Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Mister Agenda]

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.


Any discussion should define terms so we are talking about the same thing. Our definitions disagree. My definition is the one we are discussing.
Miracles usually occur through prayer to God or asking a holy person's intercession to God.


OK


At least we understand our differences.

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


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.

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.

The probability of dice which have already been rolled showing the sides that they did is 100%. Odds are important before the fact, not after, they are for predictions. The odds of getting a particular Bridge hand are billions to one, if you guess the correct hand in advance that's impressive, afterwards it's just an observation. I doubt Hume misunderstood odds in the fashion that you imagine.