Problems with Miracles?

[Tree of Life]

We are entering the section of our apologetics course where we are talking about miracles - God acting specially in the world. Are miracles inherently implausible? Is there some problem with the idea of miracles? What's the problem with miracles?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

We are entering the section of our apologetics course where we are talking about miracles - God acting specially in the world. Are miracles inherently implausible? Is there some problem with the idea of miracles? What's the problem with miracles?

Can you define what a miracle is?

How do you tell the difference between a miracle and advanced technology or physics we don't know about yet? How do you verify they are from a god?

 

[Tree of Life]

Can you define what a miracle is?

Good question. There's a number of ways to define miracle. I'll try to offer a few. A miracle is an extraordinary manifestation of God's Lordship. God's Lordship is his authority and control over the world. This ordinarily is manifested in what we call the regularity of nature. But sometimes God acts in an extraordinary way and shows us that he has complete control over the world he has made. Examples are turning water to wine and raising Lazarus from the dead.

You could also understand a miracle as God's special action within creation. God is always acting to uphold creation, sustaining "natural laws", causing cells to divide and hearts to beat, etc. But sometimes he acts specially by contravening "natural laws". Examples would be walking on water, feeding the 5,000, etc...

How do you tell the difference between a miracle and advanced technology or physics we don't know about yet? How do you verify they are from a god?

Everything that we encounter is from God. But how do we know that God is acting specially? How do we know that when Jesus turned water to wine that he did so using only the immediate power of God and not some advanced technology? I suppose we know that Jesus acted with divine power because the word of God tells us.

Or when someone who has cancer for whom we are praying recovers in an unexplainable way - how do we know that this was an event of miraculous healing? I suppose we don't know for sure, but we give thanks to God either way.

 

[ananda]

We are entering the section of our apologetics course where we are talking about miracles - God acting specially in the world. Are miracles inherently implausible? Is there some problem with the idea of miracles? What's the problem with miracles?

My problem with them: I have no way to personally verify that "miracles" come from "almighty God", or if they come from a lesser but still powerful being (god-like devas in Buddhism), from other causes, or if they were fabricated.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Good question. There's a number of ways to define miracle. I'll try to offer a few. A miracle is an extraordinary manifestation of God's Lordship. God's Lordship is his authority and control over the world. This ordinarily is manifested in what we call the regularity of nature. But sometimes God acts in an extraordinary way and shows us that he has complete control over the world he has made. Examples are turning water to wine and raising Lazarus from the dead.

You could also understand a miracle as God's special action within creation. God is always acting to uphold creation, sustaining "natural laws", causing cells to divide and hearts to beat, etc. But sometimes he acts specially by contravening "natural laws". Examples would be walking on water, feeding the 5,000, etc...

How do you determine that when someone walks on water or food is created out of nothing the cause is a god?

Everything that we encounter is from God. But how do we know that God is acting specially? How do we know that when Jesus turned water to wine that he did so using only the immediate power of God and not some advanced technology? I suppose we know that Jesus acted with divine power because the word of God tells us.

Why should I conclude that a "miracle" happened over "I don't know".

Or when someone who has cancer for whom we are praying recovers in an unexplainable way - how do we know that this was an event of miraculous healing? I suppose we don't know for sure, but we give thanks to God either way.

This is the issue, there is no way to know if a miracle happened or not no matter what happened.

 

[Tree of Life]

How do you determine that when someone walks on water or food is created out of nothing the cause is a god?

The only person that I know of who has walked on water and multiplied loaves and fish is Jesus. He claimed to be doing the works of God, and so I believe his claims.

Why should I conclude that a "miracle" happened over "I don't know".

In the case of Jesus you have someone who predicts that he will be killed and then will rise from the dead. He claims to be God. Then his words come to pass. Assuming that he did indeed make these claims and did indeed rise from the dead, what reason would you have to doubt his claim to be God?

This is the issue, there is no way to know if a miracle happened or not no matter what happened.

If you were one of the Israelites who witness the parting of the Red Sea, what reason would you have to doubt that it was God who acted?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The only person that I know of who has walked on water and multiplied loaves and fish is Jesus. He claimed to be doing the works of God, and so I believe his claims.

Why do you believes the claims of the bible are true?

In the case of Jesus you have someone who predicts that he will be killed and then will rise from the dead. He claims to be God. Then his words come to pass. Assuming that he did indeed make these claims and did indeed rise from the dead, what reason would you have to doubt his claim to be God?

Why would I conclude he was actually God? Without good evidence for the event why wouldn't the conclusion be "I don't know"?

It is also a big assumption that the bible is true.

If you were one of the Israelites who witness the parting of the Red Sea, what reason would you have to doubt that it was God who acted?

It is not that I have reason to doubt. I would not have any good reasons to believe it was from a god. What is the evidence? The "miracle" is not the evidence.

 

[muichimotsu]

The only person that I know of who has walked on water and multiplied loaves and fish is Jesus. He claimed to be doing the works of God, and so I believe his claims.

Blatant argument from ignorance and circular logic to boot: the claim is not the evidence and certainly not when you presuppose someone's claims must be true because of things interpreted by a book's writer that already presupposed Jesus was God or whatnot in the first place. Independent verification is needed, otherwise it's massive confirmation bias

In the case of Jesus you have someone who predicts that he will be killed and then will rise from the dead. He claims to be God. Then his words come to pass. Assuming that he did indeed make these claims and did indeed rise from the dead, what reason would you have to doubt his claim to be God?

It's debatable he claimed he was God, even if we grant he predicted some death and resurrection, so you're weaseling in assumptions that aren't evidenced in the text

Jesus could've been resurrected and such, even predicted it somehow, but that doesn't mean his predictions were what led to the resurrection, it's mere correlation, not a causative relation

If you were one of the Israelites who witness the parting of the Red Sea, what reason would you have to doubt that it was God who acted?

More appeal to ignorance: they wouldn't necessarily be able to consider an alternative if all they were raised with was the superstition of some protective deity that, ironically, let them into slavery because they were disobedient and the moment they become compliant to absolute orders, then they get involved. Oh and let's not forget the permission of slavery by that very deity in the laws given to the previously enslaved people (because it's "nicer")

 

[cvanwey]

We are entering the section of our apologetics course where we are talking about miracles - God acting specially in the world. Are miracles inherently implausible? Is there some problem with the idea of miracles? What's the problem with miracles?

Seems a little strange that 'bonafide miracles' happened prior to a time where we had ways to verify.

And now, no such 'miracles' happen any longer. All claimed 'current miracles' may not be up to snuff ---- especially when compared to the claims to 'miracles' from the ancient past.

 

[Tinker Grey]

My position is that until someone demonstrates that there is something that is supernatural or that there is a spiritual realm, any discussion of miracles is moot. Any explanation, including the authors knowing lied (I don't think that's the case), is more plausible than that any of it happened.

 

[muichimotsu]

My position is that until someone demonstrates that there is something that is supernatural or that there is a spiritual realm, any discussion of miracles is moot. Any explanation, including the authors knowing lied (I don't think that's the case), is more plausible than that any of it happened.

The problem is that there appears to always be special pleading going on with the supernatural or spiritual so there's no real way to investigate, let alone measure it, in a way that can't be chalked up to coincidence, confirmation bias, etc. If there was something like magic or the like and we could reasonably, with particular technology or such, verify and confirm that there is some set of rules that governs how it works, then fine, it'd be something to take seriously.

But abstractions that tend to just be people's apophenia or magical thinking about finding significance in life are little more than a crutch, practically speaking, instead of being honest and acknowledging abstracts as reality insofar as they are practical and not merely expedient or sentimental.

When they define it as supernatural, the thing in question has become, effectively, just something they can "justify" by some form of rationalism or rationalizing and keep it above any kind of investigation we'd apply to scientific models, including those that are trickier, like big bang cosmology or other structures we haven't investigated directly, but nonetheless have decent evidence to conclude they are the best explanation for the phenomena we observe

Lying seems like one of the least likely explanations if we consider that lying entails that you know something isn't the case and are asserting otherwise, when with ancient people, they likely didn't know any better, so they were more just mistaken in the same way those who believed in demon possession or miasma as explanations for disease were wrong, not lying.

 

[cvanwey]

Good question. There's a number of ways to define miracle. I'll try to offer a few. A miracle is an extraordinary manifestation of God's Lordship. God's Lordship is his authority and control over the world. This ordinarily is manifested in what we call the regularity of nature. But sometimes God acts in an extraordinary way and shows us that he has complete control over the world he has made. Examples are turning water to wine and raising Lazarus from the dead.

You could also understand a miracle as God's special action within creation. God is always acting to uphold creation, sustaining "natural laws", causing cells to divide and hearts to beat, etc. But sometimes he acts specially by contravening "natural laws". Examples would be walking on water, feeding the 5,000, etc...

How did you come to conclude that 'natural law' is actually governed by not only a god, but YHWH specifically?

Furthermore, why do you trust the written claims to 'walking on water', 'feeding the 5000', or etc, as anything more than later writings, after countless oral tradition -- which may plausibly be nothing more than legend and/or lore?

Why is the circulating accounts of Jesus completely credible, while all other god claims of the past and future, not credible?

Everything that we encounter is from God. But how do we know that God is acting specially? How do we know that when Jesus turned water to wine that he did so using only the immediate power of God and not some advanced technology? I suppose we know that Jesus acted with divine power because the word of God tells us.

If this is your actual reason, then I again have to bring up that others make claims to their god(s) in the very same way. Why have you ruled theirs out, in favor of the claims you believe?

 

[cvanwey]

In the case of Jesus you have someone who predicts that he will be killed and then will rise from the dead. He claims to be God. Then his words come to pass. Assuming that he did indeed make these claims and did indeed rise from the dead, what reason would you have to doubt his claim to be God?

And yet, the only accounts we have for such claims come from the very book which is proven to be tainted... If you read Mark 16:9-20, you can start to get the gist... If 100's and/or 1,000's saw a post mortem Jesus, don't you think some literate people would have reported/written as such? All we have are anonymous writings, from decades later, whom write from circulating oral tradition, all collaborated from the very book in which it attempts to persuade the audience - which is from the 'church'.

And WHY is being anonymous so crucial? Because we do not know of the actual motivations, bias, or other, of the given writer(s)....?.?.?.

Am I calling the NT a lie? NO. But when furnished with the '(L)ord, (L)iar, (L)unatic' argument, we must ALSO consider (L)egend

Furthermore, by the time you read 'Luke', you can see quite a bit of 'spin'.

 

[zippy2006]

My position is that until someone demonstrates that there is something that is supernatural or that there is a spiritual realm, any discussion of miracles is moot. Any explanation, including the authors knowing lied (I don't think that's the case), is more plausible than that any of it happened.

How to lock yourself in the dark cave forever in three easy steps:

1. Never believe in the supernatural without evidence.
2. Deny all evidence for the supernatural (miracles) as being impossible from the outset.
3. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Tinker Grey]

How to lock yourself in the dark cave forever in three easy steps:

1. Never believe in the supernatural without evidence.
2. Deny all evidence for the supernatural (miracles) as being impossible from the outset.
3. Rinse. Repeat.

Tell me what my middle name is in the next 30 minutes and I'll believe you.

Make me levitate. Demonstrate the supernatural. Go ahead; I'll wait. (I said demonstrate, not report stories. Without demonstration, stories are just stories.)

 

[zippy2006]

Tell me what my middle name is in the next 30 minutes and I'll believe you.

Make me levitate. Demonstrate the supernatural. Go ahead; I'll wait. (I said demonstrate, not report stories. Without demonstration, stories are just stories.)

Wouldn't levitation be a miracle? You said that you won't even talk about miracles until the supernatural is demonstrated, but it seems to me that the only way to demonstrate the supernatural is by talking about miracles. Indeed, the core of this last post of yours is nothing more than two miracles.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wouldn't levitation be a miracle? You said that you won't even talk about miracles until the supernatural is demonstrated, but it seems to me that the only way to demonstrate the supernatural is by talking about miracles. Indeed, the core of this last post of yours is nothing more than two miracles.

The way to demonstrate a miracle is to perform one. I'd prefer that it'd be under controlled conditions ala James Randi, but whatever.

You've got 25 minutes left to come up with my middle name. It'd be a start to believing that the supernatural might be real. Get praying.

 

[Tinker Grey]

As I begin typing this text, it's been 37 minutes since my challenge. Does this disprove the supernatural or the spiritual? No, of course not.

One can disprove a negative if one can propose a modus tollens argument. To do so, one must be able to say that if P then Q. Not Q; therefore not P. However, I don't know what must follow if the supernatural or the spiritual existed. Therefore I cannot propose a challenge that would conclusively demonstrate that these things don't exist.

If I've demonstrated anything--and it's not much--it's that no one here was up to the challenge. But, that's weak. They could not be interested. They could be "AWFKB" (away from keyboard). Whatever. My weak test wouldn't be proof of the supernatural either since good sleuthing might allow the sleuth to come up with it. But, as I said, it'd be a start.

Now there are problematic ideas here. What could possibly be a definition of supernatural such that the idea could be testable? It seems to me that anything that is demonstrable is natural, by definition. If levitation were possible, we'd be able to measure it by any number of different means; to wit, detect a field disturbance that interferes with gravity or at least demonstrate that there is no detectable trickery.

So the problem with supernatural is that if you could demonstrate it, it probably is natural. Fundamentally, how does one detect something that is supernatural by other than natural means?

I don't even know how to define the "spirit realm". I suppose that such a thing might be real without being "supernatural" and thus be detectable by natural means.

So a more generic challenge might be "produce an effect that could not possibly be explained by the natural."

I also state my challenge here and in my earlier posts this way because I want to know that the phenomena are possible. If one cannot demonstrate this, then stories are just stories. Stories aren't evidence; they're the claim.

Without such a demonstration, you've only got claims.

 

[zippy2006]

It seems to me that anything that is demonstrable is natural, by definition.

I don't think so.

So a more generic challenge might be "produce an effect that could not possibly be explained by the natural."

Right. Or more concisely: produce a miracle.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't think so.



Right. Or more concisely: produce a miracle.

So, do it.