Miracles: why they dont exist

[ONEinsanePHReaK]

This is mainly to redirect the disscution on miracles that started in "What do you think about god"

Now, miracles. If you belive that a divine power caused not so random divine called miracles divine like you to explain why you belive they are God intended and not just highly improbable occerances.

If you do not belive in God how do you think a miracle can take place.

If you do not belive in miracles what are the miraculous event that have taken please over time in your eyes.

Lastly, if you dont belive that any of the events called miracles took please then explain to me me why these are your beliefs.

 

[pneo]

If you define a miracle as "an event that has no known scientific explanation" then miracles happen all the time. Whether they are brought about by God, or are simply the result of something science doesn't understand yet is up to the interpretation of the individual.

It should be noted that they used the word "miracle" in the Bible, long before scientific method was well established. I'm sure one of the resident linguists can explain what word was being used in hebrew, aramaic, and greek, and what the nuances and cultural contexts for those words are, but it seems to me that the usage generally means: "things that aren't normally possible."

Whether you believe in God or not, you will have to acknowledge that things happen all the time that science can't explain.

 

[Pesto]

If you define a miracle as "an event that has no known scientific explanation" then miracles happen all the time. Whether they are brought about by God, or are simply the result of something science doesn't understand yet is up to the interpretation of the individual.

It should be noted that they used the word "miracle" in the Bible, long before scientific method was well established. I'm sure one of the resident linguists can explain what word was being used in hebrew, aramaic, and greek, and what the nuances and cultural contexts for those words are, but it seems to me that the usage generally means: "things that aren't normally possible."

Whether you believe in God or not, you will have to acknowledge that things happen all the time that science can't explain.

Yes, things do happen that current science cannot explain. However, I don't think that it is a good definition of the word "miracle". If you go several hundred years into the past, there were probably a number of occurances that would have been labeled miracles at the time, but today are very well understood. Because they happened at a time when they were not understood, would they still be miracles?

I think a better definition would be that a miracle is something that defies all explanation. Unfortunately, that definition presents its own problems.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Personally I like the discussion in Pulp Fiction on miracles. I don't see the need to describe things as something that "science can't explain." Such a definition causes all sorts of trouble.

 

[quatona]

I don't see the need to describe things as something that "science can't explain." Such a definition causes all sorts of trouble.

Which problems would that be, for example?

 

[The Nihilist]

What if we take a phenomenological approach and say that a miracle is an event that has no easy explanation, and seems to be so fortuitous and unseen that were it in a novel, it would be called a deus ex machina and bad writing. Feel free to clean up that definition, as I'm worn out and not thinking straight, but that's the gist of it.

 

[Pesto]

Which problems would that be, for example?

It is very difficult (maybe impossible) to show that something cannot be explained. The causes of an unexplained event may be discovered at some point in the future. We can't know whether they will or not. Even if the causes never come to light, it still doesn't mean that a given event is inexplicable.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Which problems would that be, for example?

The main problem is that the definition doesn't fit with the common notion of a miracle. Things that are outside of the realm of science become miracles, even when they are quite normal. For instance we could consider a mathematical proof a miracle, because it defies scientific explanation. Or from another perspective we could say that one book is more "profound" than another because of its miraculous qualities. This is not a fault of science, it is just an admission that there are some questions that it is not meant to answer.

On the other hand there are things that we might have a scientific explanation for, but would commonly be considered miraculous. For instance suppose that you are about to be hit by a runaway train because you are stuck in the tracks, when suddenly the train is hit by a metorite and thrown of the tracks, saving your life. Strictly speaking there is nothing about this situation that cannot be explained by science, but for the person whose life was saved it would seem like a miracle.

 

[pneo]

On the other hand there are things that we might have a scientific explanation for, but would commonly be considered miraculous. For instance suppose that you are about to be hit by a runaway train because you are stuck in the tracks, when suddenly the train is hit by a metorite and thrown of the tracks, saving your life. Strictly speaking there is nothing about this situation that cannot be explained by science, but for the person whose life was saved it would seem like a miracle.

Well you are playing different senses of the world miraculous off against each other. "Defies statistical probability" is also considered miraculous in common usage, but it's philosophically meaningless.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well you are playing different senses of the world miraculous off against each other. "Defies statistical probability" is also considered miraculous in common usage, but it's philosophically meaningless.

It's certainly better than "defies all explanation" which is completely meaningless.

But seriously, the Bible is full of miracles that can be explained if you try hard enough. For instance, take the walls of Jericho. Suppose that they had just the right structural flaws, and a minor tremor just happened to come about at the chosen time so that the walls collapsed, allowing a Hebrew victory. Is this story suddenly not a miracle, because we have an explanation for it?

It reminds me of when Socrates commented that in response to the question "why does Socrates stand" you could answer something like "well the muscles in his legs contract and expand in such a way that the tendons attached to his bones cause his legs to straighten out which results in him proceeding from a sitting to a standing position." But that sort of answer does not really give any understanding of the situation.

 

[Pesto]

It's certainly better than "defies all explanation" which is completely meaningless.

But seriously, the Bible is full of miracles that can be explained if you try hard enough. For instance, take the walls of Jericho. Suppose that they had just the right structural flaws, and a minor tremor just happened to come about at the chosen time so that the walls collapsed, allowing a Hebrew victory. Is this story suddenly not a miracle, because we have an explanation for it?

But that's just an ad hoc explanation. It says nothing for or against it being a miracle. Given the story of Jericho (assuming it happened) all we can really say is we have no idea why the walls fell.

 

[Pesto]

Things that are outside of the realm of science become miracles, even when they are quite normal.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29591?issue=4227&special=1999

And what's that quote... "Either everything is a miracle, or nothing is."

Something like that. I'm to lazy to look it up.

 

[quatona]

It is very difficult (maybe impossible) to show that something cannot be explained. The causes of an unexplained event may be discovered at some point in the future. We can't know whether they will or not. Even if the causes never come to light, it still doesn't mean that a given event is inexplicable.

Probably just a misunderstanding. I understood "What science cannot explain" as "What science can (currently) not explain", and not as "What science will never be able to explain".