Problems with Miracles?

[zippy2006]

So, do it.

You seem to be asking me to manipulate reality in a way you do not understand or cannot explain. I don't have miracles on tap. I'm not sure that's really how it works, though I'm not as opposed to the idea as most Christians are. What I would say is that that kind of mere manipulation of reality (magic) isn't particularly consonant with the Judeo-Christian understanding of God and grace. In fact it has much more in common with the scientific-technological worldview than the Christian worldview. As Arthur Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If you really are interested in miracles you will have to be interiorly disposed to them. You will have to treat them as you would a wild animal rather than a lab rat. If you're only after arbitrary manipulation of reality I'd say you're either chasing a chimera or dabbling in the occult. A miracle with no intrinsic orientation to faith, God, or higher realities is not something that I am much interested in.

 

[Par5]

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.



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?



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?

I think it is safe to say that you would consider the event recorded in Matthew 27:52-23, to be a miraculous happening.

52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Only Matthew seemed to deem it necessary to record this event. You would think such an incredible event would be a day for the locals to put in their calendar, but no, not a whisper.
Perhaps the locals didn't bother to record it as they didn't think it was so incredible. Maybe this kind of miracle was so commonplace that the locals just rolled their eyes and said, "Oh no, not more of those walking dead!"
I am sure that Christians would scoff at the Islamic belief that the prophet Mohammad flew up to heaven on a winged horse, but I feel that is no less believable than the miracles presented in the Christian tradition.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You seem to be asking me to manipulate reality in a way you do not understand or cannot explain. I don't have miracles on tap. I'm not sure that's really how it works, though I'm not as opposed to the idea as most Christians are. What I would say is that that kind of mere manipulation of reality (magic) isn't particularly consonant with the Judeo-Christian understanding of God and grace. In fact it has much more in common with the scientific-technological worldview than the Christian worldview. As Arthur Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If you really are interested in miracles you will have to be interiorly disposed to them. You will have to treat them as you would a wild animal rather than a lab rat. If you're only after arbitrary manipulation of reality I'd say you're either chasing a chimera or dabbling in the occult. A miracle with no intrinsic orientation to faith, God, or higher realities is not something that I am much interested in.

I'm not chasing after anything. I'm saying if I am to believe miracle stories whatever the source, then I need to see that the mechanisms that allow them are real. Now, I don't know if that's the supernatural or the spiritual are both or something else entirely or some combination of any of these.

As it is, I've never heard miracles described as anything other as a manifestation of the supernatural or the spiritual. As I have no evidence for the supernatural or the spiritual, then I have no basis for accepting the possibility of miracles. So, the interlocutor has 2 choices: 1) assert a substrate for miracles and then demonstrate it, or 2) do a miracle that doesn't have a mundane explanation. If one of these two choices are accomplished, then we talk about whether Jesus raised Lazarus.

So as I said, it's all moot.

 

[zippy2006]

So as I said, it's all moot.

And as I said in my last, your approach is fundamentally misguided. You're after a lab rat.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And as I said in my last, your approach is fundamentally misguided. You're after a lab rat.

I'm after evidence. Got any? Can you show me the supernatural? Can you show me the spiritual?

 

[cvanwey]

And as I said in my last, your approach is fundamentally misguided. You're after a lab rat.

You appear to be shooting yourself in the foot, with the 'lab rat' remark. Many earnest Christians pray to God daily for miracles. Many Christians also assert that God answers their prayers, which are also deemed 'miracles'.

The topic of prayer alone is essentially treating God like a 'slot machine'. Countless petitionary and/or intercessory prayers are conducted daily, by none other than the pure/earnest/devout/faithful, whom ask God for 'miracles'. And often times, many Christians claim God answers the call to such requested 'miracles'.

But as @Tinker Grey has pointed out, are these observed 'miracles' anything above and beyond the truly mundane/coincidental/other? Or, are they indeed verified 'miracles' from God?

I'm not sure if you followed the recent prayer thread, but you have to wonder...

Why does God never answer the call in restoration for amputees, cerebral palsy, downs syndrome, diabetes 1, etc; but often answers the call for restoration in cancer, or maybe aiding in the help of getting a new job?

 

[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?

I have to wonder? Do you invite or encourage your students to see these threads you create? I would hope so. Because it seems you avoid any response, which actually truly challenges your assertions. And I would like to know how your students feel about this?

As I've said before, and I'll continue to say here... I find it fascinating that you teach apologetics, when it would appear the sole reason (you) believe is because of perceived/discerned revelation alone, and nothing more.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And as I said in my last, your approach is fundamentally misguided. You're after a lab rat.

Do you think you must first believe in miracles before you can be convinced they happen?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do you think you must first believe in miracles before you can be convinced they happen?

That's how I read it.

If you really are interested in miracles you will have to be interiorly disposed to them.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you think you must first believe in miracles before you can be convinced they happen?

You must believe they are possible before you can be convinced that they happen. It would be impossible to "demonstrate the supernatural" to a person who is not open to the possibility of miracles or the supernatural.

If one is to come to belief in the supernatural via miracles then the logical sequence would be:

Openness to miracles -> Belief in a particular miracle -> Belief in the supernatural
​

This position (link) is not openness, and that is reflected by this post (link).

 

[Tinker Grey]

You must believe they are possible before you can be convinced that they happen. It would be impossible to "demonstrate the supernatural" to a person who is not open to the possibility of miracles or the supernatural.

If one is to come to belief in the supernatural via miracles then the logical sequence would be:

Openness to miracles -> Belief in a particular miracle -> Belief in the supernatural
​

This position (link) is not openness, and that is reflected by this post (link).

Hey, I'm open to it. I'm waiting for a demonstration.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You must believe they are possible before you can be convinced that they happen. It would be impossible to "demonstrate the supernatural" to a person who is not open to the possibility of miracles or the supernatural.

If one is to come to belief in the supernatural via miracles then the logical sequence would be:

Openness to miracles -> Belief in a particular miracle -> Belief in the supernatural
​

This position (link) is not openness, and that is reflected by this post (link).

Waiting for convincing evidence that the supernatural exists is being open to it. This is a difference in how we think we believe something I think. If you showed me convincing evidence of the supernatural I would have no choice but to believe it no matter if I wanted to or not. We don't choose our beliefs.

 

[ChetSinger]

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?

Imo, anyone who believes the first verse of the Bible should have no problem believing that God can perform miracles.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's how I read it.

Yeah that is how it sounded that is why I asked. I don't get that zippy seems to think that waiting for evidence of something is not being open to it. I think it is the proper way to be open to it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Imo, anyone who believes the first verse of the Bible should have no problem believing that God can perform miracles.

I agree. How do you know when God is performing a miracle?

 

[Tree of Life]

I agree. How do you know when God is performing a miracle?

If we are willing to suppose that the God of the Bible exists then I think it's fair to assume that God is working a miracle when something miraculous in nature happens. For example, when Jesus rose from the dead. I don't know how to explain that other than to say that God rose Jesus from the dead.

 

[ChetSinger]

I agree. How do you know when God is performing a miracle?

I'll go with this:

noun: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.​

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'll go with this:

noun: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.​

Just because you don't have another explanation does not mean you can assume one. How can we rule out a natural explanation that we don't understand yet? Bring a radio back 500 years and people may think it is supernatural.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If we are willing to suppose that the God of the Bible exists then I think it's fair to assume that God is working a miracle when something miraculous in nature happens. For example, when Jesus rose from the dead. I don't know how to explain that other than to say that God rose Jesus from the dead.

The question is why do you presuppose the god of the bible exists and not presuppose the god of the Quran exists?

 

[ChetSinger]

Just because you don't have another explanation does not mean you can assume one. How can we rule out a natural explanation that we don't understand yet? Bring a radio back 500 years and people may think it is supernatural.

You're asking me to speculate? Can't do. The definition of the word is what it is.