Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Dena]

I am defining miracles as special acts of God in the world. Since miracles are special acts of God, they can only exist where there is a God who can perform such acts.

No, you defined them as the opposite.

[Ryantology]

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

Miracles are assertions made without justified cause until it is demonstrated that no possible natural explanation can ever describe an event, as natural events are too numerous to count and many are documented in exhaustive detail. Unless a miracle is a presently inexplicable natural event, in which case, it's not a miracle at all, by definition. Your argument is yet another example of a believer insisting that your assertions should be regarded as true simply because your beliefs have persisted for a long time. It doesn't work that way anymore. Your assertions must be shown to be true, or at the very least, be supported by sufficient physical evidence, before anybody outside of your religion will take you seriously.

I am defining miracles as special acts of God in the world. Since miracles are special acts of God, they can only exist where there is a God who can perform such acts.

What was that you just said about circular reasoning?

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

There are two problems with this. One, you've made it so that pretty much anything can be a miracle. Finding lost car keys or winning a free lottery ticket can be miracles. It dilutes the essence of the word to the point where a miracle means nothing more than a lucky break. Second, until you conclusively demonstrate that any event, ever, is certainly a special act perpetrated by the one of thousands of human gods you specifically believe in, miracles, as you define them, are just baseless assertions on your part.

Hume's position was that miracles were violations of the laws of nature. He said nothing is esteemed a miracle if it happens in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly healthy, should die suddenly. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event; otherwise the event would not merit the appellation.

And that is exactly what a miracle should be. The impossible. Something that absolutely cannot happen, under any circumstances, unless your God, specifically, intervenes, breaks the rules, and makes it happen anyway. Anything less than that is...

Instead of weighting the evidence in favor of miracles, Hume simply plays statistical games. He adds evidence against them. Since death occurs over and over again and resurrection occurs only on rare occasions at best, Hume simply adds up all the deaths against the very few alleged Resurrection and rejects the later....But this does not involve weighing the evidence to determine whether or not a given person, say Jesus of Nazareth... has been raised from the dead.

... a numbers game. Unlikely events happen all the time. People beat 200 million to 1 odds and win sick cash in the lottery. Buildings collapse and everybody inside dies except for one person. A person gets shot in the face point-blank and suffers only slight wounding.

Hume should not have rejected the resurrection claims based on their small number. He should have rejected them based upon the fact that every single one comes from myths and legends. When resurrections take place in an environment that allows for them to be verified independently, then we can play the numbers game. Until then, the only statistic which matters is the number of resurrection stories verified to be true: zero.

Moreover, Hume confuses the probability of historical events with the way in which scientists employ probability to formulate scientific law. In science, the more times an event is observed, under similar occurrences and similar conditions, the greater the probability that scientists think their formulation of a law is correct. But historical events including miracles are different; the events of history are unique and non-repeatable. Therefore, treating historical events including miracles with the same notion of probability the scientist uses in formulating his laws ignores a fundamental difference between the two subject matters.

Miracles are not historical events until demonstrably true.

C.S. Lewis answers Hume’s assertion that nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature.” Lewis says,” Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, if in other wor4ds they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.”

We can only assume anything to be true which could be repeated. This is why it is wrong to group miracles with other historical events. To suggest that a freak storm destroying the Mongol fleets about to invade Japan is a miracle is incorrect because storms happen all the time, and the Japanese just happened to luck out that one happened when and where it did. But, it's also 100% reasonable that it did happen exactly as it happened. There is no need to invoke divine intervention, as the Japanese did (though it's understandable why they did).

If modern science ever documents a legitimate spontaneous resurrection, then we know that the Jesus story has, at least, a kernel of truth to it, though a million resurrections do not prove that Jesus was ever one of them. And, even that does not legitimately become a miracle until every single possible legitimate physical explanation ever conceivable is applied to it and found lacking. And, we'll be waiting an awfully long time for that day.

This is not circular reasoning. This is the very nature of miracles, the very way their inventors have described them, not being possible by the rules we all have to play by. When you move the goalposts past a certain point, positive proof is just as impossible to find as negative proof, and that is how believers have framed the argument, not us.

[Esquilax]

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

More like, under the argument you presented we'd be bound to accept all miracle claims, even contradicting ones. Would you be willing to do that, or would all miracle claims be impossible except the ones you believe?

I am defining miracles as special acts of God in the world. Since miracles are special acts of God, they can only exist where there is a God who can perform such acts. If one does not believe in God, then they cannot say miracles, as I define them, are impossible.

If I don't believe in a god, then I'm bound to say that miracles as you define them must be impossible, because there wouldn't be a god to perform them.

Instead of weighting the evidence in favor of miracles, Hume simply plays statistical games. He adds evidence against them. Since death occurs over and over again and resurrection occurs only on rare occasions at best, Hume simply adds up all the deaths against the very few alleged Resurrection and rejects the later....But this does not involve weighing the evidence to determine whether or not a given person, say Jesus of Nazareth... has been raised from the dead.

If you had any evidence that Jesus had been raised from the dead, we wouldn't need to play statistical games. We'd have evidence. But since we don't, and theists won't stop insisting that it was a real event anyway, we've gotta do something.

It is simply adding up the evidence of all other occasions where people have died and have not been raised and using it to overwhelm any possible evidence that some person who died was brought back to life... Second, this 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 you're missing is that people have observed dice landing threes. There has never been a single observed case of a resurrection. We have to go with things that we've at least observed as possible; under your framework every absurd idea that's broached must be given the same respect, and that's not logical.

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.

So what about claims where you don't have any evidence? You're asking that we give those equal consideration.

Moreover, Hume confuses the probability of historical events with the way in which scientists employ probability to formulate scientific law. In science, the more times an event is observed, under similar occurrences and similar conditions, the greater the probability that scientists think their formulation of a law is correct. But historical events including miracles are different; the events of history are unique and non-repeatable. Therefore, treating historical events including miracles with the same notion of probability the scientist uses in formulating his laws ignores a fundamental difference between the two subject matters.

However, historical events are still bound by the physical laws of the universe. Saying it happened in the past isn't a license to make shit up.

C.S. Lewis answers Hume’s assertion that nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature.” Lewis says,” Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, if in other wor4ds they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.”

And the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the claim. Just because there's no evidence against something happening doesn't mean it has to have happened, and in this case, all of physical reality is against miracle claims, and you're still acting as though they are at all valid, just because they haven't been disproven. That's shifting the burden of proof.

[Zarith]

Can people actually read this garbage and believe it? No, I won't disprove the possibility of miracles, and I don't need to. Get back to me when you have convincing evidence they do exist, and by that I mean actual evidence.

Also, stop trying to point to the existence of scientific revolutions as evidence supporting your view. They aren't. Upheavals in scientific understanding are how we get better and more accurate knowledge, not ways in which we can cling to outdated superstitions.

[BettyG]

Sorry to interject... but this has been done to death in a couple of threads dedicated on the topic. There was no sacrifice because we're talking about an omnipotent and omniscient entity. What did he sacrifice if he didn't stay dead? How is it a sacrifice if he knows nothing will be lost in the long run? In short, any entity paying itself for something is by nature meaningless and void of any substance. It's just pure

I couldn't agree more. I'm just curious how he is going to justify it.

Have you ever read about crucifixion? This web site describes it;
http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm
It was a sacrifice for Jesus to have His hands and feet punctured in a way that cause excruciating pain for three hours, have to put pressure on His feet to pull Himself up for every breath, and endure the embarrassment of hanging there naked. How willing would anyone be to do that? Only great love, super human love could do that.
He did this all the while knowing He was innocent of the "crime" of blasphemy because He is God, not just claiming to be.

But you are digressing from the topic of miracles. So let's get back to that. How could Jesus, if He were merely human, rise from the dead? When a Roman soldier thrust a lance through His heart, there is no way He could not be thoroughly dead. There were 500 eyewitnesses that saw Him alive after He rose. (1 Corinthians 15) There has to be something super-human to explain this, because humans cannot do this on their own power.

[Psykhronic]

But you are digressing from the topic of miracles. So let's get back to that. How could Jesus, if He were merely human, rise from the dead? When a Roman soldier thrust a lance through His heart, there is no way He could not be thoroughly dead. There were 500 eyewitnesses that saw Him alive after He rose. (1 Corinthians 15) There has to be something super-human to explain this, because humans cannot do this on their own power.

Humans can lie on their own power.

[pocaracas]

I couldn't agree more. I'm just curious how he is going to justify it.

Have you ever read about crucifixion? This web site describes it;
http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm
It was a sacrifice for Jesus to have His hands and feet punctured in a way that cause excruciating pain for three hours, have to put pressure on His feet to pull Himself up for every breath, and endure the embarrassment of hanging there naked. How willing would anyone be to do that? Only great love, super human love could do that.
He did this all the while knowing He was innocent of the "crime" of blasphemy because He is God, not just claiming to be.

But you are digressing from the topic of miracles. So let's get back to that. How could Jesus, if He were merely human, rise from the dead? When a Roman soldier thrust a lance through His heart, there is no way He could not be thoroughly dead. There were 500 eyewitnesses that saw Him alive after He rose. (1 Corinthians 15) There has to be something super-human to explain this, because humans cannot do this on their own power.

And you buy that?
Awesome... I have a bridge to sell... real cheap! PM me for details!

[Zarith]

Superman also had superhuman powers. How do we explain this?!

[FallentoReason]

Have you ever read about crucifixion? This web site describes it;
http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm
It was a sacrifice for Jesus to have His hands and feet punctured in a way that cause excruciating pain for three hours,

Pffft! 3 hours?! God is eternal. A finite punishment is drowned out by an infinite life.

have to put pressure on His feet to pull Himself up for every breath, and endure the embarrassment of hanging there naked. How willing would anyone be to do that? Only great love, super human love could do that.

Or if you're all-powerful, because nails ain't gonna do crap.

He did this all the while knowing He was innocent of the "crime" of blasphemy because He is God, not just claiming to be.

And he did this while being all-knowing... knowing that he was going to see the light of day again.

But you are digressing from the topic of miracles. So let's get back to that. How could Jesus, if He were merely human, rise from the dead?

Because he's divine.

When a Roman soldier thrust a lance through His heart, there is no way He could not be thoroughly dead.

You can't kill a god. That's why there was no sacrifice.

There were 500 eyewitnesses that saw Him alive after He rose. (1 Corinthians 15) There has to be something super-human to explain this, because humans cannot do this on their own power.

No, but a god can do this on their own.

So... where's the sacrifice again?

[BettyG]

Can people actually read this garbage and believe it? No, I won't disprove the possibility of miracles, and I don't need to. Get back to me when you have convincing evidence they do exist, and by that I mean actual evidence.

Also, stop trying to point to the existence of scientific revolutions as evidence supporting your view. They aren't. Upheavals in scientific understanding are how we get better and more accurate knowledge, not ways in which we can cling to outdated superstitions.

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.