I've always had an issue with miracles, which is similar to other problems in assigning probability to supernatural explanations. With things like the resurrection or any of the stories of miracle men from Appollonius on there is always the problem that the reasoning toward the most probable explanation must include all alternate explanations, including fraud, invention, transmissional distortion, mistake, misinterpretation, and so on. These are all events that obey natural law, yet most often the probability of them happening can be assumed to be manyfold higher than non-natural explanations (there's a question of the base-rate of non-natural phenomenon in figuring prior probability, but for simplicity's sake, that discussion is omitted). So even if the resurrection actually occurred, the probability of these other explanations is higher, and it is irrational to believe in an explanation of considerably lower probability when an explanation of greater probability is available.

This enters into the explanation of miracles in several ways. By most accepted definitions, a miracle has to satisfy two conditions: a) it is unexpected according to natural law, or even contrary to it, b) it is caused by an agent (in this case, a god). People tend to focus on the first part and neglect the second part, that it's not a miracle unless it is caused by God. Even if I take away all the alternative explanations mentioned above which are attributable to human deceit or error, that still leaves the explanation that the event has a natural explanation, but we just don't happen to know what that explanation is. The history of science is replete with events that lacked a natural explanation at one time, yet later were explained; so the prior probability of an occurrence of a natural event without an explanation is reasonably high. In this sense, and because we can't directly track a miracle back to an, essentially non-existent agent (from the view of physics), any actual miracles that occur will, rationally speaking, always fail the test, because they occur in the "epistemic shadow" of more reasonable explanations, and are pushed further into darkness by an inaccessible causal history.

(June 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: But it also produces a problem. If the event is tested and turns out to have a naturalistic cause, what makes it distinguishable from a completely natural (even if it is statistically improbable) event?

Why is god required?

How can it not turn out to have a naturalistic cause? That makes no sense.

God (insert your alternative) is required to explain purpose.

(June 19, 2013 at 5:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God (insert your alternative) is required to explain purpose.

Purpose is superflous, so therefore is god.

(June 19, 2013 at 1:31 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: I would like to get some clarification on an issue that is raised around here from time to time.

When questioned about god, theists will tell you that god is not perceivable in a traditional/physical sense. He is a being that is outside space/time and therefore cannot be tested, measured or falsified. In short, science doesn't work on god.

When questioned about miracles, the theists will inevitably agree that they do occur and that god does work in our lives. Determining what constitutes a miracle is another discussion altogether but suffice it to say, there is some disagreement on the subject.

In any case, here is the problem: You claim that your god is beyond the realm of science yet you claim that miracles happen every day, right here in the real world. Things that occur in the real world ARE TESTABLE BY SCIENCE.

So how is it that god is undetectable to science but his actions (miracles) are testable? And why is it that in the entire history of mankind, not a single "miracle" has ever been proven to be an actual miracle?

God is not testable He is Spirit, science can't test that. He created the universe and it's testable. God can heal people and it appear to be by conventional means, thus not appearing He did unless you're a believer. Aren't there cases of physical healing where doctors have no idea how it occurred, actually knowing what they did could not bring about the results. As far as I'm concerned the greatest miracle is salvation and science can not test that yet it occurs daily. Then those things that happen that have no scientific explanation, you will say we just do not understand yet but, in time we will. Really that seem like an arrogant assumption, no one could know if the answer will come in the future. So somethings God does is testable yet would seem to be accomplished by man, other things God does will never be testable by man, yet will not be accepted by those who do not know Him.

(June 19, 2013 at 5:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: But it also produces a problem. If the event is tested and turns out to have a naturalistic cause, what makes it distinguishable from a completely natural (even if it is statistically improbable) event?

Why is god required?

How can it not turn out to have a naturalistic cause? That makes no sense.

God (insert your alternative) is required to explain purpose.

So then the question becomes: How do you know god did it? How do you differentiate between a miracle and a statistically unlikely event?

---

(June 19, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Godschild Wrote: God is not testable He is Spirit, science can't test that. He created the universe and it's testable. God can heal people and it appear to be by conventional means, thus not appearing He did unless you're a believer. Aren't there cases of physical healing where doctors have no idea how it occurred, actually knowing what they did could not bring about the results. As far as I'm concerned the greatest miracle is salvation and science can not test that yet it occurs daily. Then those things that happen that have no scientific explanation, you will say we just do not understand yet but, in time we will. Really that seem like an arrogant assumption, no one could know if the answer will come in the future. So somethings God does is testable yet would seem to be accomplished by man, other things God does will never be testable by man, yet will not be accepted by those who do not know Him.

I will ask you the same question: How do you know god did it? How do you differentiate between a miracle and a statistically unlikely event?

(June 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: How do you know god did it? How do you differentiate between a miracle and a statistically unlikely event?

You can't know God did it. You can only try to discern purpose applying the reasoning for God. All things are from God. He did everything ultimately. The question is why, and what does that mean to you.
Miracles don't need to be statistically unlikely.

(June 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: How do you know god did it? How do you differentiate between a miracle and a statistically unlikely event?

You can't know God did it. You can only try to discern purpose applying the reasoning for God. All things are from God. He did everything ultimately. The question is why, and what does that mean to you.
Miracles don't need to be statistically unlikely.

Then why do I get punished for not believing?

If all things are from god and miracles are acts of god, then everything that occurs is a miracle. So what makes miracles special?

(June 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You can't know God did it. You can only try to discern purpose applying the reasoning for God. All things are from God. He did everything ultimately. The question is why, and what does that mean to you.

So, basically you start with the answer, then work backwards to see how to fit the questions to it.....

(June 19, 2013 at 6:56 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You can't know God did it. You can only try to discern purpose applying the reasoning for God. All things are from God. He did everything ultimately. The question is why, and what does that mean to you.
Miracles don't need to be statistically unlikely.

Then why do I get punished for not believing?

If all things are from god and miracles are acts of god, then everything that occurs is a miracle. So what makes miracles special?

Is a miracle everything God does?! I guess in a way it is.
Not all miracles are equal I guess. I guess it depends on your perspective too.

You get punished to serve justice. Do you deserve punishment? Then you will receive it.
If God is just, and you are justly blameless, how can God punish you?

---

(June 19, 2013 at 6:57 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You can't know God did it. You can only try to discern purpose applying the reasoning for God. All things are from God. He did everything ultimately. The question is why, and what does that mean to you.

So, basically you start with the answer, then work backwards to see how to fit the questions to it.....

You sound like a scientist

Yeh you take the evidence and from that you should be able to prove the principle.

(June 19, 2013 at 7:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You get punished to serve justice. Do you deserve punishment? Then you will receive it.
If God is just, and you are justly blameless, how can God punish you?

Shouldn't he be punishing himself?

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a discussion about punishment.

I guess I still don't understand why one thing is called a miracle and another is not.