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?

[Defender of Truth]

1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.

I actually disagree. I don't think miracles violate the known laws of nature. As a matter of fact, I don't think something supernatural can break the laws of nature. The laws of nature tells us how nature operates; how the physical world works. They accurately describe how the physical realm functions. However, they don't necessarily apply to the preternatural. They predict what effects happen with certain causes (natural ones), but when you bring in new causes (the supernatural), different effects follow. For instance, the First Law says matter|energy cannot be created or destroyed. But if something supernatural were to create matter and energy, it wouldn't be violating the First Law because the first law is speaking about the physical realm.

It's the same as legal law. Suppose you make a law for your partying son that he has to be home by 10:00, but you get home from work at 11:30. He has no grounds to accuse you of disobeying the law because it wasn't directed at you. It applied to your son. In the same fashion, by definition laws of nature apply to nature, not the preternatural.

So I would say that philosophically miracles are rationally possible.

If you know me, then you know I think they aren't only possible, but have happened on numerous occasions, but that's not what this thread is about.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't think miracles violate the known laws of nature.

Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "miracle" as" 1 a : an extraordinary event taken to manifest the supernatural power of God fulfilling his purposes b: an event or effect in the physical world deviating from the laws of nature

Do you suggest this is incorrect? Would you prefer a different definition?

[Defender of Truth]

Would you prefer a different definition?

Yes please. I was using the definition by C.S. Lewis. "interference with nature by a supernatural power".

The reason I am using this definition is because WinePusher gave it in his OP.

[Defender of Truth]

an event or effect in the physical world deviating from the laws of nature

Yes, deviating from the laws of nature, not violating the laws of nature. There's a difference. Of course I agree that miracles do not abide by the laws of nature. They aberrate, they diverge, they deviate as you said from the laws of nature. However, since they are not bound by the laws of nature (they're not natural, so who would hold them to the laws of nature), they're not breaking, violating, or transgressing the law.

Hope this makes sense. If it doesn't, just let me know.

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

an event or effect in the physical world deviating from the laws of nature

Yes, deviating from the laws of nature, not violating the laws of nature. There's a difference. Of course I agree that miracles do not abide by the laws of nature. They aberrate, they diverge, they deviate as you said from the laws of nature. However, since they are not bound by the laws of nature (they're not natural, so who would hold them to the laws of nature), they're not breaking, violating, or transgressing the law.

Hope this makes sense. If it doesn't, just let me know.

It doesn't - to me. What are the grounds for distinction between 'deviating' and 'violating' in the context of miracles and their relationship to the laws of nature?

[olavisjo]

.

Are miracles possible?

Sure. Show me one.

It would be a miracle to make a computer aware of itself, actually think original thoughts and feel true emotions. And yet computers like that do exist, in fact one such computer is reading these words at this very moment.
So if you want to see a true miracle, you need only look into the nearest mirror and you will see the greatest miracle that you could possibly imagine.
I would only encourage you to be grateful to the God that made the magical moments of your life possible.

[Zzyzx]

.

an event or effect in the physical world deviating from the laws of nature

Yes, deviating from the laws of nature, not violating the laws of nature. There's a difference. Of course I agree that miracles do not abide by the laws of nature. They aberrate, they diverge, they deviate as you said from the laws of nature.

This is an excellent example of word play – redefining, changing or dancing around with words in an attempt to “justify� one’s position.

However, since they are not bound by the laws of nature (they're not natural, so who would hold them to the laws of nature), they're not breaking, violating, or transgressing the law.

I disagree. If a dead body comes back to life after days in the grave and levitates into the sky (as told in bible tales), that DOES violate what we know of nature.

Claiming that such events occur IS a claim that what we know of nature (its “laws�) has been set aside by “supernatural� forces. Of course, those are only stories by unknown writers whose sources of information are unknown.

There is no assurance that any “miracle� claims made for any of the thousands of proposed “gods� are true and accurate – they are only tales and testimonials by proponents of god worship, which cannot be verified.

I never cease to be amazed at the creativity and stretches of imagination some theists will use to defend their magical (or "miracle") beliefs.

Hope this makes sense. If it doesn't, just let me know.

It makes as much sense as talking donkeys and snakes, virgins being impregnated by spirits, people walking on water, seas parting and storms calming on command, water magically turning into wine, etc.

[Defender of Truth]

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.

[Defender of Truth]

Zzyzx, I made post 37 before I noticed your post 36 (you wrote it while I was composing mine). So this one will respond to you.

Claiming that such events occur IS a claim that what we know of nature (its “laws�) has been set aside by “supernatural� forces.

Straw man, I didn't claim that these events occur, I claimed that they are rational. Of course I believe they occured, but that's not what I'm debating right now. The original post was asking if miracles are philosophically rational.

Of course, those are only stories by unknown writers whose sources of information are unknown.

What are you talking about?! I never mentioned the Bible once. Straw man!

There is no assurance that any “miracle� claims made for any of the thousands of proposed “gods� are true and accurate

Straw man. I never said miracles happened, I said they are rationally possible. Find me the post where I said that miracles happened. And the side comment in post 31 was just so people would know what I believed, it had nothing to do with the actual debate, and I said as much.

they are only tales and testimonials by proponents of god worship, which cannot be verified.

"They" have never been mentioned by me.

I never cease to be amazed at the creativity and stretches of imagination some theists will use to defend their magical (or "miracle") beliefs.

I never defended any magical beliefs. So how then are you amazed?

[scourge99]

Claiming that such events occur IS a claim that what we know of nature (its “laws�) has been set aside by “supernatural� forces.

Straw man, I didn't claim that these events occur, I claimed that they are rational. Of course I believe they occured, but that's not what I'm debating right now. The original post was asking if miracles are philosophically rational.

I never said miracles happened, I said they are rationally possible. Find me the post where I said that miracles happened

What does that even mean: philosophically rational?

That you can imagine it?

I can imagine all sorts of fantastic and extravagent things. However, that doesn't mean these imagined events or objects are real or possibly/necessarilly exist in reality.