Miracles in current (and past) events

[achilles12604]

[McCulloch]

Are you calling this event a miracle or not?

Improbable events do occur. That does not prove that there is a supernatural.

After all there are many times where a doctor can not explain a sudden healing of a person.

Let's assume that unexplained spontaneous healing happens .001% of the time. Given the population of the world and the number of really bad things that happen, that means that there will be a significant number of unexplained spontaneous healings.

Now, do we be honest and say that we do not know how they happened or do we suppose some supernatural being must have intervened?

[achilles12604]

Are you calling this event a miracle or not?

Improbable events do occur. That does not prove that there is a supernatural.

After all there are many times where a doctor can not explain a sudden healing of a person.

Let's assume that unexplained spontaneous healing happens .001% of the time. Given the population of the world and the number of really bad things that happen, that means that there will be a significant number of unexplained spontaneous healings.

Now, do we be honest and say that we do not know how they happened or do we suppose some supernatural being must have intervened?

Actually I was trying to make the focus of the question more towards the non-theist viewpoint offered by Hume.

The arguement offered by Hume (and several non-theists on this site) is that because we do not regularly see events like those recorded in the bible, that the miracles of Jesus are therefore made up.

My take on this is that many things occur which can not be explained (or even if they are they go against the "norm" of the physical realm we live in). Since many things occur (although not all the time), why is it impossible for the strange things recorded in the bible to have been invented? This seems to be an arguement from prejudice.

Here is how I read the logic of Hume and his possie.

Premise A - Things do not violate the natural order. Miracles are impossible therefore.

Premise B - Anything that is recorded which does violate premise A was just a coincidence. Miracles are still impossible.


Now this seems like the non-theists are argueing the same way as the young earth creationists. When something doesn't agree with our original premise, there must be something wrong with the evidence, not our ideology.



ANYWAY I digress. My original point was isn't it possible that the stories recorded in the bible are in fact true, but that the people who saw them and attached the label of miracles simply didn't understand what they saw? Isn't this a more likely situation than they were all invented and the gospels, Josephus and the Talmud were all incorrect and or lying? Occam's Razor anyone?

[McCulloch]

The argument offered by Hume (and several non-theists on this site) is that because we do not regularly see events like those recorded in the bible, that the miracles of Jesus are therefore made up.

I think that your viewpoint of this argument is a bit simplistic. The argument more completely goes:

1. Events recorded in the sacred texts of many religions are not the sort that we observe and that they conflict with our current understanding of how things work.
2. Either our current understanding of how things work is incorrect OR there are some inaccuracies or misunderstandings in what has been recorded in the sacred texts
3. Invoking Occam's Razor, it is more probable that things were made up or misunderstood that that miracles occur.

My original point was isn't it possible that the stories recorded in the bible are in fact true, but that the people who saw them and attached the label of miracles simply didn't understand what they saw? Isn't this a more likely situation than they were all invented and the gospels, Josephus and the Talmud were all incorrect and or lying? Occam's Razor anyone?

But if the events of the Bible were not due to supernatural intervention, then they lose their explanatory power attributed to them by the writers. I'm good with that idea, are you?

[Confused]

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Historically, the word "miracle" has always been perscribed to an event for which we have no material explanation. Therefore to justify the event's occurance, people often invoke the supernatural. For example, solar eclipses were once considered miracles. Of course, now that science has enlightened us to the natural physics of such occurances, few people would say the same.

This is most likely another one of those cases.



But let's say it isn't, and this event is in fact, a "miracle". Let's say God personally extended his hand and deflected the bullets from vitally hitting the womans brain. What makes her so special as to deserve this divine intervention? Good, devoted Christians die tragic premature deaths every day. Why don't they get God's sympathy?

In many areas of the globe (staunch Christian nations, even), a majority of the innocent population are suffering from poverty, disease, and violence. Wouldn't this be a great place for a miracle? So God will put forth the effort to save this lone woman from the path of six speeding bullets, but he won't rain bread from the skies in Africa?

Whoever is making these "miracles" needs to get their priorities in line.

[Confused]

Historically, the word "miracle" has always been perscribed to an event for which we have no material explanation. Therefore to justify the event's occurance, people often invoke the supernatural. For example, solar eclipses were once considered miracles. Of course, now that science has enlightened us to the natural physics of such occurances, few people would say the same.

This is most likely another one of those cases.



But let's say it isn't, and this event is in fact, a "miracle". Let's say God personally extended his hand and deflected the bullets from vitally hitting the womans brain. What makes her so special as to deserve this divine intervention? Good, devoted Christians die tragic premature deaths every day. Why don't they get God's sympathy?

In many areas of the globe (staunch Christian nations, even), a majority of the innocent population are suffering from poverty, disease, and violence. Wouldn't this be a great place for a miracle? So God will put forth the effort to save this lone woman from the path of six speeding bullets, but he won't rain bread from the skies in Africa?

Whoever is making these "miracles" needs to get their priorities in line.

For once, we agree.

[achilles12604]

Hi all.

I'm not really back. I have simply been observing rather than participating and I am reading several of the books mentioned by the non-theists. Mack is very interesting. His viewpoints seem to me as far out as the young earth creationists, but that is a different discussion.


As for the miracles. . . .

McCulloch is the closest to seeing what I meant. Here are a few things I am not claiming.

1) I am not claiming that this woman's experience is divine in nature. It could be but I am in no position to say for sure.

2) I am not claiming that this one experience proves God and the supernatural.



What I am trying to point out is that Hume's logic and that of several other non-theists I have encountered is flawed.

I think that your viewpoint of this argument is a bit simplistic. The argument more completely goes:
1) Events recorded in the sacred texts of many religions are not the sort that we observe and that they conflict with our current understanding of how things work.
2) Either our current understanding of how things work is incorrect OR there are some inaccuracies or misunderstandings in what has been recorded in the sacred texts
3) Invoking Occam's Razor, it is more probable that things were made up or misunderstood that that miracles occur.

Point one is partially what I am addressing. This premise is not 100% accurate. The events recorded in the bible have re-occurred in modern times. Specifically the healings without any reason.

http://www.littleman.com/movies/movies/ ... aling.html

http://www.synergy-co.com/pages/townsend.html

These kinds of things happen without explanation. The second link includes sources of information, names, dates and other information to check its accuracy.
These links along with the previous one are evidence that the first premise of Hume's

1) Events recorded in the sacred texts of many religions are not the sort that we observe and that they conflict with our current understanding of how things work.

is not correct. It may explain what happens most of the time, but not all the time. Now whatever the reason, God, the force, Brahma, undiscovered science, or whatever, these things do happen.

The fact that these things happen today, shows that the non-theist claim that unexplainable things (miracles) never happen is flat wrong. A more correct assertation of the situation is that they do happen but not very frequently. So your first premise doesn't stand.

Premise two is actually a plausible admission of the possibility of god.

2) Either our current understanding of how things work is incorrect OR there are some inaccuracies or misunderstandings in what has been recorded in the sacred texts

Since my main point, that premise one is incorrect, has been shown, we must now take that information to the second level and apply it fairly. Now, there may be inaccuracies or misunderstandings, but this is not necessarily the case. Furthermore since I have just shown that similar things occur today, it negates the second option leaving us with only the first or

our current understanding of how things work is incorrect

.

With our knowledge being incomplete, this allows for the possibility of God or other supernatural intervention along with any other options which science can (or in these cases can NOT) offer.

Premise 3

3) Invoking Occam's Razor, it is more probable that things were made up or misunderstood that that miracles occur.

is no longer the best option given the evidence presented. Option 3 MUST have 2 things supporting it. Premise one and a complete knowledge of science and everything working in it. Since NEITHER of these legs is sound, we are left with two plausible solutions.

1) Something here-to-for undiscovered by science has happened and our scientific tools are unable to detect or understand it.

Or

2) Something here-to-for undiscovered by science has happened and our scientific tools are unable to detect or understand it.


Get it?

In addition to this, even if science was able to figure out what happened in these strange and far out cases, this in itself does not eliminate the possibility of God because as I have pointed out science can not disprove the existence of God. Even if we can explain everything in the entire universe (which we can't) our knowledge is still limited to this universe.

An analogy would be a very small person placed into a sealed paper bag with a flashlight. The man can shine his light around and discover everything around him all the way to the absolute maximum of his limits. But just because his flashlight isn't powerful enough to see past the bag doesn't mean that the couch in the next room doesn't exist. Thus is our wonderful science in relation to God. Just because ourwondrouss and powerful scientists can not see or touch God, does not mean that he isn't there.

Any way I digress again.

My main point is that events occur even today which appear to be without explanation. How much more so could this have occurred 2000 years ago? With this being true, I find it safe to say that the miraculous claims in the bible are not necessarily myth or legend, but may in fact be occurences much like those seen today. Totally amazing and unexplainable events which really did occur. Of course I realize the ramifications of this to the theology of the non-theists. But thats why I am here.

:2gun:

[achilles12604]

Welcome back Achilles.

For this event as well as many others like it, medicine is anything but perfect. If each pt that got a disease, illness, or injury followed the textbook example of course of treatment, then medicine would be out of a job. Each human variable has to be taken into account before one can say "It's a mirable". Because the human body is constantly changing and the variable surrounding the human (environment) also play a large part in the outcome of events, one must look at these first. A twist of the body to just the right degrees for each impact can change the trajectory. A momentary increase in the immune system can prevent infection, medications to decrease swelling of the brain can prevent brain damage. It could also be that her husband had horrible aim. The point of this is that we get cases of "luck" all the time. If the bike had been an inch further into the lane, the child would be dead, if this , if that. Unless you can recreate every variable including unknown variables such as the pt immune system, exact position, etc.... then we can't explain it with science. But to explain it with religion is an even farther leap in my mind.

Thanks. I'm not really back. Just checking in to make sure the non-theists don't get to wild.

For this event as well as many others like it, medicine is anything but perfect. If each pt that got a disease, illness, or injury followed the textbook example of course of treatment, then medicine would be out of a job. Each human variable has to be taken into account before one can say "It's a mirable".

This I agree with completely.

A twist of the body to just the right degrees for each impact can change the trajectory. A momentary increase in the immune system can prevent infection, medications to decrease swelling of the brain can prevent brain damage. It could also be that her husband had horrible aim. The point of this is that we get cases of "luck" all the time. If the bike had been an inch further into the lane, the child would be dead, if this , if that.

This is also true. However, science IS able to examine all these things. The doctors can monitor white blood cell counts and anti-body production to discover if the immune system suddenly exploded. This is something we can test and examine. Notice that in my second example above the leg and the infection in the leg was being monotored very carefully. The cellular level was examined on a very regular basis over the course of months. Then when the healing began, the most serious part (life or death) was delt with almost instantly.

Within the first three days of Jack's ministrations, Mitchell's severe pain completely disappeared. Causalgia no longer was present.

Now was everything fixed in those 3 days? No. But the most important parts were. The things needed for continued life were addressed and then medicine and time healed the rest.

In the case of the woman, again science shouldn't be in the dark. We understand physics. We know how a bullet acts when impacting a skull. We know about angles and trajectory. You mentioned that an altered trajectory would change the outcome. True. But they are able to measure the angle of the impact based on the placement of the bullet and the damage left behind. So science SHOULD be able to explain it. This is my point.

Like my paper bag analogy, science SHOULD be able to understand, recreate and examine the cause effect of this incident. They have measured the impact angles, the calibur of the round, the muzzle velocity, the thickness of the human skull. We have all that information so the doctors SHOULD NOT be in the dark. But they are.

Once again I am not trying to prove that this particular incident proves God. I am saying that if with all our wonderful science we still 2000 years later can not explain something as simple as basic physics, why is it so hard to accept that the accounts in the bible are at the very least plausible?

[achilles12604]

Historically, the word "miracle" has always been perscribed to an event for which we have no material explanation. Therefore to justify the event's occurance, people often invoke the supernatural. For example, solar eclipses were once considered miracles. Of course, now that science has enlightened us to the natural physics of such occurances, few people would say the same.

This is most likely another one of those cases.



But let's say it isn't, and this event is in fact, a "miracle". Let's say God personally extended his hand and deflected the bullets from vitally hitting the womans brain. What makes her so special as to deserve this divine intervention? Good, devoted Christians die tragic premature deaths every day. Why don't they get God's sympathy?

In many areas of the globe (staunch Christian nations, even), a majority of the innocent population are suffering from poverty, disease, and violence. Wouldn't this be a great place for a miracle? So God will put forth the effort to save this lone woman from the path of six speeding bullets, but he won't rain bread from the skies in Africa?

Whoever is making these "miracles" needs to get their priorities in line.

This line of reasoning, while intelligent and needing of examination, has nothing to do with my original premise or question. Do I think God should directly intervene and solve all human problems? Maybe. Maybe not. I am certainly not all knowing so I am not going to say that all suffering should or should not be ended.

But again, this was not my question so please don't cloud my little pool with philosophy right now.