Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Cato]

metaphysical - of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses. It deals with some important questions, such as:
What is the meaning of Life?

Whatever meaning you assign to it.

What is my purpose?

Whatever purpose you choose.

What is God?

A fictitious asshole designed to scare the shit out of people so the cunt that invented the asshole can dictate what meaning and purpose others are to have.

What is reality?

That which you can directly experience or logically infer from experience.

Why am I here?

Your biological parents fucked.

Why does anything exist instead of nothing?

Big bang?

How did I get here?

Again, your biological parents fucked.

Who and what am I?

Despite a myriad of influences, it is ultimately up to you. Tell those that think different to fuck off.

What will happen when I die?

Worm food. Enjoy it while it lasts without being a cunt to others.

[Ryantology]

Jesus forgives those who repent and are committed to not sinning again. Salvation is a process. You have to continue in a state of grace.

It is virtually impossible to not sin, as God's law has made sins out of behaviors which are natural and normal (and entirely arbitrary in many cases). Making such a commitment is dishonest because fulfilling it is beyond anybody's ability.

I started this thread. I get to define miracles.

Wait, what? Starting a thread doesn't give you the right to change the definition of words.

I am defining miracles as special acts of God in the world and time.

Describe what makes an act 'special' in this context.

Since miracles are special acts of God, they can only exist where there is a God who can perform such acts.

So far, so good.

If one does not believe in God, then they cannot say miracles, as I define them, are impossible.

The validity of your definition relies upon the existence of your god. If we do not believe in your god, your definition is meaningless to us.

metaphysical - of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses. It deals with some important questions, such as:
What is the meaning of Life?
What is my purpose?
What is God?
What is reality?
Why am I here?
Why does anything exist instead of nothing?
How did I get here?
Who and what am I?
What will happen when I die?

Metaphysics does not require us to answer any of these questions in the ways you do.

I hear a circular argument: If miracles are impossible, the report of any miraculous event must be false, and therefore, miracles are impossible.

That is a strawman argument, because the 'therefore' part of that argument is meaningless and redundant, and none of us use it. No valid argument about the possibility of something starts with an assumption of its possibility. It is on that point, by the way, where your argument fails: you assume the existence of God from the start.

The correct form of our position would be "If an event cannot be demonstrated to have happened in spite of all possible physical laws, it cannot be confirmed as supernatural (natural events are given precedence in this argument because no event has ever satisfied the criteria necessary to confirm an event as certainly not natural; the reverse is not true). Miracles must be supernatural in origin, so if an event is not supernatural, it cannot be a miracle." We could expand this further to "If God cannot be demonstrated to exist, then no event can be confirmed as a miracle."

The only circular argument being posited is yours, which requires non-believers to accept the existence of your god. As you cannot demonstrate that your God is real, everything which follows your initial assumption of his existence is invalid.

[BettyG]

BettyG: Jesus forgives those who repent and are committed to not sinning again. Salvation is a process. You have to continue in a state of grace.

Ryantology: It is virtually impossible to not sin, as God's law has made sins out of behaviors which are natural and normal (and entirely arbitrary in many cases). Making such a commitment is dishonest because fulfilling it is beyond anybody's ability.

That is why the Sacrament of Reconciliation was instituted by Jesus. Jesus knows we will continue to sin because the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

BettyG: I started this thread. I get to define miracles.

Ryantology: Wait, what? Starting a thread doesn't give you the right to change the definition of words.

Any discussion should define terms so we are talking about the same thing. Our definitions disagree. My definition is the one we are discussing.

BettyG: I am defining miracles as special acts of God in the world and time.

Ryantology: Describe what makes an act 'special' in this context.

Miracles usually occur through prayer to God or asking a holy person's intercession to God.

BettyG: Since miracles are special acts of God, they can only exist where there is a God who can perform such acts.

Ryantology: So far, so good.

OK

BettyG: If one does not believe in God, then they cannot say miracles, as I define them, are impossible.

Ryantology: The validity of your definition relies upon the existence of your god. If we do not believe in your god, your definition is meaningless to us.

At least we understand our differences.

BettyG: metaphysical - of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses. It deals with some important questions, such as:
What is the meaning of Life?
What is my purpose?
What is God?
What is reality?
Why am I here?
Why does anything exist instead of nothing?
How did I get here?
Who and what am I?
What will happen when I die?

Ryantology: Metaphysics does not require us to answer any of these questions in the ways you do.

This definition of metaphysics was in response to someone who thought it meant fantasy.

BettyG: I hear a circular argument: If miracles are impossible, the report of any miraculous event must be false, and therefore, miracles are impossible.

Ryantology: That is a strawman argument, because the 'therefore' part of that argument is meaningless and redundant, and none of us use it. No valid argument about the possibility of something starts with an assumption of its possibility. It is on that point, by the way, where your argument fails: you assume the existence of God from the start.

The correct form of our position would be "If an event cannot be demonstrated to have happened in spite of all possible physical laws, it cannot be confirmed as supernatural (natural events are given precedence in this argument because no event has ever satisfied the criteria necessary to confirm an event as certainly not natural; the reverse is not true). Miracles must be supernatural in origin, so if an event is not supernatural, it cannot be a miracle." We could expand this further to "If God cannot be demonstrated to exist, then no event can be confirmed as a miracle."

Our definitions disagree. That the event happened begs the question of how it could occur when it is beyond human power to cause it. My point is that if you eliminate the assumption that the one reporting the miracle is a lying insane person, (hence circular reasoning) then you have to acknowledge that there is a power greater than yourself that caused it. I'm applying the law of causality, I.e., everything has a cause except the uncaused cause being who caused the chain of events known as creation to begin.

I can predict that you will respond with one of the tenets of the religion of Scientism: All truth can be explained by science; if not currently explained, it has faith that all will be explained some time in the future. This is why I was defining metaphysical. Science is limited to explaining the physical realm. One must use reason and logic to explore metaphysical issues. Scientism requires faith. I do not have faith in Scientism to explain God or why He causes miracles. I have come to the conclusion that the cause of events that happen as a result of prayer are caused by God.

Ryantology: The only circular argument being posited is yours, which requires non-believers to accept the existence of your god. As you cannot demonstrate that your God is real, everything which follows your initial assumption of his existence is invalid.

See one of my previous posts where I give a critique of David Hume's position on miracles where I said Hume's "argument equates quantity of evidence and probability. It says, in effect, that we should always believe what is most probable) in the sense of "enjoying the highest odds". But this is silly. On the these grounds a dice player should not believe the dice show three sides on the first roll, since the odds against it are 1,635,013,559,600 to 1. What Hume seems to overlook is that wise people base their beliefs on facts, not simply on odds. Sometimes the "odds' against an event are high (based on past observations), but the evidence for the event is otherwise very good. (based on current observation or reliable testimony.) Hume's argument confuses quantity of evidence with the quality of evidence. Evidence should be weighed, not added."

I agree that the odds of miraculous healings and Jesus' Resurrection are beyond statistical probability. However, that is not the method I use to evaluate acts of God, which is my definition of a miracle.

[BettyG]

I think you are making a religion out of science. Science can only tell us about physical things. It is limited in its ability to tell us about truth. It cannot be used to explore metaphysical things. Only reason, logic and intuition are appropriate tools for metaphysical topics.

We can only perceive physical things, though. If it's non-physical then we can't say it exists at all. So hey, if you want your god to be completely inaccessible and beyond everything, then cool; I have no reason to believe he exists at all, neither do you, and your entire claim falls apart. The only thing we could really say is that, since your "reason, logic and intuition" have led you to believe in an imaginary friend that nobody can see or hear, your ability to be rational is suspect.

However, if you're claiming, as you were in the OP, that god causes things to happen in the world as miracles, then congrats, because you've made a claim that's testable by science, and hence falsifiable. Good show.

So, which is it? Is your god distant and ineffective in the world, and therefore not rationally justifiable? Or does he actually do things here, in which case he's potentially falsifiable, and so far falsified?

Perhaps it would be helpful to know how I define metaphysical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
We all know that love, mathematics, existence, and time are real, but they are not physical. These are just a few examples. We can intuit love, faith and experience aging. We use reason and logic to study math. We cannot hold existence in our hands, yet we exist.

Refer to one of my previous posts where I give a critique of David Hume's position on miracles.

Apparently, we are defining miracles differently. I am not saying anything about the statistical probability of an event happening. We are discussing my definition. Miracles are an act of God in time and space.

---

I think you are making a religion out of science. Science can only tell us about physical things. It is limited in its ability to tell us about truth. It cannot be used to explore metaphysical things. Only reason, logic and intuition are appropriate tools for metaphysical topics.

Miracles(supposedly) are physical phenomena. Therefore, science is the tool to use to discern them from natural ones.

I am defining them as events in time (history). Miracles are an act, not a result of an action.

---

I think you are making a religion out of science. Science can only tell us about physical things. It is limited in its ability to tell us about truth. It cannot be used to explore metaphysical things. Only reason, logic and intuition are appropriate tools for metaphysical topics.

Reason and logic cannot lead one to the supernatural, because no honest knowledge can be attained from logic and reason which cannot be ultimately grounded in physical reality. Intuition is not to be trusted. It only ever leads to truth by accident.

Science describes the foundations of all information we can honestly call knowledge. If an assertion cannot be grounded in reality, it is no better than a blind guess and should not be taken seriously by anybody. If it is impossible to test and confirm independently (and no, correlating blind guesses do not count as independent confirmation), it is a lie to call it knowledge.

You are using a much narrower definition of reality than I am. There is more than what meets the eye.

[Bromius]

That is why the Sacrament of Reconciliation was instituted by Jesus. Jesus knows we will continue to sin because the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

I lurketh and saw; a great sight saw I, in the wide open light square as its brilliance illuminateth by mind. It sayeth unto me,

"Vicarious atonement is a great lie which appertaineth not nor hath one wit with that which saveth a man's soul."

"Nay," sayeth he, "salvation cometh on the wings of intellect wherewith it vaulteth itself above the firmament perforce of will and striveth with that which is not until at last it findeth freedom from itself which is no thing."

And I asketh the voice in the wide open light square who's brilliance illuminateth my mind, "Forwhy doth a fools folly find food in the lusts of blood?" And the light respondeth, "For these fools of men are beasts and knoweth it not. The eateth and drinketh and know not. They awaketh and sleepeth seeing no difference, one thing to the, all is folly and then they maketh gods for tribute."

May it be sealed.

[BettyG]

I think you are making a religion out of science. Science can only tell us about physical things. It is limited in its ability to tell us about truth. It cannot be used to explore metaphysical things. Only reason, logic and intuition are appropriate tools for metaphysical topics.

We can only perceive physical things, though. If it's non-physical then we can't say it exists at all. So hey, if you want your god to be completely inaccessible and beyond everything, then cool; I have no reason to believe he exists at all, neither do you, and your entire claim falls apart. The only thing we could really say is that, since your "reason, logic and intuition" have led you to believe in an imaginary friend that nobody can see or hear, your ability to be rational is suspect.

However, if you're claiming, as you were in the OP, that god causes things to happen in the world as miracles, then congrats, because you've made a claim that's testable by science, and hence falsifiable. Good show.

So, which is it? Is your god distant and ineffective in the world, and therefore not rationally justifiable? Or does he actually do things here, in which case he's potentially falsifiable, and so far falsified?

I disagree that "We can only perceive physical things," Love, faith, time, mathematics are real, but not physical.
God is not inaccessible. We have access through prayer. Faith is a relationship with an loving, all powerful, merciful God, the nth degree of perfection. That is the God I believe in.

I do not follow your saying God is falsifiable. You can know God through reason and logic. Thomas Aquinas gave five demonstrations in favor of the existence of God. Faith is leap, but not an irrational leap. http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

---

merriam-webster.com Definition of SACRIFICE
1: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2: something offered in sacrifice
3a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents>

1: Jesus offered Himself to the Father.

1: *Jesus offered Himself to the Father a.k.a. Himself

2: Jesus offered Himself.

2: *Jesus offered Himself [to Himself]

3 He offered Himself for the forgiveness of sins.

3: *He offered Himself [to Himself] for the forgiveness of sins [of which He "invented"]

4: He suffered the injustice of a shameful death, though He was innocent.

Innocent or guilty, it doesn't even matter. The penalty wasn't effective because he came back to life.

Can you see how senseless this is yet? Here's an overview of what's actually happening:

OT god: "humanity needs to live up to the commandments"
*intermission: events take place*
NT god: "humanity needs to accept my forgiveness"

What's the nature of this "intermission" stage? Well, since it's God fooling around with himself, his thought process presumably went something like this:

OT god: "I've set up the system by which humanity ought to live and how they will be judged. Maybe it's time for a change though? I know, I'll perform some trivial events of which I know will play out in my favour (because I'm god, duh). This way, I can convince myself that my self-"sacrifice" is enough to make myself change my mind on how I will run things!"

There is nothing that is being "conquered" (a word Christians love in their circles) or nothing that is being "defeated". There's no sacrifice or no gift that I can accept, because no transaction was made, no money deposited elsewhere at the expense of someone, nothing lost or given up willingly. It's simply an entity fooling around with itself. The entire thing reduces to a god that is the same yesterday, today and forever paradoxically changing its mind. It's not a sacrifice, it's a change of mind dressed up as a sacrifice. Preach this philosophically redundant message if you want, but what is there to receive? Absolutely nothing.The whole concept is simply nauseating to think about and hardly the stuff of a rational omnimax entity. End of.

Jesus offered Himself to the Father; the second person of the Trinity to the first person of the Trinity.

"forgiveness of sins [of which He "invented"]?" Huh? Since Jesus is God, He has the power to forgive sins. God is a person. We offend Him by our sins. We need forgiveness.

By Jesus' death, He totally offered Himself to the Father perpetually, He held nothing back. His innocence is important, because, though He was like us in all things but sin, He did not deserve to be killed. If He had been a sinner, He would have been in as much need of forgiveness as we are.


As far as *intermission: events take place,* God had been preparing His people by gradually revealing Himself to mankind. When He thought we were ready, He gave a clear, definitive revelation of truth found in the Gospels. It was a fulfillment of the OT. Before He died, He established His Church to pass on the traditions He had taught and to be the mediator of grace between God and mankind.

Again, sacrifice means "offering." It is His intention of totally giving himself to the Father. I unite myself with His offering as an act of worship.

You have a lot to gain through faith; for example, forgiveness and integrity, guidance for living and hope.

[Esquilax]

I disagree that "We can only perceive physical things," Love, faith, time, mathematics are real, but not physical.

But love is demonstrable, in that we can feel it, and it's a physical brain state too. Faith is the same. Time and mathematics are conceptual human things that are contingent on us; there's no need for them to be physical.

Meanwhile, you keep trying to say that miracles are at once physical and not testable, and those are binary states. It's one or the other.

God is not inaccessible. We have access through prayer. Faith is a relationship with an loving, all powerful, merciful God, the nth degree of perfection. That is the God I believe in.

And does he answer prayers? Perform miracles in reality? Those things are testable, which is the objection I had to begin with.

I do not follow your saying God is falsifiable. You can know God through reason and logic. Thomas Aquinas gave five demonstrations in favor of the existence of God. Faith is leap, but not an irrational leap. http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

Ahem.

[BettyG]

I disagree that "We can only perceive physical things," Love, faith, time, mathematics are real, but not physical.

But love is demonstrable, in that we can feel it, and it's a physical brain state too. Faith is the same. Time and mathematics are conceptual human things that are contingent on us; there's no need for them to be physical.

Meanwhile, you keep trying to say that miracles are at once physical and not testable, and those are binary states. It's one or the other.

God is not inaccessible. We have access through prayer. Faith is a relationship with an loving, all powerful, merciful God, the nth degree of perfection. That is the God I believe in.

And does he answer prayers? Perform miracles in reality? Those things are testable, which is the objection I had to begin with.

I do not follow your saying God is falsifiable. You can know God through reason and logic. Thomas Aquinas gave five demonstrations in favor of the existence of God. Faith is leap, but not an irrational leap. http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

Ahem.

I am not saying love is not real, but that it has no atomic mass, length, depth, height, volume. Can you give a cup of love to someone? Same for space, time, math. Other examples of metaphysical reality is studied under the disciplines of philosophy and theology.

I am not saying that miracles are everyday events. I am saying they are things that are provable to be beyond human power. That is what can be tested. The means of determining that and the veracity of the one claiming it are scrutinized thoroughly. Yet that leaves the question of explaining how it happened. I have ruled out statistical probability as a valid means of determining that because David Humes' logic is faulty. I would like others to be aware of the philosophy that is the basis of their assumptions.

God does answer prayers, but He is not our puppet. He gifts us with miracles when He wants to demonstrate His glory. He is in control, not us. We do not always know why. All we can say is that sometimes the answer is "yes', sometimes "no" and sometimes "later."

[Silver]

James Moore says that "today scientists will admit that no one knows enough about 'natural law' to say that any event is necessarily a violation of it.

Therein lies the usual problem with theists. If it is not understood, it is automatically supernatural and thus God.

Goodness forbid theists actually attempt to understand something without automatically assuming it is too divine to be understood.

---

John Montgomery denotes that he anti-supernatural position is both "philosophically and scientifically irresponsible."

I believe science is hardly the place for man to prove the supernatural, considering that science deals with natural law. If, though I do not see it ever happening, science does happen to stumble across proof of a deity's existence through natural law, that would be an entirely different matter.

---

"But can the modern man accept a "miracle" such as the resurrection? The answer is a surprising one: The resurrection has to be accepted by us just because we are modern men.

That is not an explanation so much as it is an excuse. It does not have to be accepted whatsoever.

[BettyG]

James Moore says that "today scientists will admit that no one knows enough about 'natural law' to say that any event is necessarily a violation of it.

Therein lies the usual problem with theists. If it is not understood, it is automatically supernatural and thus God.

Goodness forbid theists actually attempt to understand something without automatically assuming it is too divine to be understood.

---

John Montgomery denotes that he anti-supernatural position is both "philosophically and scientifically irresponsible."

I believe science is hardly the place for man to prove the supernatural, considering that science deals with natural law. If, though I do not see it ever happening, science does happen to stumble across proof of a deity's existence through natural law, that would be an entirely different matter.

---

"But can the modern man accept a "miracle" such as the resurrection? The answer is a surprising one: The resurrection has to be accepted by us just because we are modern men.

That is not an explanation so much as it is an excuse. It does not have to be accepted whatsoever.

You are a good disciple of David Hume, I see.
Humes said,"Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? It not, commit it to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry an illusion."
The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful expressions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful. So why do you put your faith in it? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Can you empirically verify that science is the only way to know truth? No. You cannot. It is a philosophical assumption, not scientific. Neither can anyone prove that reason and logic is not a valid means of knowing truth. I favor both science and reason/logic instead of just one.

Neither can anyone prove scientifically that God does not act in this world. You cannot put that in a test tube either.