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

[ExodusMe]

@DogmaHunter
Here is what it sounds like you are saying:
1) you are saying that a person must empirically verify an event has a super natural cause in order to rationally believe a miracle has occurred
2) a person can never rationally believe a miracle has occurred because there is no way for them to know all the possible natural causes given that it is always possible that there is a natural explanation we do not know yet.

I have already provided answers to both, but to be concise I will provide answers here

Your criteria for rationality is absurd. If you actually believed your criteria for rationality you would be left in utter skepticism about all of your beliefs. Here is a brief example...

Let's say you have a neighbor named Joe and he told you he is going to Maui next week. You are within your epistemic rights to rationally conclude he is going to Maui next week without empirically verifying that he went to Maui. Let's say the week goes by and he gets back and you are talking with his wife the next day. She tells you that they went to Malibu, which Joe often confuses with Maui. Further, you later talk to Joe and he tells you about how he went to Thousand Oaks, which is located in Malibu and this confirms your belief that Joe was just confused and went to Malibu, not Maui.

In each case, you were rational to believe what Joe said without empirically verifying where Joe was.

The same is true with miracles. A person does not need to empirically verify a miracle in order to rationally conclude a miracle has occurred. If Sam is praying one night for God to heal his his blindness and he instantly receives his sight - he would be rational in believing it was a miracle without empirically verifying that it did not occur through natural causes.

Sure, there may be some religious folk who are ready to claim anything and everything as a miracle and they may not hold this in a rational manner, but given the criteria we have established that 1) an event is rational to believe is a miracle if it occurred in a significant religious context 2) the person has done their due diligence in determining that it is unlikely the cause of the event was natural - you do not have any grounds to object to the rationality of a person that claims a miracle. It may not be rational for you to believe them telling you a miracle has occurred (because of your axiomatic assumption of atheism), but for them it is completely rational on these conditions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or why you can't say in essence, "A number must be 1 through 7, it is not 1,2,4,5,6,or 7 so it must be 3."

Sure. Here's the problem: you can't know if the numbers aren't anything but 3.
At best you can say that you don't know what number it is. It could be 3 - but it could also be another number.

So forgive me if I'm wrong in what you mean, but you seem to be saying that miracles are an impossibility.

No. I'm saying that, lacking a proper method, it is impossible to identify a miracle.
Essentially, that means that miracles can't be demonstrated or verified to occur.

Given that they can't be directly proved and we can't infer them from a process of elimination. i.e. nothing would ever make you believe in them.

That's the thing... If you would ask me the question "what would convince you?" - then I don't know what to answer. For the simple reason that I don't know how to identify a miracle.
There would have to be testable / verifiable things by which miracles could be identified.

To put it in simplistic terms... what would convince you that unicorns exist? Well.... show me one!

It made me realize that even my abbreviated summary in my previous post is too long. It really boils down to:

• Some people believe in miracles.
• Some people don't.

All we are left with after that is arguing over whose world views are more valid.

I'ld like to reformulate those two points:

• Some people believe unverifiable and undemonstrable things
• Some people don't

Because lacking a proper and valid method to identify events as being miracles, that all miracles are: undemonstrable, unverifiable things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

[
Here is what it sounds like you are saying:
1) you are saying that a person must empirically verify an event has a super natural cause in order to rationally believe a miracle has occurred

Not necessarily. I'm saying that there has to be some rational method to identify / verify miracles in order by be able to rationally believe one has occured.

It is true that at this moment, I can't think of a better way then an empirical method - sure.

As a general rule though, isn't it always the case that one can only rationally believe those things that have proper, rational, justification?

The "method" that's been given here, simply doesn't cut it.

2) a person can never rationally believe a miracle has occurred because there is no way for them to know all the possible natural causes given that it is always possible that there is a natural explanation we do not know yet.

That is true, IF the method to identify miracles consists of just "if you don't know how to explain it naturally".

This is ALWAYS the problem concerning ANY subject where the verification method consists of trying to poke holes in "other" explanations.

It's as I said: you need a case FOR your proposition. Merely having a case AGAINST another proposition, simply doesn't cut it.

B isn't automatically correct simply because you can't show A to be correct.

Your criteria for rationality is absurd. If you actually believed your criteria for rationality you would be left in utter skepticism about all of your beliefs.

And I am!
It's not absurd either.

Let's say you have a neighbor named Joe and he told you he is going to Maui next week. You are within your epistemic rights to rationally conclude he is going to Maui next week without empirically verifying that he went to Maui.
Let's say the week goes by and he gets back and you are talking with his wife the next day. She tells you that they went to Malibu, which Joe often confuses with Maui. Further, you later talk to Joe and he tells you about how he went to Thousand Oaks, which is located in Malibu and this confirms your belief that Joe was just confused and went to Malibu, not Maui.

In each case, you were rational to believe what Joe said without empirically verifying where Joe was.

Maui exists. People go there. Both empirical facts.
You seem to be confusing having rational beliefs with having correct beliefs.
You CAN be rational in believing A while A turns out to be wrong.

A correct analogy would be that my neighbor tells me he's going to Neverland (the Peter Pan land, not the ranch from Michael Jackson) and that he will be going there not by plain, but by a magical flying chariot pulled by flying unicorns which only he can see.

The same is true with miracles

It is not. As I said, Maui empirically exists and it is an empirical fact that people go there.
Assuming Joe has the funds to go on vacation there and that he isn't known as a pathological liar, I wouldn't have any reason to really doubt his statement concerning his vacation plans.

Let's take another example.

Let's say I told you that I saw a great movie last night starring Jessica Alba. Why would you doubt that, right? I mean, people watch movies all the time, Jessica Alba is a big actress and she starred in plenty of good movies.

Now, what if I would proceed telling you that at some point, Jessica Alba crawled out of the TV set and made love to me, after which she returned into the TV and continued the movie?

I'll bet that you'ld have a bit more trouble believing that, right?

A person does not need to empirically verify a miracle in order to rationally conclude a miracle has occurred. If Sam is praying one night for God to heal his his blindness and he instantly receives his sight - he would be rational in believing it was a miracle without empirically verifying that it did not occur through natural causes.

Sure. But the fact is that such things simply don't happen. When it comes to "miraculous healings", it seems God never does the actual impossible.
God does not heal amputees.

but given the criteria we have established

Sorry man, but I think I utterly destroyed those criteria and exposed the serious problems hidden therein. You have not even tried, imo, to respond to that.

1) an event is rational to believe is a miracle if it occurred in a significant religious context

Correlation does not imply causation.

2) the person has done their due diligence in determining that it is unlikely the cause of the event was natural

Which, as I explained, can't be done and can only result in an argument from ignorance.

- you do not have any grounds to object to the rationality of a person that claims a miracle

If anything, I think I have proven otherwise.

It may not be rational for you to believe them telling you a miracle has occurred (because of your axiomatic assumption of atheism)

The one making assumptions concerning the supernatural, is the theist - not me.
I'm not the one who's made up his mind even before asking the question.

, but for them it is completely rational on these conditions.

Too bad the conditions are flawed and fallacious.

 

[ExodusMe]

Not necessarily. I'm saying that there has to be some rational method to identify / verify miracles in order by be able to rationally believe one has occured.

It is true that at this moment, I can't think of a better way then an empirical method - sure.

As a general rule though, isn't it always the case that one can only rationally believe those things that have proper, rational, justification?

The "method" that's been given here, simply doesn't cut it.

That is true, IF the method to identify miracles consists of just "if you don't know how to explain it naturally".

This is ALWAYS the problem concerning ANY subject where the verification method consists of trying to poke holes in "other" explanations.

It's as I said: you need a case FOR your proposition. Merely having a case AGAINST another proposition, simply doesn't cut it.

Are you just @leftrightleftrightleft with a different account? The law of excluded middle accounts for how if an event does not have a natural cause, then it must have a supernatural cause...

B isn't automatically correct simply because you can't show A to be correct.

You haven't heard of the law of excluded middle in logic, have you?

Answer this question: if something wasn't caused naturally what should we call that cause?

Maui exists. People go there. Both empirical facts.
You seem to be confusing having rational beliefs with having correct beliefs.
You CAN be rational in believing A while A turns out to be wrong.

A correct analogy would be that my neighbor tells me he's going to Neverland (the Peter Pan land, not the ranch from Michael Jackson) and that he will be going there not by plain, but by a magical flying chariot pulled by flying unicorns which only he can see.

It is not. As I said, Maui empirically exists and it is an empirical fact that people go there.
Assuming Joe has the funds to go on vacation there and that he isn't known as a pathological liar, I wouldn't have any reason to really doubt his statement concerning his vacation plans.

Let's take another example.

Let's say I told you that I saw a great movie last night starring Jessica Alba. Why would you doubt that, right? I mean, people watch movies all the time, Jessica Alba is a big actress and she starred in plenty of good movies.

Now, what if I would proceed telling you that at some point, Jessica Alba crawled out of the TV set and made love to me, after which she returned into the TV and continued the movie?

I'll bet that you'ld have a bit more trouble believing that, right?

Sure. But the fact is that such things simply don't happen. When it comes to "miraculous healings", it seems God never does the actual impossible.
God does not heal amputees.

Sorry man, but I think I utterly destroyed those criteria and exposed the serious problems hidden therein. You have not even tried, imo, to respond to that.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Which, as I explained, can't be done and can only result in an argument from ignorance.

If anything, I think I have proven otherwise.

The one making assumptions concerning the supernatural, is the theist - not me.
I'm not the one who's made up his mind even before asking the question.

Too bad the conditions are flawed and fallacious.

The OP post was not about offering a proof of miracles. If this is the case, then your burden of proof is to show me that no miracle has ever occurred since the beginning of time. OKAY GO!...

Wait, you are going to come back and say I have the burden of proof because you are an atheist dude that doesn't understand philosophy.

Miracles are the best explanation to:
The beginning of the universe
The origin of life
The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

There is also no reason to think that if God exists, then God couldn't perform miracles, so you also need to show that God does not exist in order to prove miracles don't exist.

Have fun.
The criteria I gave you regarding the rationality of belief was to show you that the criteria for rationality is easy to satisfy and does not require empirical verification. This is the failure of verificationism. The belief in verificationism cannot be empirically verified - this is self referentially incoherent.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Answer this question: if something wasn't caused naturally what should we call that cause?

There is a difference between defining what is supernatural, and determining what is supernatural.

Let's go back five thousand years and leave a smart phone playing a video laying around for someone to find. They have no natural explanation for it. It's a daggum magic window into another realm. So for someone today witnessing an unexplained event, it's either "we simply don't know the cause at this time" or "it's supernatural." And how could you know "it's supernatural" is correct and "we don't know yet" is wrong? If "we don't know yet" is an acceptable answer, then any definitive assertion can't reasonably be made.

 

[ExodusMe]

There is a difference between defining what is supernatural, and determining what is supernatural.

Let's go back five thousand years and leave a smart phone playing a video laying around for someone to find. They have no natural explanation for it. It's a daggum magic window into another realm. So for someone today witnessing an unexplained event, it's either "we simply don't know the cause at this time" or "it's supernatural." And how could you know "it's supernatural" is correct and "we don't know yet" is wrong? If "we don't know yet" is an acceptable answer, then any definitive assertion can't reasonably be made.

Here are a few thoughts
1) A miracle has to occur in a significant religious context in order for it to be rationally believed as a miracle (note: this doesn't mean miracles can only occur in religiously significant contexts). The phone dropped into the past wouldn't fit this criteria unless the person was praying or something.

2) Rather than dropping a phone into the past lets say we take an iPhone to an alienated island with people who have never come into contact with the modern world ever (to take away the whole time factor). Let's say one of these guys is praying for some magic device to show him what life is like across the vast ocean that separates him from the modern world. He is walking through the woods and finds the working iPhone and immediately believes it was an answer to his prayer (a miracle). This person would be rational in believing it was a miracle even though we know the phone has a natural explanation.

As to your response. I do not see why we need to prioritize agnosticism over a supernatural explanation. In fact, it might be irrational for the person to take the position of agnosticism in oppose to believing a miracle has occurred, because rationality is inherently tied to the subjective person.

It is probably totally rational for you to be agnostic toward miracles (granted your atheism), but to say that someone else should be an agnostic because you are isn't a good argument.

I don't think the OP was about offering a proof of miracles or arguing whether miracles exist.

I have already provided a criteria for how a person is rational in believing a miracle has occurred. I have also shown how to distinguish a natural event from a supernatural event (law of excluded middle). A part determining whether miracles actually exist there isn't really more to discuss. Just more to clarify. I don't want to argue over whether miracles actually exist, because they are inherently tied up in the question of God's existence. I probably will look for other discussions to join in this case.

Thanks

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Here are a few thoughts
1) A miracle has to occur in a significant religious context in order for it to be rationally believed as a miracle (note: this doesn't mean miracles can only occur in religiously significant contexts). The phone dropped into the past wouldn't fit this criteria unless the person was praying or something.

2) Rather than dropping a phone into the past lets say we take an iPhone to an alienated island with people who have never come into contact with the modern world ever (to take away the whole time factor). Let's say one of these guys is praying for some magic device to show him what life is like across the vast ocean that separates him from the modern world. He is walking through the woods and finds the working iPhone and immediately believes it was an answer to his prayer (a miracle). This person would be rational in believing it was a miracle even though we know the phone has a natural explanation.

As to your response. I do not see why we need to prioritize agnosticism over a supernatural explanation. In fact, it might be irrational for the person to take the position of agnosticism in oppose to believing a miracle has occurred, because rationality is inherently tied to the subjective person.

It is probably totally rational for you to be agnostic toward miracles (granted your atheism), but to say that someone else should be an agnostic because you are isn't a good argument.

I don't think the OP was about offering a proof of miracles or arguing whether miracles exist.

I have already provided a criteria for how a person is rational in believing a miracle has occurred. I have also shown how to distinguish a natural event from a supernatural event (law of excluded middle). A part determining whether miracles actually exist there isn't really more to discuss. Just more to clarify. I don't want to argue over whether miracles actually exist, because they are inherently tied up in the question of God's existence. I probably will look for other discussions to join in this case.

Thanks

Now, you've said here that you have provided a criteria for how a person is rational in believing a miracle has occurred and that you have shown how to distinguish between a natural and supernatural event. I would disagree. The only thing you've done is defined the word "miracle."

Now, you said that islander "would be rational in believing it was a miracle even though we know the phone has a natural explanation." So he is rational to believe that, even if it just happened to be a coincidence that someone studying that tribe happened to be in the area and, in a moment of carelessness, left their phone? How can you determine supernatural intervention when it might just very well be a coincidence? And we know if he claimed the phone itself was a supernatural device he would be incorrect, no matter how it showed up.

If it's rational for the someone to believe something is a miracle, even though it isn't, then we know that sometimes believing something is a miracle is simply being ignorant of all the information. And is there a way to illustrate between there is no natural explanation versus we aren't currently aware of the natural explanation?

 

[ExodusMe]

Now, you've said here that you have provided a criteria for how a person is rational in believing a miracle has occurred and that you have shown how to distinguish between a natural and supernatural event. I would disagree. The only thing you've done is defined the word "miracle."

Now, you said that islander "would be rational in believing it was a miracle even though we know the phone has a natural explanation." So he is rational to believe that, even if it just happened to be a coincidence that someone studying that tribe happened to be in the area and, in a moment of carelessness, left their phone? How can you determine supernatural intervention when it might just very well be a coincidence? And we know if he claimed the phone itself was a supernatural device he would be incorrect, no matter how it showed up.

If it's rational for the someone to believe something is a miracle, even though it isn't, then we know that sometimes believing something is a miracle is simply being ignorant of all the information. And is there a way to illustrate between there is no natural explanation versus we aren't currently aware of the natural explanation?

Let's go back to the criteria real quick
A person is rational in believing a miracle has occurred if...
1) The event occurs in a religiously significant context
2) The person has done their due diligence in determining that it is unlikely the cause of the event was natural
We can restate #2 as 'the person has no defeaters for their belief the event was a miracle'.

This is more modest than how we previously stated it, but hopefully it provides clarification. If a person comes to form the belief that an event was a miracle in a religiously significant context (i.e. they aren't just going around calling any event a miracle) and they don't have any defeaters for their belief that it was a miracle (i.e. they know if they put a pot of water on the stove with it set to "high" it will start to boil eventually) then they can form the belief an event is a miracle in a rational way. Rationality is pathetically weak once we begin to grasp what is at stake for the individual.

In regards to your last sentence "And is there a way to illustrate between there is no natural explanation versus we aren't currently aware of the natural explanation?". I probably misstated this a few times. A person does not need to know an event does not have a natural explanation in order to rationally conclude an event was a miracle. Think about it this way. You and I are both in agreement that we do not know all of the natural causes possible for every event. If you were to put a pot of water on the stove would it be rational for you to believe that the water will eventually boil because of the heat? Yes, just because you do not know every possible natural cause in the world does not mean you cannot rationally believe that there is a cause (whatever it might be). If this were true, then you would be left with agnosticism towards all events because you do not know every possible cause in the universe (how could anyone ever?).

Also, it might no be possible to determine the cause of an event. If a person believes a miracle has occurred and your only response is "it MIGHT have had a natural cause", then all the person needs to believe is that it is unlikely the event had a natural cause in order to rationally conclude an event was a miracle.

I wouldn't disagree with your last statement. Rationality is not a criteria for truth and is incredibly weak. I think we both understand this. You are rational in being an atheist for all I know.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I wouldn't disagree with your last statement. Rationality is not a criteria for truth and is incredibly weak. I think we both understand this. You are rational in being an atheist for all I know.

You're reduced the term "rational" to little more than "this is how I can feel better about what I assume to be true in light of people disagreeing with me."

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

@DogmaHunter @devolved

Let's clarify some things:

The OP asked how to distinguish a miracle from a random event. We can do this purely on definition.

1) A miracle is an event with God as a causal factor. A random event would be produced by natural causes.

Defining something does not mean was can distinguish two things in practice.

Not to bring up a dead thread but your previous request to determine if a robot is a human cannot be solved by simply saying, "A robot is not a human by definition, therefore we can distinguish them".

It's circular to say that we can identify a miracle since it is caused by God. The precise problem of this thread is how do we distinguish that it is from God and not some other cause?

2a) When I state that when we determine an event does not have a natural cause it must have a supernatural cause - I am stating that not out of some type of experience, but out of a necessity of definition.
2b) Your reply is something like "well what if we just don't know the natural explanation yet?". My answer covers this, because I am only describing how we can determine if a miracle has occurred if it is true. Please wrap your head around this before you reply again.

The key words here are: "When we determine".

In other words, after we determine that an event does not have a natural cause, then it must have a supernatural cause.

But this thread is concerned with the determination itself. How can we ever claim that something does not have a natural cause without automatically falling into an argument from ignorance?

2c) You come back again asking how it couldn't be magic faeries or harry potter. I don't have any good reason to believe they would be such and you haven't provided any reason for miracles to occur from magic faeries. Further, there are good reasons to believe God would be the only causal source of miracles. The most obvious reason is that when you begin to talk about a being that exists outside of our universe who exerts causal power on our natural world everyone is talking about God. Unless you are just using magic faeries as an alternative to God - in which case - you are just talking about God and calling Him magic faeries...
2d) You also come back saying it is an argument from ignorance, but it is not. Like I said in 2c, there are good reasons to believe God would be the causal factor in miracles. You haven't provided any alternatives to God. You have the burden of proof if you wish to show that God is not the causal factor of supernatural events.

What supernatural events?

Can we have some specifics?

2e) if you are stating that it is an argument from ignorance in regards to the claim of miracles - ONCE AGAIN, I am not offering a proof of miracles. I am only showing how we should determine something is a miracle IF TRUE.

You have not offered any method.

You've offered:
A) a definition
B) a conclusion after the determination that it is true.

3) Another objection you guys make is that "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."

Belief in God is self evident! Reformed epistemology provides a model by which God is a properly basic belief. Humans have what is called a "sensus divinitatis" (sense of the divine). It works like this, you look at a mountain vista and it occasions the belief "God made these mountains" - you are in extreme doubt about your future and the sensus divinitatis occasions the belief "God can hear my prayers". This is exactly how our other senses function. Therefore, my belief in God is not an "axiomatic assumption" (I think you guys need to update your vocabulary BTW).

I've already expressed my problems with your reformed epistemology. You have not addressed my concerns.

God is not self-evident. If God was self-evident, then everyone would believe in the same God with the same qualities, rules, morals, etc.

Also note that the "sensus divinitatis" is usually contingent upon other senses. You must see the mountain in order to "occasion the belief" in God. You must hear the gospel music to "occasion the belief" in God. No other sense works like this. This is more evidence that God is an internal mental construct created after processing of external stimuli.

 

[ExodusMe]

@leftrightleftrightleft

Your problem is that you believe everything can be reduced to it's physical parts. I am providing simple definitions that allow us to distinguish attributes of events & objects. This is hard for a person who believes that the material world is all that exists (such as yourself).

If your OP was to discuss how to empirically verify whether a miracle has occurred then you need to understand what a miracle is.

A miracle is an event that cannot be produced by natural causes. You cannot empirically verify a miracle by definition.

Contingency isn't an inference. I see the mountain with my eyes, and I have a separate sense (the sensus divinitatis) that occasions my belief that "God made these mountains".

 

[PhantomGaze]

I think miracles tend to be purposeful, so there is a certain amount of specificity. Getting any arrangement of cards in poker is technically improbable, but getting a royal flush ten times in a row clearly shows someone is directing the way the hands are being dealt.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you just @leftrightleftrightleft with a different account?

No.

The law of excluded middle accounts for how if an event does not have a natural cause, then it must have a supernatural cause...

And I'm telling you that it doesn't work since it inevitably ends up in an argument from ignorance, when trying to apply this "method" in order to actually identify events as being miracles. Because it requires absolute 100% complete knowledge of ALL of nature.

I'll go ahead and assume that you agree that we don't have such complete knowledge of nature.

Which inevitably leads to the conclusion that when we look at a phenomena in the universe for which we have no explanation - it just means that we have no explanation, NOT that there IS no explanation. It just means that we don't know and nothing more or less.

You haven't heard of the law of excluded middle in logic, have you?

I don't care what you label it. I'm just talking about the "method" proposed here in how to identify "miracles". The fact of the matter is that it does not work.

This "method" is what people throughout history have used to attribute just about ANY aspect of nature to divine interventions. But today we understand that Poseidon does NOT rule the tides and Thor does NOT create thunder.

Both of which had no natural explanation back in the day.
But it wasn't the case that there objectively wasn't an explanation, was there?
There WAS a natural explanation. Ancient Greeks and Vikings simply were ignorant about the natural explanation.

Answer this question: if something wasn't caused naturally what should we call that cause?

How would you know or determine that it wasn't caused naturally? How could you ever demonstrate such a thing? Give me a single example of an phenomena of which it has been demonstrated that it had no natural cause.

Note the emphasis on the word "demonstrated"! I'm not asking about a phenomena which we don't understand or where we don't know what caused it. I'm asking about a phenomena where it has been demonstrated that the cause isn't natural. Because that is what your question requires!

The OP post was not about offering a proof of miracles

Nope, it was about offering a method to identify miracles.

The method offered, does not work.

. If this is the case, then your burden of proof is to show me that no miracle has ever occurred since the beginning of time. OKAY GO!...

I'm not claiming that.

Miracles are the best explanation to:
The beginning of the universe
The origin of life
The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

Claiming it, does not make it so.
Having said that, calling any event a "miracle" explains nothing. It's just a label that doesn't add anything of value in terms of explanatory power.

[qupote]
There is also no reason to think that if God exists, then God couldn't perform miracles, so you also need to show that God does not exist in order to prove miracles don't exist.[/quote]

No. Burden of proof is on the positive claim. That claim being: god exists and performs miracles.

Have fun.

I am.

The criteria I gave you regarding the rationality of belief was to show you that the criteria for rationality is easy to satisfy and does not require empirical verification.

And I showed you how that isn't true at all.

This is the failure of verificationism. The belief in verificationism cannot be empirically verified - this is self referentially incoherent.

Except that it can. Empirical methods demonstrably yield better results then non-empirical methods.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As to your response. I do not see why we need to prioritize agnosticism over a supernatural explanation.

I do. The reason is intellectual honesty.

It is probably totally rational for you to be agnostic toward miracles (granted your atheism), but to say that someone else should be an agnostic because you are isn't a good argument.

That's not what he's saying.

I don't think the OP was about offering a proof of miracles or arguing whether miracles exist.

Indeed, it isn't. Instead, it is about a method to identify events as being miracles.
How many times must it be repeated?

What we are discussing here is a method that has been proposed as an answer to the OP's question. And that particular method does...not...work.

I have already provided a criteria for how a person is rational in believing a miracle has occurred. I have also shown how to distinguish a natural event from a supernatural event (law of excluded middle).

And I have shown how this "method" in reality results in nothing but an argument from ignorance. Meaning that this "method" doesn't actually work.

A part determining whether miracles actually exist there isn't really more to discuss.

As stated multiple times, I'm just talking about the proposed "method".
I never stated that miracles occur or that they don't occur. In fact, BEFORE we can conclude such a thing, we require a method that allows us to identify if an even is a miracle or not.

Lacking such method, it is impossible to tell if miracles occur.

I don't want to argue over whether miracles actually exist

It's a good thing then, that this conversation concerns the method of identifying miracles and not wheter or not they actually occur.

because they are inherently tied up in the question of God's existence

I actually disagree with that completely. I don't see why there couldn't be a God who simply doesn't do miracles. But as you say, that is not the point under discussion.

The point under discussion is the method by which one can identify an event as being miraculous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

2) The person has done their due diligence in determining that it is unlikely the cause of the event was natural

Let's get practical and specific....
How do you determine such a thing, without appealing to ignorance?

We can restate #2 as 'the person has no defeaters for their belief the event was a miracle'.

And there you have a fallacy............
It's an assumed conclusion.

In regards to your last sentence "And is there a way to illustrate between there is no natural explanation versus we aren't currently aware of the natural explanation?". I probably misstated this a few times. A person does not need to know an event does not have a natural explanation in order to rationally conclude an event was a miracle

Eum.... throughout this discussion, the exact opposite was said: that an event is supernatural, when it is not natural.

You're flat out contradicting yourself.
You're also departing from your very own "method".

Think about it this way. You and I are both in agreement that we do not know all of the natural causes possible for every event. If you were to put a pot of water on the stove would it be rational for you to believe that the water will eventually boil because of the heat? Yes, just because you do not know every possible natural cause in the world does not mean you cannot rationally believe that there is a cause (whatever it might be). If this were true, then you would be left with agnosticism towards all events because you do not know every possible cause in the universe (how could anyone ever?).

Now, you've completely lost me....

If you know about the cause, then you know about the cause.
If you don't know about it, then you don't know about it. And in that case, the only rational statement you can make is saying that..... are you ready for it.... That you don't know.

Not "therefor, miracle!"

Also, it might no be possible to determine the cause of an event. If a person believes a miracle has occurred and your only response is "it MIGHT have had a natural cause", then all the person needs to believe is that it is unlikely the event had a natural cause in order to rationally conclude an event was a miracle.

In which case, the believer is merely using his beliefs as evidence of his beliefs.

I shouldn't have to point out, that that is the exact opposite of rationality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

@leftrightleftrightleft

Your problem is that you believe everything can be reduced to it's physical parts. I am providing simple definitions that allow us to distinguish attributes of events & objects. This is hard for a person who believes that the material world is all that exists (such as yourself).

If your OP was to discuss how to empirically verify whether a miracle has occurred then you need to understand what a miracle is.

A miracle is an event that cannot be produced by natural causes. You cannot empirically verify a miracle by definition.

The OP is asking how one CAN verify a miracle.
Your answer seems to be nothing but a list of ways on how it CAN NOT be identified. And then the actual identification is done by appealing to ignorance.

I see the mountain with my eyes, and I have a separate sense (the sensus divinitatis) that occasions my belief that "God made these mountains".

And what you call your "sensus divinitatis", is not a pathway to truth.
Case in point: mountains are produced by tectonic activity - not by supernatural entities.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think miracles tend to be purposeful, so there is a certain amount of specificity. Getting any arrangement of cards in poker is technically improbable, but getting a royal flush ten times in a row clearly shows someone is directing the way the hands are being dealt.

Only because you attribute special status to that particular hand of cards.

In reality though, that particular hand of cards has the exact same probability of showing up as any other.

That's what I like to call the teleological fallacy.

It's like that story about the two frogs sitting by a random pond and one says to the other "look at how perfect a habitat this pond is for us. Surely this pond was made so that we could live here!".

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Let's go back to the criteria real quick
A person is rational in believing a miracle has occurred if...
1) The event occurs in a religiously significant context
2) The person has done their due diligence in determining that it is unlikely the cause of the event was natural
We can restate #2 as 'the person has no defeaters for their belief the event was a miracle'.

This is more modest than how we previously stated it, but hopefully it provides clarification. If a person comes to form the belief that an event was a miracle in a religiously significant context (i.e. they aren't just going around calling any event a miracle) and they don't have any defeaters for their belief that it was a miracle (i.e. they know if they put a pot of water on the stove with it set to "high" it will start to boil eventually) then they can form the belief an event is a miracle in a rational way. Rationality is pathetically weak once we begin to grasp what is at stake for the individual.

In regards to your last sentence "And is there a way to illustrate between there is no natural explanation versus we aren't currently aware of the natural explanation?". I probably misstated this a few times. A person does not need to know an event does not have a natural explanation in order to rationally conclude an event was a miracle. Think about it this way. You and I are both in agreement that we do not know all of the natural causes possible for every event. If you were to put a pot of water on the stove would it be rational for you to believe that the water will eventually boil because of the heat? Yes, just because you do not know every possible natural cause in the world does not mean you cannot rationally believe that there is a cause (whatever it might be). If this were true, then you would be left with agnosticism towards all events because you do not know every possible cause in the universe (how could anyone ever?).

Also, it might no be possible to determine the cause of an event. If a person believes a miracle has occurred and your only response is "it MIGHT have had a natural cause", then all the person needs to believe is that it is unlikely the event had a natural cause in order to rationally conclude an event was a miracle.

I wouldn't disagree with your last statement. Rationality is not a criteria for truth and is incredibly weak. I think we both understand this. You are rational in being an atheist for all I know.

So it sounds like concluding something is a miracle is simply the point when you give up looking for an explanation. I don't know, therefore God.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Only because you attribute special status to that particular hand of cards.

In reality though, that particular hand of cards has the exact same probability of showing up as any other.

That's what I like to call the teleological fallacy.

It's like that story about the two frogs sitting by a random pond and one says to the other "look at how perfect a habitat this pond is for us. Surely this pond was made so that we could live here!".

Teleological thinking is not a fallacy, in fact, it is vital in animal behaviorism, criminal investigations, and forensic analysis. Moreover, one cannot function normally in society without it.

I am perfectly happy to grant that a royal flush has more or less the same probability as any hand, I even pointed that out myself in my last post. Getting a royal flush 10 times in a row on the other hand, is a different story. It is imporrant to understand the difference between an outcome, and a functional outcome.

The sort of rationale you're applying doesn't work in the real world, unless you want to get conned every time you play cards.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

@leftrightleftrightleft

Your problem is that you believe everything can be reduced to it's physical parts. I am providing simple definitions that allow us to distinguish attributes of events & objects. This is hard for a person who believes that the material world is all that exists (such as yourself).

This is utter nonsense. You are not providing any sort of method to distinguish between a miracle and a non-miracle. All you have done is define the word miracle to be "something which has no natural cause".

The question is how do we know it has no natural cause? How can we determine it has no natural cause?

This is ultimately an argument from ignorance. And history does not treat such arguments well since many things which were once claimed to be "supernatural" were later found to have natural causes (i.e. sun, moon, lightning, electricity, fire, etc.)

If your OP was to discuss how to empirically verify whether a miracle has occurred then you need to understand what a miracle is.

A miracle is an event that cannot be produced by natural causes. You cannot empirically verify a miracle by definition.

So, if you saw a man walking on the Thames River, would you immediately accept it as a miracle? Or would you be skeptical and seek out natural causes first?

Contingency isn't an inference. I see the mountain with my eyes, and I have a separate sense (the sensus divinitatis) that occasions my belief that "God made these mountains".

You must use your other senses in order to "sense" the divine. This implies that the "divine feeling" is just that: a feeling. It is an emotion occasioned by the external senses. It is a feeling in the same way that love, sadness, frustration, etc. are feelings. And in most cases, the "divine feeling" would be described as "awe" or "wonder" which scraps the theistic baggage.

Do you also have a "sensus frustratus" or a "sensus melancholus"?