppose things can happen outside the laws of this universe. Even without a God that might be possible (if there are other universes interacting with ours; if 'spirits' exist; or aliens from another universe).
Upvote
0
In that case, I'd be more open to the idea that supposed miracles were in fact "acts of God." Currently I don't really even count that as an option.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Why would it change? I would still need evidence for those miracles.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That's hard to say. If I were to believe god exists...then I'm believing in something without evidence...so I guess I can't say I don't believe in miracles without any evidence. Seriously, if I believe in one thing without any indication it exists at all...what's to stop me from believing in everything without any evidence? Maybe I would also believe in unicorns, leprechauns, dragons, vampires....and magic.
Now, theoretically I could believe in god without believing he interacts with mankind in any way at all. It's not that it's impossible to believe in god and not believe in miracles. I just don't see why I wouldn't.
This really comes down to why I believe in god in the first place. Do I believe in god because I have some "evidence" he exists? If I do, I guess I wouldn't believe in miracles without evidence also. If I just believe in god on faith, without any evidence he exists, then I guess I would believe in miracles as well....since I don't need any evidence for them either.
Upvote
0
Many things:You touch an interesting subject which I would consider to be one of the core issues with theistic beliefs.
The problem lies in the obscure nature of a miracle and its problematic definition. Mostly, it is meant to note an event that suspends / violates the laws of nature. On the surface, that sounds pretty straight forward. But how would you know?
What are the laws of nature? Those really are just models that we created to explain the inner workings of the universe and everything it contains. And it is very much a work in progress. When you think it through, claiming something is a "miracle" quite simply is an argument from ignorance in desguise. It's incredulity. "I don't get it, therefor... miracle". That's what is really being said.
See, the event -whatever it is- still has no explanation. Calling it a "miracle" is simply an assertion based in ignorance.
Furthermore, "miracles" are defined as thing that simply cannot happen. We don't know all the actual laws of nature (instead of our tentative models that can only ever approach reality). But assuming that there is an actual set of rules by which the universe and everything it contains work, then by definition nothing can happen that violates those rules.
More then that, if 1 or more gods exist - then they are part of the objective reality in which we live. Whatever plain they "exist" on is an actual plain that exists and is thus part of existence as we know it. If these gods can reach into our plain / dimension / universe and make stuff happen, then these abilities are part of the rules that govern reality and existence.
That is what people call a "miracle". God(s) reaching into existence and mixing things up. So to accept that such a thing can happen, I'm going to need a demonstration of the causal chain of events. And THAT is how you explain a phenomena. By demonstrating (or hypothesizing and consequently successfully testing) the causal chain of events that lead upto the phenomena in question.
In other words, the "supernatural" does not exist by definition. Because the natural is everything that exists. Including gods, if they exist.
- I'd say that the laws of nature are laws about what will happen given that there is no intervention, so a miracle wouldn't really violate them.
- Your naturalistic/empiricist presuppositions are pretty plain here. You blatantly assume theoughout this entire post that only natural/material things can exist, and your only justification of said assumption is that they cannot be empirically demonstrated, ergo empiricism.
- What you said about how if supernatural entities have effects on the natural world, that makes them natural is invalid. When you play a video game, you can effect the video game, but that doesn't make you yourself part of the video game.
- Your statement that calling something a miracle is an argument from ignorance is simply false. Calling something a miracle is often an inference from the context of the event, along with the impossibility of it happening naturally. Take the Resurrection of Jesus for instance. Now, there are those that say that Jesus rose miraculously from the dead, and there are those that say He didn't rise from the dead, but no sane person says that He rse from the dead, but that maybe someday we will habe an explanation of it. Not only are spontaneous resurrections after a night, a day and a night dead completely biologically impossible by natural means, the context of Jesus' death is that He was condemned for being a blasphemer by the Jewis authorities. This was the pont ofthe post you were responding to.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
