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?

[ChristShepherd]

Isn't this a dumb question to ask Jesus when they recently helped Jesus feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fish?

Yes, it is a dumb question. And it is evidence that the disciples were dumb. So why would the writer of the story allow himself to be thought of as being dumb unless it were true?

So to me it is evidence that it did happen.

I think that you want to believe this no matter what.
Here is more proof that the miracles never happened.
When Jesus was with his Apostles in the garden of Gethsemane, [Mark 14:32-50] when Judas and the men came for Jesus with swords and clubs, the Apostles feared for their lives and they ran away. ""And they all left Him and fled."" [Mark 14:50] Had the Apostles actually witnessed Jesus healing the sick and injured, walking on water, and raising the dead, they would have had nothing to fear. The safest place to be would be with a man who could perform these fabulous miracles. But the Apostles ran for their lives because the miracles in the gospels never happened.

I have proof. You only have a story.
Christ Shepherd

[Cathar1950]

Isn't this a dumb question to ask Jesus when they recently helped Jesus feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fish?

Yes, it is a dumb question. And it is evidence that the disciples were dumb. So why would the writer of the story allow himself to be thought of as being dumb unless it
were true?

So to me it is evidence that it did happen.

Actuality it looks more like the unknown author of Mark made the disciple look dumb so Jesus would look better and being he seem to be a Pauline Christian he was putting Jewish Christians and even the family of Jesus in a poor light. You see the author was trying to make you reader feel smart.

[olavisjo]

How can any assumptions be based on who wrote what and how unintelligent they may have been -- when all is unknown?

I will assume that you are not claiming "all is unknown" when even you said...

The tale was written decades or generations after the claimed event

So we know approximately when it was written and we know what the world was like at that time. We know that the Christian leaders were not enjoying the life of modern Christians like Jim Baker, Joel Osteen, Hagerty, Hin etc. But rather they were looking at torture and death if they were caught. So we know that the motivation for writing these stories were very different than it would be now.

We also have text analysis software that is useful in determining the authorship of literary works. So we can compare works like Shakespeare's and know if they were all written by the same person. The same with the ancient texts.

And even the words themselves will tell more than the author may have intended to reveal as ChristShepherd pointed out...

They should have known that Jesus could make food out of nothing. I contend that this is evidence that these miracles never happened.

I can remember a case where a woman lost her temper at her daughter and in her rage she struck the child so hard she killed her and to explain the girls disappearance she told the police that the girl had been kidnapped. And she played the role of a distraught parent very well and even made a plea through the news media to the kidnapper to return the girl unharmed. But the police noticed that she kept referring to the girl in the past tense and that is when they began to suspect that she was responsible. So even the words themselves will tell a story that is different than the author may have intended. So we can not say that "all is unknown".
So when you put all the known fragments together they will tell a very interesting story but that is far beyond my expertise and I will leave that to the scholars that study these texts.

[olavisjo]

So to me it is evidence that it did happen.

I think that you want to believe this no matter what.

Well, yes and no.
I don't base my belief in God on the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Just like I know by the mere definition of "absolute truth" that absolute truth does exist, I know by the mere definition of "God" that God does exist.
Also the very words attributed to Jesus is enough to convince me that he is God even if none of the events ever did happen. But the historical evidence is, to me, compelling as well.

[scourge99]

Please present for examination the criteria for that which is "rational".

If it violates laws of logic, then it is irrational. If it abides by the laws of logic, then it is rational. Not necessarily true, but rational.

Abiding by the rules of logic IMO would best be described as "logical", not necessarily "rational".

Something can be logical and not necessarily rational.

Rational: agreeable to reason

Reason: Logic

If it is consistent with the laws of logic, then it is rational.

What is reasonably is not simply what is logical. Logic is a framework by which propositional claims can be evaluated from. However, premises can be put forth that have no basis in reality. Conclusions derived from those premises are logical but not necessarily rational. I propose the "rationality" has more to it than mere conformance to logic.

Using your very own criteria, I explained exactly why the claim violated your criteria and therefore wasn't "philosophically rational".

In what post?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 457#322457

Do we need to revisit that exchange to settle that discussion?

Most definitely. Because based on the evidence presented so far, I'm not ready to concede that miracles are irrational. Remember, rationality has nothing to do with actuality, it as to do with being logically sound.

I agree that (by your definition of "rational" and what I would call "logical") miracles are rational.

But so are unicorns, leprechauns, and all manner of imaginary beings.

Do you live as though Jesus flew into the sky and as though aliens exist elsewhere in the universe?

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER MIRACLES ARE RATIONAL OR NOT?! How I live has nothing to do with whether miracles violate a law of logic.

I'm questioning whether you believe its justified to believe in miracles. And if so for you to present justification for such a belief.

Please cite where Hume makes any indication that miracles are impossible or kindly retract the claim.

1st challenge.

Challenge accepted.

Miracles are a violation of the laws of nature (Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, sec. X, pt. I):
1)a miracle by definition is a violation of (or exception to) a law of nature
2) But the laws of nature are built upon the highest degree of probability
3) hence, a miracle by definition (is an exception) is based on the lowest degree of probability
4) now the wise man should always base his belief on the highest degree of probability
5) therefore the wise man should ever believe in miracles.

If miracles are a violation of the laws of nature and according to the dictionary laws of nature are a physical necessity, then miracles (according to Hume) are a physical impossibility.


....

P.S. scourge 99, after going back and looking, I see what you mean how Hume doesn't directly say miracles are impossible, but I don't think that makes too much of a difference because it is totally implied and even if that wasn't Hume's point, it was the topic for debate in the original post.

No, its not "totally implied". Its not implied at all. If Hume thought miracles were absolutely impossible then Hume's statement that miracles are an "exception to nature and based on low probability" would be in contradiction with their impossibility. That is, it makes no sense to claim miracles are improbable if they are impossible. Impossible means a probability of 0. Improbable means some probability greater than 0.

In the absence of evidence for the physical existence of something is it rational to:
1) believe that it does exist.
2) believe that it absolutely does NOT exist.
3) disbelieve in its existence.

You're saying this in response to aliens. I said that someone needs to present physical evidence for aliens (since aliens are physical). I wouldn't ask someone to present physical evidence for something supernatural since the supernatural isn't physical.

If supernatural miracles aren't physical then how exactly does it have any effect on the PHYSICAL world?? If the supernatural has some effect on the physical world then it is OBSERVABLE. If it doesn't then its irrelevant.

E.G., Jesus miracles all deal with the PHYSICAL world. Jesus PHYSICALLY rose form the dead. Jesus PHYSICALLY turned water into wine. Jesus PHYSICALLY walked on water. Did these things not PHYSICALLY happen?

In the absence of evidence for the physical existence of something is it rational to:
1) believe that it does exist.
2) believe that it absolutely does NOT exist.
3) disbelieve in its existence.

So, in the case of aliens, the only logical thing to do is #3 (unless physical evidence is presented). Now, having said that, I actually do believe that a preternatural being has left physical evidence of his existence. Right now I'm discussing that in the thread entitled "do supernatural forces exist?".

Where is that thread? I haven't found it.

take flying into the clouds for example...a guy cannot levitate into the sky because of laws of gravity.....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.

In my understanding you are defining what a miracle is and provide an example. Are you not?

I was defining a miracle, but that was not my example. That was your example, it originated in post 45. I was just continuing the example.

So is Jesus flying into the clouds is not a miracle? Why can you not answer the question directly?

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.

The... nonexistence of a miracle is indeterminable

So you would agree that miracles are not impossible. If miracles are not impossible, then (according to the law of the excluded middle) they are possible, and if they are possible, then we agree on the answer to the original post, which was "are miracles possible?"

Absolutely wrong.

The excluded middle only works if we PROVE one side of the dichotomy to exclude the other side. I.E., if we prove something is possible then it logically follows that it is not impossible. If we prove it is impossible then it is logically necessarily that it is not possible.

No one has PROVEN that miracles are IMPOSSIBLE or POSSIBLE, so excluded middle doesn't apply. Do you understand now?

So it all comes down to this question, do you think that miracles are impossible?

As I said before, the existence or nonexistence of a miracle is indeterminable because miracles are indistinguishable from non-miracles.

[Flail]

Olavisjo wrote:

I don't base my belief in God on the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Just like I know by the mere definition of "absolute truth" that absolute truth does exist, I know by the mere definition of "God" that God does exist.
Also the very words attributed to Jesus is enough to convince me that he is God even if none of the events ever did happen. But the historical evidence is, to me, compelling as well.

IMO, such beliefs without evidence cannot rise to the level of 'knowing' without the combination of indoctrination and a credulous mind. Were you indoctrinated or what was it about the words of Jesus(absent any indoctrination regarding those words) that caused you to accept Jesus as the redeemer of your wrongful conduct? By what process did you come to accept un-evidenced claims as to the supernatural as true?....are yours original ideas or second hand beliefs and where did they come from?

[JoeyKnothead]

Mention miracle and possible in the same sentence and folks'll go to carrying on till the apocolypse.

Mention miracle and show a god is the cause of it and the silence is deafening.

[ChristShepherd]

Phony Christian Miracles

The Apostle Peter, claimed that Jesus was "a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst" Acts 2:22

I say that these miracles never happened and I have the proof they never happened right from the Bible.

1) When Jesus was with his Apostles in the garden of Gethsemane, [Mark 14:32-50] when Judas and the men came for Jesus with swords and clubs, the Apostles feared for their lives and they ran away. ""And they all left Him and fled."" [Mark 14:50] Had the Apostles actually witnessed Jesus healing the sick and injured, walking on water, and raising the dead, they would have had nothing to fear. The safest place to be would be with a man who could perform these fabulous miracles. But the Apostles ran for their lives because the miracles in the gospels never happened.

2) Jesus told the people of his generation...."" "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet"" [Matthew 12:39] Jesus promised no signs to his generation except the resurrecton. Aren't miracles signs? So was Jesus lying when he said he would not perform any signs, or miracles? Or as I contend, this is proof that Jesus did not perform any miracles.

3) At Matthew 14:13-21 Jesus is with his Apostles and he feeds 5,000 men, along with many women and children with just 5 loaves of bread and two fish. And the Apostles witnessed, this amazing miracle. In fact they distributed the loaves and fish.
But one chapter later [Matthew 15:32-38] in Matthew's gospel Jesus performs a similar stunt by feeding only 4,000 this time with seven loaves of bread and only a few small fish.
But here is the amazing part.......When Jesus proposes feeding the multitude, the Apostles say to him ""Where would we get so many loaves in this desolate place to satisfy such a large crowd?"" Isn't this a dumb question to ask Jesus when they recently helped Jesus feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fish? They should have known that Jesus could make food out of nothing. I contend that this is evidence that these miracles never happened.

4)We are all familiar with the story of the woman who was bleeding.
""And a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak; for she was saying to herself, "If I only touch His garment, I will get well." [Matthew 9:20-21] The woman says to herself..." "If I only touch His garment, I will get well."" My question is ...How did the author of Matthew's gospel know what the woman was thinking? I contend that this is just more evidence of the fraudulent nature of these supposed miracles.

5) Remember Jairus?
""a synagogue official came and bowed down before Him, and said, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.""
But Jesus tells the crowd ""And entering in, He said to them, "Why make a commotion and weep? The child has not died, but is asleep."" Mark 5:39
So was the child dead or just asleep? Did Jesus perform a miracle or was this just the story of a charlatan's trickery?

6)When Jesus saw that a crowd was rapidly gathering, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "You deaf and mute spirit, I command you, come out of him and do not enter him again." After crying out and throwing him into terrible convulsions, it came out; and the boy became so much like a corpse that most of them said, "He is dead!" Mark 9:25-26
If the spirit was deaf ("You deaf and mute spirit,") how could the spirit hear Jesus' command to come out?
If the spirit was mute, how could the spirit cry out?

7)And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented." Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." Matthew 8:5-7
In Matthew's gospel, the Centurion comes to see Jesus and talks to Jesus directly. But look how Luke's gospel tells the same story.
Luke 7:2-5
And a centurion's slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, "He is worthy for You to grant this to him; for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue."
In Luke's gospel, the centurion sends Jewish Elders, and never speaks to Jesus directly.
John's Gospel has another twist to this healing story.
""And there was a royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and was imploring Him to come down and heal his son; for he was at the point of death."" John 4:46-47
John's Gospel promotes the sick servant to a son.
These differences point out that the story is fiction and each gospel writer tells the story differently.

8)Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." Mark 9:2-5
Am I nitpicking if I ask how Peter knew it was Moses and Elijah with Jesus? Were they wearing name tags? How could Peter recognize them?
Elijah and Moses died long ago. So where had they been? """No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man"" John 3:13

So what proof do Christians have that Jesus performed miracles? Christians have stories written more than 40 years after the events that they supposedly report?
During the 40 or more years before the Jesus story was written down, the story was told and retold and retold and with each new generation retelling the story the storytellers added fantastic miracles that never happened.

But I have given you proof from the gospels themselves that the miracles are pure fiction.

Christ Shepherd