Are Miracles Possible?

[WinePusher]

A miracle, according to David Hume, is "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

So, in colloquial terms, a miracle is a suspension of the natural order. Hume's argument aganist miracles would go as follows:

1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
2. We know these laws through repeated and constant experience.
3. The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws.
4. Consequently, no one can rationally believe in miracles.
____________________________________________________________

A miracle, according to C.S Lewis, is an "interference with nature by a supernatural power." Both Lewis' and Hume's definitions are basically the same, therefore, if miracles do occur, they are the result of divine intervention and would be stable grounds to infer the existence of a God.

Here is Hume's argument once again:

1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
2. We know these laws through repeated and constant experience.
3. The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws.
4. Consequently, no one can rationally believe in miracles.

Unfortunatly, Hume makes a grave contradiction in his own philosophy. On Hume's logic, we cannot know whether the laws of nature are constant, which decisively refutes premise 2. Therefore, suspensions of the natural order are possible.

Question For Debate: Are miracles possible? And is a person rationally justified when believing in miracles?

[Cathar1950]

It doesn't - to me.

Fair enough.

What are the grounds for distinction between 'deviating' and 'violating' in the context of miracles and their relationship to the laws of nature?

The grounds for distinction is definition. To violate is to transgress. To deviate is to diverge or branch off from something. If one transgresses the law they are guilty. If one is not under the law, and therefore does not abide by it, they are not guilty.

Like the example I gave post 31, you are not guilty of breaking the law because the law was not applied to you. However, you didn't abide by the law, and therefore diverged from it.

Let's say South Korea has a law that one cannot brush his teeth after 10 A.M. If you brush your teeth at noon, you are not guilty of breaking the law. They can't come and arrest you. However, you would not be able to say "Since they didn't come after me, I must have abode by their laws". That's illogical. True they didn't come after you, but it's not true that you abode by their laws. You deviated from them, the only reason they didn't come after you is because you didn't violate their law.

Your laws are a poor analogy as the laws of nature are emergent properties of the universe where the other laws are man made.

In your head to head you write:

Laws of Nature tell us how nature operates, how the physical world works. They can accurately tell us what can happen by nature working on its own. What they don't do, however, is tell us what can happen when something outside of nature acts on nature. Laws of Nature don't necessarily apply to the preternatural. They tell what effects happen with certain causes (natural ones), but when you bring in new causes (the preternatural), different effects follow. Therefore, it would not be violating a Law of Nature for something outside of nature to create or destroy matter|energy, just as it would not be unlawful for someone outside of the law to break the law.

There is nothing outside the universe so something doesn't get put in from outside. God doesn't make the laws of nature as they are emergent proprieties of the universe.
If matter and energy are not created and destroyed then they have always existed in one form or another. So if God wanted to start a fire God would be using matter and energy that existed to start the fire.

[Defender of Truth]

What does that even mean: philosophically rational?

Fair question. I'll explain the phrase.

What does that even mean... That you can imagine it?

Nope

I can imagine all sorts of fantastic and extravagent things.

Okay... I'll leave that one alone

However, that doesn't mean these imagined events or objects are real or possibly/necessarilly exist in reality.

Of course.

Now, answering your original question, what does "philosophically rational" mean?

It means that it is coherent, and does not contradict anything known to be true. We're examining a concept and determining whether it's logically possible. For instance, let's say miracles DID violate laws of Nature, which I insist they don't. One could say that miracles are impossible because they contradict something that is known to be true. If something is found to be non contradictory, logical, consistent, and coherent, it would be considered philosophically rational. It's one issue to say miracles happen, it's another to say miracles are rational. The OP was instigating discussion on whether miracles are rational.

[Defender of Truth]

Hey Cathar, good to hear from you.

Your laws are a poor analogy as the laws of nature are emergent properties of the universe where the other laws are man made.

Okay... Although I disagree, it's kind of irrelevant. If my analogy bothers you that much, ignore the analogy, and look at the statement I made before I made the analogy.

There is nothing outside the universe

Begging the question. The Resolution of the thread you're talking about is asking for proof one way or the other if something exists outside of the universe, so you can't just say "there is nothing outside of the universe" and then use it as evidence.

If matter and energy are not created and destroyed then they have always existed in one form or another.

That's not true. This is what I said to that in the thread you're talking about:

First, suppose that a city was built, and the inhabitants established a government to rule over it. One of the laws that the government made was that the building of cities was prohibited. Later on, someone refers back to the beginning of the city, but another claims that the city had always existed. He says “one of the laws is that a city cannot be built, that means this city was never built and it existed forever� Do you see the faulty logic used there? The law stating that no cities can be built is a property of the city. Once the city existed, the law was enacted, but one could not apply the law before the city existed, because the law came when the city came. It's the same thing with Laws of Nature (one of which is the First Law). Laws of nature come with matter|energy, therefore one cannot appeal to them before matter|energy was in effect. Now that matter|energy exists, one can apply Laws of Nature, but he can't apply them while discussing the creation of matter|energy, because the Laws of Nature then did not exist. So the Laws of Nature were not enacted until nature existed, so it's illogical to appeal to them to claim that nature didn't have a beginning.

So if God wanted to start a fire God would be using matter and energy that existed to start the fire.

That statement is a conclusion (notice the "so") based on something which I disputed earlier in this post, so you can restate your quote after you reestablished your premise.

[Cathar1950]

Hey Cathar, good to hear from you.

Your laws are a poor analogy as the laws of nature are emergent properties of the universe where the other laws are man made.

Okay... Although I disagree, it's kind of irrelevant. If my analogy bothers you that much, ignore the analogy, and look at the statement I made before I made the analogy.

There is nothing outside the universe

Begging the question. The Resolution of the thread you're talking about is asking for proof one way or the other if something exists outside of the universe, so you can't just say "there is nothing outside of the universe" and then use it as evidence.

If matter and energy are not created and destroyed then they have always existed in one form or another.

That's not true. This is what I said to that in the thread you're talking about:

First, suppose that a city was built, and the inhabitants established a government to rule over it. One of the laws that the government made was that the building of cities was prohibited. Later on, someone refers back to the beginning of the city, but another claims that the city had always existed. He says “one of the laws is that a city cannot be built, that means this city was never built and it existed forever� Do you see the faulty logic used there? The law stating that no cities can be built is a property of the city. Once the city existed, the law was enacted, but one could not apply the law before the city existed, because the law came when the city came. It's the same thing with Laws of Nature (one of which is the First Law). Laws of nature come with matter|energy, therefore one cannot appeal to them before matter|energy was in effect. Now that matter|energy exists, one can apply Laws of Nature, but he can't apply them while discussing the creation of matter|energy, because the Laws of Nature then did not exist. So the Laws of Nature were not enacted until nature existed, so it's illogical to appeal to them to claim that nature didn't have a beginning.

So if God wanted to start a fire God would be using matter and energy that existed to start the fire.

That statement is a conclusion (notice the "so") based on something which I disputed earlier in this post, so you can restate your quote after you reestablished your premise.

Ignoring the fact that you can't establish anything outside of the universe even God would not be outside as that would make the universe and God together more then God which contradicts the definitions of both God and the univers as the universe includes everything.
You also lack anything for example that defies the laws of the universe.
They are not the same thing as the laws of some city.

[scourge99]

Now, answering your original question, what does "philosophically rational" mean?

It means that it is coherent, and does not contradict anything known to be true. We're examining a concept and determining whether it's logically possible. For instance, let's say miracles DID violate laws of Nature, which I insist they don't. One could say that miracles are impossible because they contradict something that is known to be true. If something is found to be non contradictory, logical, consistent, and coherent, it would be considered philosophically rational.

Stories about "miraculous" events may be
1) pondered in one's mind (coherant).
2) Consistent and non-contradictory with some aspects of reality.

But walking on water, flying into the clouds, a dead body rising from the grave, and water magically turning into wine, is NOT consistent and coherent to what is known to be true.

By your definition, such events are NOT "philosophically rational" since they fail the criteria you presented.

It's one issue to say miracles happen, it's another to say miracles are rational. The OP was instigating discussion on whether miracles are rational.

The question is whether certain events (described by some as "miracles") occurred (or can occur) in reality. Not whether such events can be imagined or pondered within one's mind.

[Defender of Truth]

Ignoring the fact that you can't establish anything outside of the universe

I'd like to start with this dependent clause. How can you ignore a fact that doesn't exist? I'm currently in a discussion on the very thing, and we have not yet gotten far. How can you say at the beginning of the discussion that I can't establish it?

the universe includes everything.

Nope, the universe isn't everything. It's limited to the physical realm.

1. The aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space

You also lack anything for example that defies the laws of the universe.

That's because I'm not trying to prove that miracles exist! Read the original post, it's asking if the concept of miracles is consistent. You're asking if the concept of miracles is correct. There's a difference.

But walking on water, flying into the clouds, a dead body rising from the grave, and water magically turning into wine, is NOT consistent and coherent to what is known to be true.

You say this because of Laws of Nature. I'll take flying into the clouds for example. First of all, have you ever seen a helicopter? Seriously, though, a guy cannot levitate into the sky because of laws of gravity. However, the law of gravity is a law of nature. It pertains to natural things, which are matter|energy. If you have something supernatural, the laws of nature have no effect because the supernatural isn't natural. The supernatural have a whole different set of laws. They're a different essence. May I remind you that the original post was not asking for an example of a miracle, it was asking if the very concept of a miracle was consistent. And I say yes because a miracle would simply be something supernatural interfering with nature. You can start a different topic asking if the concept of miracles is correct, but it would be derailing this thread to discuss that here because this thread is asking if the concept of miracles is consistent.

The question is whether certain events (described by some as "miracles") occurred (or can occur) in reality

Correct, or can occur. So why do people keep asking for examples? I could give some, and if you do start a thread on miracles I would post there, but in this thread I'm simply saying that it would not contradict logic or laws of nature if a miracle were to happen. The reason it wouldn't contradict laws of nature is because the supernatural isn't natural, so the laws of nature don't apply to them.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm simply saying that it would not contradict logic or laws of nature if a miracle were to happen. The reason it wouldn't contradict laws of nature is because the supernatural isn't natural, so the laws of nature don't apply to them.

The major flaw in this “reasoning� is that the “supernatural� has not been shown to exist.

That which appears to be “supernatural� is determined by the state of ignorance of nature that prevails at the time – and applies to what is not understood. For instance, floods, droughts, tornados, hurricanes and other storms were once though to be caused by displeased “supernatural gods�. After some humans learned about atmospheric processes, the origin and causes of those natural occurrences became known, and “supernatural explanations� were no longer necessary and such things were no longer “miracles� or supernatural events. (Of course, some prefer to retain the supernatural beliefs rather than learn or accept natural explanations).

“Miracles� have now retreated to be nothing more than unverifiable tales told by ancient storytellers and religious promoters – who often claim that such things happened “long ago and far away�. The tales have not been shown to be anything more than myth, legend, fable or fantasy.

[Defender of Truth]

The major flaw in this “reasoning� is that the “supernatural� has not been shown to exist.

We're not trying to determine if the supernatural exists, we're trying to determine whether Hume's law is plausible. Hume's argument isn't "no miracles have occured". His argument is "the very concept of a miracle is irrational because it violates laws of Nature". I'm arguing back that it wouldn't violate laws of nature since it's not pertaining to nature, but to preternature. I am not in this thread arguing that miracles happen, I'm arguing that they are not irrational as Hume argued.

Consider this:

Hume's Law

Premise 1: Santa Clause drives reindeer
Premise 2: We know it's irrational to drive mythical animals
Conclusion: A belief in Santa Clause is irrational


Person A: What do you think about this argument, person B?

Person B: I think it's a faulty argument because reindeer aren't mythical animals.

Person A: Have you ever seen Santa Clause? Eh? Eh? Do you have a picture of him? Can you prove he exists?


See how illogical that is? True, Santa Clause doesn't exist, but person B was simply pointing out how the argument was flawed. He was saying "Regardless of whether Santa Clause exists or not, the concept of him driving reindeer is not irrational.

Now, that's just an example. The point being that regardless of whether miracles happen, the concept of a miracle is not illogical.

Zzyzx said my argument was flawed because the supernatural doesn't exist. The point isn't whether the supernatural exists, but whether if it did it would be able to instigate a miracle without breaking the laws of Nature.

[Defender of Truth]

“Miracles� have now retreated to be nothing more than unverifiable tales told by ancient storytellers and religious promoters

Ah, ah, ah, your discussing whether the concept of miracles is correct. The original post (and my answer to the original post) was talking about whether the concept of miracles is rational.

[scourge99]

But walking on water, flying into the clouds, a dead body rising from the grave, and water magically turning into wine, is NOT consistent and coherent to what is known to be true.

You say this because of Laws of Nature.

No, I say this because it is absurd to believe that people can fly into the clouds in the year ~33AD.

I'll take flying into the clouds for example. First of all, have you ever seen a helicopter?

Are you claiming Jesus flew into the clouds with a helicopter? Or some flying device?

Jesus with a jetpack?

Seriously, though, a guy cannot levitate into the sky because of laws of gravity. However, the law of gravity is a law of nature. It pertains to natural things, which are matter|energy. If you have something supernatural, the laws of nature have no effect because the supernatural isn't natural. The supernatural have a whole different set of laws. They're a different essence.

The notion of "supernatural" is supported by nothing more than your imagination. Its no different than proposing magic or auras. Proposing that a man "supernaturally flew into the clouds" is unsubstantiated, unsupportable by reality, and absurd.

As usual, theists can provide nothing but opinion, conjecture, holybook tales, and appeals to imagination in support/defense of extraordinary claims.

May I remind you that the original post was not asking for an example of a miracle, it was asking if the very concept of a miracle was consistent....

this thread is asking if the concept of miracles is consistent.

Incorrect.
The questions for debate, verbatim:

1) Are miracles possible?
2) And is a person rationally justified when believing in miracles?

Answers:
1a) the existence or nonexistence of a miracle is indeterminable because miracles are indistinguishable from the non-miracles.

2a) People are not rationally justified in believing in miracles.

The question is whether certain events (described by some as "miracles") occurred (or can occur) in reality

Correct, or can occur.

...
I'm simply saying that it would not contradict logic or laws of nature if a miracle were to happen. The reason it wouldn't contradict laws of nature is because the supernatural isn't natural, so the laws of nature don't apply to them.

a contradiction of natural laws is indistinguishable from a natural but previously unknown or rare event.

All you can do is ASSERT something is miracle in the same way another can ASSERT its magic or due to some other unsubstantiated cause. Your claim that it is supernatural is unsupportable by reality. You can only make appeals to your imagination.