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

[ExodusMe]

Quick response on the definition issue... Defining miracles as 'God breaking the physical laws of the universe' is not a good definition.

The laws of nature are not laws in the same sense of criminal law. When you break a moral law there is a clear violation of some type of ethical standard. A natural law is just a guideline of how things operate "all things being equal". In the case of a miracle, you have a supernatural factor that has not been accounted for, which just means that the laws of nature do not apply in whatever scenario you are talking about. Think about it. Laws of nature are man-made and derived from experiments that say "X will happen under such and such circumstances". There is no law of nature written in the sky that says X has to happen.

This is different from divine providence (i.e. someone praying for an unlikely event to happen naturally), because Christianity teaches that God can order the world in a way for unlikely events to happen naturally. This could mean someone could be cured from cancer by a divine miracle (direct intervention from God) or divine providence (God ordered the world for the event to occur without direct intervention).

Miracles would be like Jesus walking on water, Jesus healing the blind, Jesus being raised from the dead, & Jesus multiplying bread & fish.

To answer the OP
@leftrightleftrightleft
1) Yes, there is a way to distinguish between a miracle and a random unlikely event. This is answered by looking at the definition of each. Miracles have God as a causal factor. Unlikely events are a part of divine providence where God did not have direct intervention.

2) No, because you have assumed miracles exist to bring happiness to humans in this life. The specific purpose of miracles is to a) glorify God b) bring humans into an everlasting relationship with their creator.

 

[Petros2015]

"When an egomaniac with an insecurity complex bows a knee to a Higher Power, it doesn't much matter what he's praying for. The real miracle has already happened."

 

[Gene Parmesan]

To answer the OP
@leftrightleftrightleft
1) Yes, there is a way to distinguish between a miracle and a random unlikely event. This is answered by looking at the definition of each. Miracles have God as a causal factor. Unlikely events are a part of divine providence where God did not have direct intervention.

Then the question is how can you tell God is the causal factor?

 

[ExodusMe]

Then the question is how can you tell God is the causal factor?

A miracle by definition is an event that is beyond the productive capacity of nature, so based on this definition we just have to find an event that cannot happen naturally and that then we can determine that God (or the 'supernatural') was the causal factor.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

A miracle by definition is an event that is beyond the productive capacity of nature, so based on this definition we just have to find an event that cannot happen naturally and that then we can determine that God (or the 'supernatural') was the causal factor.

Makes sense. Are we able to confirm that any miracle as defined here has happened?

 

[ExodusMe]

Makes sense. Are we able to confirm that any miracle as defined here has happened?

Yes, Jesus turned water into wine, which is something that cannot happen naturally, so we can infer that there was a supernatural cause.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Yes, Jesus turned water into wine, which is something that cannot happen naturally, so we can infer that there was a supernatural cause.

How has that been confirmed?

 

[ExodusMe]

What do you mean by confirmed?

Are you saying miracles have to be empirically verified for them to exist?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

What do you mean by confirmed?

Are you saying miracles have to be empirically verified for them to exist?

Things can obviously exist prior to being verified. That said, I'd withhold claiming something to be "true" if it hasn't been verified in some way.

To discuss the Jesus and the water/wine potential miracle, we'd have to confirm that the event itself happened first before we can discuss how it happened.

 

[ExodusMe]

Things can obviously exist prior to being verified. That said, I'd withhold claiming something to be "true" if it hasn't been verified in some way.

To discuss the Jesus and the water/wine potential miracle, we'd have to confirm that the event itself happened first before we can discuss how it happened.

Right, but the OP was only asking how to differentiate between a miracle & random chance (or in a Christians case - divine providence). I understand the OP may be trying to disprove the existence of miracles by inferring they are random events, but it did not explicitly state that. My post satisfied what the OP was asking. If you want a proof of the existence of miracles, then that would be a different question.

As to your last statement "To discuss the Jesus and the water/wine potential miracle, we'd have to confirm that the event itself happened first before we can discuss how it happened." I don't think that is necessarily true. It is logically coherent that any event that cannot be explained by natural causes would, therefore, have a supernatural cause. I was not citing Jesus turning water into wine as a proof of miracles, but only how a miracle should be interpreted if true. In this case, there is no natural explanation of how wine would turn into water, so it is a safe assumption that there would be a supernatural cause.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I'm going to go back to your quote, because it's your answer I'm trying to address. OP was asking how we distinguish.

To answer the OP
@leftrightleftrightleft
1) Yes, there is a way to distinguish between a miracle and a random unlikely event. This is answered by looking at the definition of each. Miracles have God as a causal factor. Unlikely events are a part of divine providence where God did not have direct intervention.

Here you are defining miracle, but not giving a method for distinguishing. How can we distinguish between God intervening or not?

 

[ExodusMe]

I'm going to go back to your quote, because it's your answer I'm trying to address. OP was asking how we distinguish.

Here you are defining miracle, but not giving a method for distinguishing. How can we distinguish between God intervening or not?

I gave the method previously. A miracle, by definition, is beyond the productive capacity of nature and, therefore, has the supernatural as an explanation. From this, we can determine a miracle has happened if the event is beyond the productive capacity of nature.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I gave the method previously. A miracle, by definition, is beyond the productive capacity of nature and, therefore, has the supernatural as an explanation. From this, we can determine a miracle has happened if the event is beyond the productive capacity of nature.

You mentioned the water/wine story as an example of something that would be a miracle, if we could confirm it happened; do we have any examples of an event that we can confirm has happened where something that is beyond the "productive capacity of nature" is the cause?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If there is a natural explanation for something, I can't think of any good reason to credit the supernatural.

And if there is no explanation of something, then I still can't think of any good reason to credit the undemonstrable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do you mean by confirmed?
Are you saying miracles have to be empirically verified for them to exist?

How else could you distinguish them from miracles that did NOT happen, or from non-miraculous events?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right, but the OP was only asking how to differentiate between a miracle & random chance (or in a Christians case - divine providence). I understand the OP may be trying to disprove the existence of miracles by inferring they are random events, but it did not explicitly state that. My post satisfied what the OP was asking.

Your post did no such thing, as all you really said was "it's a miracle, because we say so!"

Doesn't really seem to be an acceptable methodology for differentiating miracles from non-miracles.

It is logically coherent that any event that cannot be explained by natural causes would, therefore, have a supernatural cause.

Smells a lot like an argument from ignorance.

Also, as someone said earlier in this thread: you can't explain the unexplained, with the inexplicable.

In this case, there is no natural explanation of how wine would turn into water, so it is a safe assumption that there would be a supernatural cause.

Or it was a trick. Or it simply never happened. Or people witnessing it were mistaken. Or there is a perfectly reasonable natural explanation that we still haven't uncovered yet.


All of which are extremely more likely then "a miracle happened".


Heck... to be completely honest with you...even the idea of "aliens with advanced technology did it" is more plausible then "a miracle happened".... Because alien life and more advanced technology requires FAR LESS unreasonable assumptions then anything supernatural.

 

[ExodusMe]

Your post did no such thing, as all you really said was "it's a miracle, because we say so!"

Doesn't really seem to be an acceptable methodology for differentiating miracles from non-miracles.

You don't understand what is being said

Smells a lot like an argument from ignorance.

Also, as someone said earlier in this thread: you can't explain the unexplained, with the inexplicable.

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

Or it was a trick. Or it simply never happened. Or people witnessing it were mistaken. Or there is a perfectly reasonable natural explanation that we still haven't uncovered yet.

All of which are extremely more likely then "a miracle happened".

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. I am saying that this is how a miracle should be interpreted if true.

Heck... to be completely honest with you...even the idea of "aliens with advanced technology did it" is more plausible then "a miracle happened".... Because alien life and more advanced technology requires FAR LESS unreasonable assumptions then anything supernatural.

That would be a natural explanation. A miracle has a supernatural explanation...

Your post is just a misunderstanding of what has been said and what the OP asked.

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

 

[devolved]

Imho, if God did not exist, no, unlikely events would not occur. NO events would occur, as nothing would exist.

I suppose you could attempt to prove a universe exists while a god does not.

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

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

 

[devolved]

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

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?

 

[ExodusMe]

You mentioned the water/wine story as an example of something that would be a miracle, if we could confirm it happened; do we have any examples of an event that we can confirm has happened where something that is beyond the "productive capacity of nature" is the cause?

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?