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?

[Crazy Ivan]

Question For Debate: Are miracles possible?

Under Hume, not from a human perspective. A miracle is that much more "special" if from a human perspective it is impossible without divine interference. If the perspective of "god" is considered in conjunction with a human's, then it is possible. It all depends on which perspective is considered, or the context under which "possible" will apply, individually or both together.

Under Lewis, "impossibility" from a human perspective doesn't seem to apply. It appears to be just manipulation of probability of what is already possible.

And is a person rationally justified when believing in miracles?

Depends. All it takes is being a believer in "god". With that premise indulged it makes perfect rational sense. Of course it doesn't apply to the non-believer. So if "rationally justified" is meant to apply equally to both, then I don't think so.

[Scotracer]

If a miracle is defined as an event that violates the laws of nature/physics/cake then they are by definition impossible.

Your argument doesn't help your position because if you suppose that the laws of nature do alter over time and space then if an event can happen all on its own, without 'divine' intervention, then it's not exactly spectacular and in no way supports the idea of a god being behind it.

I have and still do hold the opinion that anyone who believes in miracles hasn't actually thought about all that entails. They make no sense. And I stand by my claim that it would be impossible to show that a miracle had taken place since we're not clairvoyant or omniscient.

[bjs]

If a miracle is defined as an event that violates the laws of nature/physics/cake then they are by definition impossible.

Your argument doesn't help your position because if you suppose that the laws of nature do alter over time and space then if an event can happen all on its own, without 'divine' intervention, then it's not exactly spectacular and in no way supports the idea of a god being behind it.

I have and still do hold the opinion that anyone who believes in miracles hasn't actually thought about all that entails. They make no sense. And I stand by my claim that it would be impossible to show that a miracle had taken place since we're not clairvoyant or omniscient.

Are you saying that it is impossible to show that a miracle had taken place in the sense that it is impossible to show any thing is true or real, as in “It is impossible for me to show that you exist – you might be a figment of my imagination�?

Or do you think that it is impossible to show miracles exist under the more reasonable standards by which most of us live our lives?

Please explain how miracles make no sense.




As for the OP, I tend to agree with Ivan, if I have understood him correctly. Under Hume’s view miracles must be possible. For most of us, if we start from the belief that there is a God, or at least that it is reasonable to believe that there is a God, then it is reasonable to believe that miracles are possible. If we start from the position that belief in God is not reasonable then miracles are impossible.

[Zzyzx]

.

Are miracles possible?

Sure. Show me one.

I am not asking for TALES or reports or testimonials of people CLAIMING that “miracles� occur.

It seems as though “miracles� are in short supply (outside of stories that cannot be shown to be free of delusion, deception, imagination, embellishment, exaggeration or downright fraud).

And is a person rationally justified when believing in miracles?

In my opinion, “rationally justified� includes factual information that can be verified by anyone interested. I do not regard as “rational� acceptance of tales that include talking donkeys, stars leading people and stopping overhead, the Earth ceasing rotation, water magically turning into wine, or dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave – based upon unverified TALES of such claimed “miracles�.

[Crazy Ivan]

As for the OP, I tend to agree with Ivan, if I have understood him correctly. Under Hume’s view miracles must be possible.

It's not an issue of Hume's "view", it's just an issue of how he defined "miracle", which forces disambiguation between a human and a divine perspective, in what relates to "possibility".

For most of us, if we start from the belief that there is a God, or at least that it is reasonable to believe that there is a God, then it is reasonable to believe that miracles are possible. If we start from the position that belief in God is not reasonable then miracles are impossible.

For miracles to be considered impossible there is no need to go as far as finding belief in "god" not reasonable. It suffices to lack belief in "god". It eliminates the "divine perspective", under which miracles are possible.

[McCulloch]

Are miracles possible?

Of course they are not. Isn't that the point?

[WinePusher]

If a miracle is defined as an event that violates the laws of nature/physics/cake then they are by definition impossible.

The argument aganist miracles developed by Hume never says that miracles are flat out "impossible." Frankly we do not know for certain that laws of nature and physics are not violated. Whever a quantum fluctuation occurs, it violates the scientific law of the conservation of energy.

Your argument doesn't help your position because if you suppose that the laws of nature do alter over time and space then if an event can happen all on its own, without 'divine' intervention, then it's not exactly spectacular and in no way supports the idea of a god being behind it.

A good point. But if a miracle is defined as "a suspension of the natural order" it would require an "supernatural" force. Assuming miracles (suspensions of nature) do occur, they would require an external supernatural force.

I have and still do hold the opinion that anyone who believes in miracles hasn't actually thought about all that entails. They make no sense. And I stand by my claim that it would be impossible to show that a miracle had taken place since we're not clairvoyant or omniscient.

Lets look at all the miracle claims throughout history.

1) Global Floods
2) Talking Animals
3) People Rising From The Dead
4) Virgin Births

On Hume's view, we shouldn't accept these things passed down by testiomonies because they violate the natural order which we know of. In this modern age, animals don't talk, virgins don't give birth, and floods don't consume the planet. However, it is an overstatement to say that the miracles above are impossible because we do not know whether the natural order as we currently understand is constant. Therefore, miracles are possible. Improbable maybe, but possible.

[Goat]

.

Are miracles possible?

Sure. Show me one.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=14550

[Crazy Ivan]

On Hume's view, we shouldn't accept these things passed down by testiomonies because they violate the natural order which we know of. In this modern age, animals don't talk, virgins don't give birth, and floods don't consume the planet. However, it is an overstatement to say that the miracles above are impossible because we do not know whether the natural order as we currently understand is constant. Therefore, miracles are possible. Improbable maybe, but possible.

"Miracles are possible because we do not know..." is an argument from ignorance, regardless of what follows.