Is there a way to distinguish between "miracles" and "random chance"?

[Gene Parmesan]

1) That isn't what the OP asked
2) I can't provide proof of something that is by definition not scientifically repeatable
3) The historical nature of miracle 'events' do not prove/disprove the existence of miracles.

Why are you asking? What is your intention? Are you stating that if I cannot provide you with proof of a miracle then they do not exist?

How can we distinguish something and determine it is supernatural if there is 0 precedence for it?

 

[devolved]

1) That isn't what the OP asked
2) I can't provide proof of something that is by definition not scientifically repeatable
3) The historical nature of miracle 'events' do not prove/disprove the existence of miracles.

I think the point is ... how do you even know that it's a miracle to begin with? Because someone thinks that it is so?

 

[devolved]

How can we distinguish something and determine it is supernatural if there is 0 precedence for it?

It's called an axiomatic assumption .

 

[ExodusMe]

Supernatural is a bogus term, because for it to interact with nature it has to have some nature of it's own, and thus by extension it is a part of reality.

For example, if catch an apple in Mid-Air... I didn't magically modify the laws of nature. These are still functioning as a process. I merely injected some force to deviate some trajectory.

If that's what God does, then the question in this forum is how can you tell a difference between what's God and what's something else that we merely don't see or notice? Do you just label less probable events as "God thing"? Or is this version of a "miracle" used to perpetuate a belief... because there is no other visible support for that belief, so the believers latch on to anything they can get their hands on via confirmation bias?

Your arm reaching out and catching the apple would be a natural explanation to why the apple stopped. If the apple floated in mid air and resisted the laws of gravity and all natural explanations (even ones that we do not know yet) it would have a supernatural explanation by definition...

 

[ExodusMe]

How can we distinguish something and determine it is supernatural if there is 0 precedence for it?

It's called an axiomatic assumption .

Are you stating that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false?

P.S. don't put that latter part of my statement into google or research the term "Verificationism" as you would then know that you are walking into a trap.

 

[devolved]

Your arm reaching out and catching the apple would be a natural explanation to why the apple stopped. If the apple floated in mid air and resisted the laws of gravity and all natural explanations (even ones that we do not know yet) it would have a supernatural explanation by definition...

No, it wouldn't be a supernatural explanation by definition. Lack of explanation doesn't necessitate the axiomatic presumption of supernatural... especially based on a limited observation of some POV.

Magicians make the apples float in the air daily. Simply because you can't see the strings doesn't make it supernatural. Thus, the word supernatural is a red herring that smuggles in certain meaning that's not even at the table of observable.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Are you stating that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false?

No. And I don't dispute your definition of miracle or supernatural. You are making sense to me. But I don't think I'm off topic in questioning if we have ever successfully determined that an event, which we can confirm to have happened, has ever reasonably been ruled as a miracle or supernatural.

In other words, I understand why we would determine something is supernatural, as you've outlined. Can you give me an example (not hypothetical) where one should reasonably determine the supernatural as the cause?

 

[devolved]

Are you stating that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false?

P.S. don't put that latter part of my statement into google or research the term "Verificationism" as you would then know that you are walking into a trap.

Again, you are throwing a red herring into the argument, because that's not what it's about at all.

We are not talking about meta reality out there. We are talking about how can you support your given assertion of how that meta reality functions.

I can't appeal to "verificationism" in order to push you the idea that I turn invisible when no-one is looking or verifying. It's a meaningless assertion.

So calling something you can't explain a miracle of God carries just as much meaning as calling the same thing a miracle of pink invisible fairies, or miracle of invisible Harry Potter. How can you tell a difference between either of these?

 

[jacks]

It would be a miracle if anything posted on CF didn't lead to arguments.

 

[devolved]

P.S. don't put that latter part of my statement into google or research the term "Verificationism" as you would then know that you are walking into a trap.

Likewise you are incorrectly applying logical positivism or instrumentalist pitfalls here.

The problem with instrumentalism only lies in the scope of scientific pragmatism.

1) We need to know the nature of X, which we hypothetically presume to be existing
2) We can't see X, but have to create some systematic description of X
3) We can only evaluate the CONSISTENT results that we get from interacting with presumed X

Thus, we can say that whatever we know about presumed X is false, since we can't even see it.

OR

We can use X as a systematic model of describing reality based on consistent output that we measure and codify into some proportional math, and then use that math for pragmatic applications of such science.

That's how most of the theoretical science works.


The way you would use "don't fall to the trap of verificationism" is nowhere near the above.

 

[ExodusMe]

No. And I don't dispute your definition of miracle or supernatural. You are making sense to me. But I don't think I'm off topic in questioning if we have ever successfully determined that an event, which we can confirm to have happened, has ever reasonably been ruled as a miracle or supernatural.

In other words, I understand why we would determine something is supernatural, as you've outlined. Can you give me an example (not hypothetical) where one should reasonably determine the supernatural as the cause?

I won't debate whether something is rational to believe as a miracle in this thread (as I have already harped on reformed epistemology in other threads), but I will provide what many believe as a miracle below for discussion.

Jesus being raised from the dead. He died on a Friday and was raised by God on the following Sunday. He was stabbed in the heart by a spear & pronounced dead by Roman authorities. He was then buried in a tomb for three days and once raised from the dead he appeared to others and ate food.

 

[ExodusMe]

@devolved I am not offering you a proof of miracles or trying to prove to you that miracles exist. I am only offering how a miracle should be interpreted if true. I was an atheist until I was 21. I have never witnessed a miracle except my own subjective regeneration as a believer in Jesus Christ. I wouldn't try to convince others either. When I believed the miracles of Jesus, I first believed the proposition "God exists". Unless God plans on showing up to you and proving miracles to you, then I find it useless to try to convince someone who does not believe in God that miracles are real.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I won't debate whether something is rational to believe as a miracle in this thread (as I have already harped on reformed epistemology in other threads), but I will provide what many believe as a miracle below for discussion.

Jesus being raised from the dead. He died on a Friday and was raised by God on the following Sunday. He was stabbed in the heart by a spear & pronounced dead by Roman authorities. He was then buried in a tomb for three days and once raised from the dead he appeared to others and ate food.

I get you. My thought is that having a discussion about a method to distinguish between supernatural or not seems to be inextricably linked to if such a method has ever produced results.

 

[devolved]

@devolved I am not offering you a proof of miracles or trying to prove to you that miracles exist. I am only offering how a miracle should be interpreted if true. I was an atheist until I was 21. I have never witnessed a miracle except my own subjective regeneration as a believer in Jesus Christ. I wouldn't try to convince others either. When I believed the miracles of Jesus, I first believed the proposition "God exists". Unless God plans on showing up to you and proving miracles to you, then I find it useless to try to convince someone who does not believe in God that miracles are real.

I'm not really challenging your to present a proof of the miracles. I'm asking you as to how, in context of your worldview, you are able to tell the difference... if let's say you see an apple float in the air... whether it's a miracle or an illusion.

I get axiomatic assumptions, and that's what I've pointed out earlier. I'm not comparing you to a flatearther in the following example, but if I would assume that Earth is flat as an axiom, then certain concepts would flow naturally. NASA must be lying. Almost everyone on Earth are taught the wrong things, etc. Thus, when you begin with axiomatic assumption, you must follow the inevitability of where it leads, no matter how it may clash with observable reality.

And that's a bigger problem IMO than pitfalls of instrumentalism that you are referring to.

 

[ExodusMe]

I'm not really challenging your to present a proof of the miracles. I'm asking you as to how, in context of your worldview, you are able to tell the difference... if let's say you see an apple float in the air... whether it's a miracle or an illusion.

I get axiomatic assumptions, and that's what I've pointed out earlier. I'm not comparing you to a flatearther in the following example, but if I would assume that Earth is flat as an axiom, then certain concepts would flow naturally. NASA must be lying. Almost everyone on Earth are taught the wrong things, etc. Thus, when you begin with axiomatic assumption, you must follow the inevitability of where it leads, no matter how it may clash with observable reality.

And that's a bigger problem IMO than pitfalls of instrumentalism that you are referring to.

I am not a scientist, but I am guessing it would go something like this...

There is an apple appearing in front of me and it is floating so I;

1) put my arms through the air to make sure there is no strings attached
2) touch it to see if it is actually there and I am not hallucinating
3) ask someone else to make sure they can see it too
4) get a general opinion from other people I find credit-worthy as to what may be causing it to float

After I arrived at the conclusion that there is no natural explanation to the apple floating in the air I would assume it was supernatural.

BTW Your use of "axiomatic assumptions" is pretty flagrant. Everyone has axiomatic assumptions and it sounds like you cite it as a bad thing. Further, I don't think that even fits what the discussion we are having regarding miracles. Please explain how my belief in miracles is an axiomatic assumption... From my understanding axiomatic assumptions cannot be deducted from other beliefs, but my belief in miracles is deduced from my belief in God. It would not be an axiomatic assumption in this case.

Thanks

 

[devolved]

I am not a scientist, but I am guessing it would go something like this...

There is an apple appearing in front of me and it is floating so I;

1) put my arms through the air to make sure there is no strings attached
2) touch it to see if it is actually there and I am not hallucinating
3) ask someone else to make sure they can see it too
4) get a general opinion from other people I find credit-worthy as to what may be causing it to float

After I arrived at the conclusion that there is no natural explanation to the apple floating in the air I would assume it was supernatural.

So, you went through those steps with your Jesus experience, and you don't see any other alternatives ?

BTW Your use of "axiomatic assumptions" is pretty flagrant. Everyone has axiomatic assumptions and it sounds like you cite it as a bad thing.

Axioms aren't bad when you are using them our of necessity that doesn't need to be verified. These are generally and pragmatically accepted as self-evident. The question about God is not a self-evident axiom. You are simply making it such for yourself.

From my understanding axiomatic assumptions cannot be deducted from other beliefs, but my belief in miracles is deduced from my belief in God. It would not be an axiomatic assumption in this case.

It's the same exact belief. When you site supernatural, you are assuming God, right? You are not thinking "pink fairies" or "Magic of Harry Potter" type of supernatural. Why not? Because you have a presupposition that works up a confirmation bias on your end that ends up blowing every questionable call in God's favor... which is the axiom that you accept. But it's not a necessary axiom.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't understand what is being said

Then try to explain it better.

If there is no natural explanation to something there is only one explanation - it is supernatural.

If there is no explanation, then there is no explanation.
Calling it "supernatural" is not an explanation - it's an assertion.
And you seem to be flat out saying that the assertion is justified because there is no "other" explanation. That's textbook argument from ignorance.

Just sticking a label on something does NOT an explanation make.

That would encompass events like "we don't understand how it could be natural yet". Even if we don't understand the natural explanation it would still have a natural explanation, therefore, it would necessarily have a supernatural explanation if it does not have a natural explanation.

How do you know that NO natural explanation exists, if you are simply ignorant of the natural explanation???

There was a time where there was NO natural explanation of lightning. I take it that you'll agree that that didn't mean that Jupiter actually was throwing lightning bolts.

Once again, you are using ignorance as an excuse to justify a non-demonstrable assertion (assertion! not explanation).

Another issue with you jumping in on a discussion you don't understand.... I am not saying the miracle actually occurring. I am not providing a proof of miracles.

Indeed you aren't, which is exactly the problem.
What you ARE doing is simply pointing at unexplained things and asserting them to be miracles, while justifying those assertions with the fact that the phenomena are unexplained (or even without demonstrating that the phenomena are actually real / actually happened...).

Again: classic argument from ignorance.

I am saying that this is how a miracle should be interpreted if true.
That would be a natural explanation. A miracle has a supernatural explanation...

Give me a single example of a supernatural explanation.
And keep in mind what the word "explanation" means, while formulating your answer.

If you are asking when is it rational to believe a miracle occurred? I am happy to entertain it if you do.

No, I am asking how one can differentiate a "miracle" from a "non-miracle" properly. ie: without just asserting it with as justification "well, we have no other explanation".

 

[DogmaHunter]

After I arrived at the conclusion that there is no natural explanation to the apple floating in the air I would assume it was supernatural.

Which would be an invalid assumption, as it would rest entirely on "i don't know - therefor gods".

You seem to think that you get to justifiable call it "supernatural" by adding to the term "natural" to "no natural explanation".

But in reality, it's just simply "no explanation - natural or otherwise".

You are arguing from ignorance and are calling it valid and reasonable.
Logical fallacies aren't valid nore reasonable.

If you don't know what causes the apple to float, then you simply don't know.
The only proper valid statement to give at that point is that you don't know.

 

[-V-]

You don't really need to prove that the Universe exists. It's an axiomatic statement that's self-evident.

Well, then, it's a good thing that the test I pointed out doesn't just stop there, isn't it.

God on the other hand is a conjecture that you inject into "Universe exists" without actually showing that God does.

Someone else asked how would you test the idea that if there were no God, nothing would exist. Simply saying, "you haven't proven God exists," is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question at all. Outside of of demonstrating God doesn't exist, I don't know how one would test that idea. I'm open to suggestions.

 

[devolved]

Someone else asked how would you test the idea that if there were no God, nothing would exist. Simply saying, "you haven't proven God exists," is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question at all. Outside of of demonstrating God doesn't exist, I don't know how one would test that idea. I'm open to suggestions.

Why would we need to demonstrate the opposite of untestable hypothesis? These are usually ignored as irrelevant. If tomorrow you would drop the belief in God, I doubt your life would change that much. If you dropped the belief that Universe exist, your life would be much more complicated, with much more cognitive dissonance to reconcile.

Universe exist - it's a necessary axiom we have make in order to consistently describe what we collectively observe.

God exists - is not a necessary axiom like Universe Exists type of axiom, because God is not self-evident being. You need a book with ancient magic stories and someone knocking on your door to tell about it .