Arguments Against Miracles

[Logic]

The "evidence" for miracles is primarily based on anecdotes, and for a scientist anecdotes are worthless. Therefore, it might be more helpful to think of it in terms of "arguments for miracles," primarily because real evidence for the existence of miracles is very weak indeed.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I believe that miracles were common during the biblical time. Well, that's what my Pastor told me. Miracles do still happen, but not so often. Could be men is so sinful now that miracles now only happen to the righteous.

I don't give a shit what your pastor said. Please have a go at engaging your cerebral cortex and thinking for yourself.

I have never seen any credible evidence for a miracle at any time or place in history.

In biblical times most people were illiterate,and the time was pre scientific. PLUS news was spread like a Chinese whisper,by word of mouth ,rarely being recorded by an eye witness.

Human beings have ALWAYS been the aggressive, vicious,greedy and stupid animals we are today.

People believe in miracles today for the same reason they always have; argument from incredulity. aka "god of the gaps". IE "I'm to ignorant,too lacking in imagination or too stupid to think of anything else,therefore god/aliens did it"

[Cyberman]

Then we factor in all those faith-healing parasites like Peter Popoff and psychic frauds like Sylvia Browne, getting fat off the gullible with more money than sense and the desperate with more hope than money.

If there really is a god performing miracles in our Universe, it's doing it the hard way.

[rationalnick]

Thanks to everyone for giving tips and examples that I used in my email to refute Mr. Larmer's arguments. Here is what he says in reply:

A crucial difference between say Luke and Dickens, is that Dickens makes no claim to be giving a historical account, whereas Luke does. It seems a fair principle of evaluating sources which claim to be historical that if they are reliable on the facts that we can check, they have a greater claim to be reliable on the facts that we cannot. As regards your claim that people in the first century were so gullible that they would believe almost anything, I think it is mistaken. For example, Joseph is not portrayed as readily accepting Mary's story.

Concerning your remarks about anecdotal evidence, I think that you need to take into account how central a role testimony plays in science. No scientist is able to duplicate all the scientific claims he or she believe. Rather, they accept the claims on the basis of testimony from people they take to be reliable.

There are many well-verified accounts of modern day 'miracles', i.e. events plausibly seen as the result of supernatural intervention. If you want to do some reading on the issue, Craig Keener's very recent book would be a good place to start. I also have collected some case studies. As to questions concerning the historical reliability of the gospel records, you might wish to look at Craig Blomberg's book on that topic.

Finally, what I directly argued, is that if God exists he can produce miracles without violating the laws of nature. Whether or not this has in fact happened cannot be pronounced on a priori, but one cannot dismiss miracles as antecedently improbable on the basis that they would violate the laws of nature. I do in fact believe in God and the occurrence of miracles, but my argument for distinguishing between the two forms of the Principle of Conservation of Energy and for affirming that miracles need not violate the laws of nature does not depend on making the claim that God does in fact exist.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I think that you need to take into account how central a role testimony plays in science.

Unlike the bible,scientific testimony is based on verifiable evidence,not hearsay and invention.

No scientist is able to duplicate all the scientific claims he or she believes

So what ? Proof? Even if true the assertion does not invalidate scientific method,it only shows scientists are imperfect.

Finally, what I directly argued, is that if God exists he can produce miracles without violating the laws of nature [quote]

Argue what you like.However, having made a positive claim, you have attracted the burden of proof. Please provide your proof.

This guy is claiming to be a philosopher? I don't believe that claim. Ask him to cite say three published peer reviewed papers. He certainly has little understanding of science or scientific method.

What's his full name? I want to look up his credentials.

[Cyberman]

Once again Google provides:

http://www.unb.ca/fredericton/arts/depar...armer.html

Blessed be the name of Google!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Once again Google provides:

http://www.unb.ca/fredericton/arts/depar...armer.html

Blessed be the name of Google!

Oh ta.

Jesus wept. What happened to the guy? How did he catch stupid? Or has he always been that gormless?


A friend of mine once observed of an academically gifted,but air headed woman we knew (she was also a medical doctor) "She could have as many degrees as a thermometer and she would still be a fucking idiot"

[Cyberman]

If I was feeling cynical, I'd say follow the money.

[Minimalist]

Finally, what I directly argued, is that if God exists he can produce miracles without violating the laws of nature.

That is one giant IF there.

This guy is a buffoon.

[rationalnick]

I have pointed to these issues in an email to him and I guess I'll see what excuses he has. I'm beginning to think that it's a mug's game trying to reason with someone who has made his career out of trying to find proof not only that miracles occur, but that they are the direct product of a specifically Christian omniscient deity who is floating around outside of the universe and is fiddling around and getting virgin's pregnant.

---

And this is what I get:

Regarding how a particular passage of the bible is read requires employing sound hermeneutical principles. Suffice it to say that I am willing to argue that there are principled and non-arbitrary ways to distinguish between passages which are to be taken literally and ones which are not. I have already suggested several books to you, so let me suggest two more, Greg Boyd's Letters to a Sceptic, and J. Gresham Machen's The Virgin Birth of Christ. They deal with many of the issues you are raising. I am willing to continue our conversation, but before we do so, I would want you to read some of the material I have suggested. That would familiarize you with the responses that can be made to the questions you are asking. e.g. are not the accounts of Jesus's virgin birth on a par with numerous other accounts.