Your miracle

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Your miracle

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

Some say miracles are real, while others say they're not. The naysayers often point out to limbs not growing back, other dead people not raising up and 'living their best life', no one since Mosses has interacted with a talking and burning bush that's not consumed, etc.
Yet believers do point out that Billy Bobchristian was 'healed' from his sin. Or Bobby Billchristian survived his 11th hour surgery that saved his life. And the like.

For discussion:
So, here's your chance, believers, once and for all. What miracle have you experienced that you KNOW was a miracle and that it was from god (if you're willing to have it, potentially, challenged - and why shouldn't you? You have faith it's real that's all that matter to you, right? Why not use this time to witness the power of your god?!?)?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #71

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Mithrae wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 4:14 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:15 am
brunumb wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:13 am
Mithrae wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 6:45 am Inventing 'laws of physics' or 'nature' is not a valid approach to explaining phenomena when there is no evidence for them. That is precisely what is happening. 'Laws of nature' can be used to explain anything and everything without there being any sign that they are involved at all. They really explain nothing.
What on earth are you on about? Who is inventing 'laws of physics' or 'nature' to explain anything? We have no evidence for anything supernatural. If you can demonstrate that those alleged miracles were performed by some supernatural agency, please do so. Even demonstrating that such a thing is possible would be a good start.
:) I know what out Mithraic friend means. I believe that he is not denying the natural/physicas explanations for what we know, but is arguing that what we can't explain might not be physics.

That is of course an unsound argument, and he should know it by now. Since so much that was once unknown and unexplained is now known to have natural causes, the default hypothesis for the unexplained is natural/physical, not God (name your own, anyway). It only is ever proffered as an argument for God because they believe in their god a priori. and they think (illogically) that 'God' is the default hypothesis where there is any unknown, doubt or question, or gap for God.

That is how the Theist mindset works and why it is always logically wrong.
You seemingly didn't know what I mean, because you've done exactly what I highlighted and what Brunumb has tried to avoid; claimed a broad 'natural' hypothesis of reality as the [better] alternative to theism, without justifying that alternative independently of the observations which suggest its veracity (as is being demanded of theism).

I've never suggested that theism is any kind of default hypothesis, and professing to analyze "the theist mindset" is obviously fallacious ad hominem. Where I begin from, as a starting point, is the logical/epistemic principle of indifference which "states that in the absence of any relevant evidence, agents should distribute their credence (or 'degrees of belief') equally among all the possible outcomes under consideration." Logical possibilities for causation at a fundamental/universal level can be divided into agent-driven, which can be loosely viewed as theistic, and non-agent-driven; two mutually exclusive (at least in any specific instance), logically exhaustive and interchangeable options which therefore, pending some evidence validating one or the other, must be viewed as having equal 50/50 epistemic plausibilities. What we frequently see in discussions such as these, including explicitly from your post above, are attempts to sneak in a metaphysics or broad hypothesis of non-agent causation as a default against which agent causation/theism must be proven in a way that non-agent causation never has been (ie, independently of the observations which suggest its veracity).


TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:29 am That's it indeed. Even without that materialist default (and the Believers hate that almost as much as they hate the burden of proof :P ) equal argument means that the god (whichever) claim has no more force than the possibility that it's natural. It means 'don't know' is the logical and evidence based answer - not God.
Yes, "don't know" is the logical starting point - a genuine, 50/50 "don't know," not the 'don't know' created as a pretext for debate which pretends that one of two epistemically equivalent positions can be dismissed and ridiculed pending its proof by standards never applied to the one quietly accepted as a default.

Brunumb asks for proof that a god is even possible, that causation of observed events at some fundamental agent-driven level can be even considered as an explanatory theory: Clearly it's not merely 'possible' but (pending some contrary evidence) it's at least as plausible as the absence of any such causative agent... and the observation of remarkable events apparently best explained by the relevant experts with reference to such a causative agent makes its existence more plausible still.
Brunum will do it his own way but - yes - exactly. Materialism/science has made its' case for explaining how things work and the unexplained (whether gaps in science or possible miracles) should have the default of a natural (non -supernatural) explanation as a first option if only because the supernatural has no mechanism. That apart from whether supernatural miracle claims are validated. You airily claim that 55% of doctors (suposedly) claim some kind of supernatural effect. And just under half don't see any such thing :D you don't see a problem? Would you like to post a link to where your claim came from?

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Your miracle

Post #72

Post by Eloi »

"Naturalism" or "natural process" is not an absolute term. There are many laws in creation that humans are totally unaware of, and the proof of this is that scientific information is continually updated. It is not realistic to hang what is a "miracle" of current knowledge ... A "miracle" for some, today, may not be for others, tomorrow, depending on what new information we may come to know.

What is the basis for a term like "miracle" as conceived by atheists? Events have been called "miracles" where the direct intervention of God or something "supernatural" has not been recognized. And that's another word that atheists use a lot in a sarcastic, mocking and ironic way... Since man's knowledge is always limited, what could be called "supernatural"?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #73

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Notice how much carrying on there is about how (religious) miracles are possible?

And how little there is to show a god's involvement in anything?

I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #74

Post by Mithrae »

brunumb wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:56 am [Replying to Mithrae in post #67]

As I understand it, miracles are rare or very unlikely events that should not occur if the natural order of things is operating. A specific person winning a lottery with minuscule odds is an unlikely event, but hardly a miracle and not in conflict with nature. So, at what point on the continuum of unlikely events does an event become a miracle?

What criteria are used to establish that a miracle has occurred rather than simply a rare/unlikely event through natural processes? For an event to be deemed a miracle one would surely have to know that the natural order of things wasn't operating. How would you demonstrate that? Do we even have a complete knowledge and understanding of the natural order of things? We have some knowledge, but is it enough to declare that unexpected events must be miraculous with supernatural assistance? We know absolutely nothing about the workings of the supernatural. We don't even know if it exists.
You're trying to make a natural/supernatural distinction without any justification that this supposed 'natural order of things' has any philosophical merit. You're also failing to address any of the points I've raised: We can say with an initial ~50% confidence that choice/agency is likely to be a fundamental aspect of reality, making that a potential alternative explanation in cases where a similarly-hypothetical deterministic/'natural' explanation based on the normal pattern of events eludes us. It can become the best available explanation especially in cases where A) we not only lack specific expectation of an event occurring but expect something different based on the normal pattern of events, and B) the prior introduction of divine/universal agency into the scenario (eg. through prayer) makes that a more parsimonious explanation than ad hoc alternatives. If and when it's the best explanation, pointing out the vague possibility that a time might eventually come when it is no longer the best explanation - when it becomes explained by reference to a comparatively normal pattern of events - doesn't change the fact that it is indeed the best available explanation.

Evidently, the data suggests that there have been hundreds if not thousands of instances in which the occurrence of miracles has been the best available explanation within the past few decades in America alone.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3280
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1550 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #75

Post by POI »

nobspeople wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 8:41 am Some say miracles are real, while others say they're not. The naysayers often point out to limbs not growing back, other dead people not raising up and 'living their best life', no one since Mosses has interacted with a talking and burning bush that's not consumed, etc.
Yet believers do point out that Billy Bobchristian was 'healed' from his sin. Or Bobby Billchristian survived his 11th hour surgery that saved his life. And the like.

For discussion:
So, here's your chance, believers, once and for all. What miracle have you experienced that you KNOW was a miracle and that it was from god (if you're willing to have it, potentially, challenged - and why shouldn't you? You have faith it's real that's all that matter to you, right? Why not use this time to witness the power of your god?!?)?
https://me.me/i/camera-a-invented-time- ... 3a742e18f4
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #76

Post by brunumb »

Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 5:22 pm You're trying to make a natural/supernatural distinction without any justification that this supposed 'natural order of things' has any philosophical merit. You're also failing to address any of the points I've raised: We can say with an initial ~50% confidence that choice/agency is likely to be a fundamental aspect of reality, making that a potential alternative explanation in cases where a similarly-hypothetical deterministic/'natural' explanation based on the normal pattern of events eludes us. It can become the best available explanation especially in cases where A) we not only lack specific expectation of an event occurring but expect something different based on the normal pattern of events, and B) the prior introduction of divine/universal agency into the scenario (eg. through prayer) makes that a more parsimonious explanation than ad hoc alternatives. If and when it's the best explanation, pointing out the vague possibility that a time might eventually come when it is no longer the best explanation - when it becomes explained by reference to a comparatively normal pattern of events - doesn't change the fact that it is indeed the best available explanation.
A lot of rhetoric, but in the face of countless feasible natural explanations for these events, proposing the intervention of something that has not even been demonstrated to exist is far from being the best possible explanation.

Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 5:22 pm Evidently, the data suggests that there have been hundreds if not thousands of instances in which the occurrence of miracles has been the best available explanation within the past few decades in America alone.
Please present this data. If it is just a lot of anecdotal evidence of the "we have no idea how it happened" variety, then we're done. You can believe that some supernatural being arbitrarily hears a plea and snaps its fingers or whatever to cause a cancer to vanish or an eye/limb to mysteriously grow back based on that if you like. Not me.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #77

Post by Mithrae »

brunumb wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:04 pm A lot of rhetoric, but in the face of countless feasible natural explanations for these events, proposing the intervention of something that has not even been demonstrated to exist is far from being the best possible explanation.



Please present this data. If it is just a lot of anecdotal evidence of the "we have no idea how it happened" variety, then we're done. You can believe that some supernatural being arbitrarily hears a plea and snaps its fingers or whatever to cause a cancer to vanish or an eye/limb to mysteriously grow back based on that if you like. Not me.
Sigh. I've already shown the data, numerous times. Medical experts acknowledge miraculous medical outcomes (at a rate of belief/observation equal/higher than the general population), but you insist that you know better, that there is a 0% chance of them being correct in each case. The epistemic principle of indifference suggests a starting ~50% confidence that there is universal agency, but you think you know better than that too. You don't need rational arguments, just your adamant beliefs; and I suppose ultimately it really makes little difference either way as far as I can tell :approve:

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #78

Post by Mithrae »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:09 am
Mithrae wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 4:14 pm You seemingly didn't know what I mean, because you've done exactly what I highlighted and what Brunumb has tried to avoid; claimed a broad 'natural' hypothesis of reality as the [better] alternative to theism, without justifying that alternative independently of the observations which suggest its veracity (as is being demanded of theism).

I've never suggested that theism is any kind of default hypothesis, and professing to analyze "the theist mindset" is obviously fallacious ad hominem. Where I begin from, as a starting point, is the logical/epistemic principle of indifference which "states that in the absence of any relevant evidence, agents should distribute their credence (or 'degrees of belief') equally among all the possible outcomes under consideration." Logical possibilities for causation at a fundamental/universal level can be divided into agent-driven, which can be loosely viewed as theistic, and non-agent-driven; two mutually exclusive (at least in any specific instance), logically exhaustive and interchangeable options which therefore, pending some evidence validating one or the other, must be viewed as having equal 50/50 epistemic plausibilities. What we frequently see in discussions such as these, including explicitly from your post above, are attempts to sneak in a metaphysics or broad hypothesis of non-agent causation as a default against which agent causation/theism must be proven in a way that non-agent causation never has been (ie, independently of the observations which suggest its veracity).

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:29 am That's it indeed. Even without that materialist default (and the Believers hate that almost as much as they hate the burden of proof :P ) equal argument means that the god (whichever) claim has no more force than the possibility that it's natural. It means 'don't know' is the logical and evidence based answer - not God.
Yes, "don't know" is the logical starting point - a genuine, 50/50 "don't know," not the 'don't know' created as a pretext for debate which pretends that one of two epistemically equivalent positions can be dismissed and ridiculed pending its proof by standards never applied to the one quietly accepted as a default.

Brunumb asks for proof that a god is even possible, that causation of observed events at some fundamental agent-driven level can be even considered as an explanatory theory: Clearly it's not merely 'possible' but (pending some contrary evidence) it's at least as plausible as the absence of any such causative agent... and the observation of remarkable events apparently best explained by the relevant experts with reference to such a causative agent makes its existence more plausible still.
Brunum will do it his own way but - yes - exactly. Materialism/science has made its' case for explaining how things work and the unexplained (whether gaps in science or possible miracles) should have the default of a natural (non -supernatural) explanation as a first option if only because the supernatural has no mechanism. That apart from whether supernatural miracle claims are validated. You airily claim that 55% of doctors (suposedly) claim some kind of supernatural effect. And just under half don't see any such thing :D you don't see a problem? Would you like to post a link to where your claim came from?
I've posted a link to a relevant thread a couple of times:
Mithrae wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 6:04 am 3 > There appear to be hundreds of thousands of expert reports of observed miracles over the past few decades, even in the USA alone: A 2004 survey by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies and HCD Research "found that 74% of doctors believe that miracles have occurred in the past and 73% believe that can occur today," but in particular that "a majority of doctors (55%) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous." Those results seem to be consistent with additional surveys in 2008 and 2010. Extrapolating from the fact that there are over 1 million doctors in the USA, we can infer well over half a million expert reports of observed miracles in that country over the past few decades.
Googling the rates at which the general American population believe in miracles (~80% in many older surveys, potentially as low as 67% in some recent ones) and claim to have personally witnessed a miracle (~30-40%) is easy enough. There's no reason to suppose that all doctors should witness miracles if they occur; but among a highly intelligent and educated subset of the population trained to diagnose natural causes and cures, there are excellent reasons to expect that they would not report non-existent miracles at a higher than normal rate. Similarly the medical field is where we might reasonably expect interventions from a benevolent agency to most commonly occur, if they occur at all, since disease and sickness tend to be our times of greatest need and helplessness.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #79

Post by Difflugia »

Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:25 amAs far as I know the most that we could conclude with any kind of confidence is that god/s, if there are any, either don't want to be unequivocally found or don't much care either way, and while that's an important conclusion in terms of invalidating many forms of Christian and doubtless Muslim theology, it doesn't do a whole lot for discussing the subject of small-scale interventions/miracles.
I disagree. Your main contention is that theism, however you're defining it, is essentially equally as likely as nontheism. We can, however, eliminate any theism of which we would be expected to be aware. Is that space an infinitessimal proportion of all possible theisms? Of theisms that would conceivably be responsible for miracles?
Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:25 amFurthermore, contrary to your suggestion, even this incomprehensibly narrow band of things which we have observed under reliable or scientific standards are not really explained without reference to gods, or certainly not to the exclusion of gods.
This is where Occam's Razor comes in. Which explanation should we accept for how automobile engines work:
  • Internal combustion?
  • Internal combustion and magic?
Is there an equal chance that automobiles require magic? We can't detect it and if magic exists, its inclusion in the design wasn't intentional, but we still have no evidence that magic isn't actually involved.
Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:25 amSupposing that these explanations are narrowing the 'gaps' in which god can exist - that they are in any way "evidence of no gods" - would require making the big leap over to philosophical naturalism, which to my knowledge has never been rationally justified (and indeed in my experience, is a topic avoided like the plague whenever those implicit assumptions are pointed out).
It may not have been logically justified, but it most certainly has been rationally justified. The justification is that it works where other methods don't. We haven't logically proven that there isn't a better method, but nobody has proposed one. You're speculating that somewhere there's a better method that would show us the gods. Then, without even defining it, you're claiming that it's even money against philosophical naturalism.
Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:25 amAs to the principle of indifference, you're correct in pointing out that applying it in a logically valid way can be tricky: The various options in play must be mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive and interchangeable (or symmetrical). Any pair of A and not-A will be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive of course, but obviously there is no symmetry between, say, a country with a sasquatch and one without - the variable which changes is infinitessimally small compared to those which remain the same between the two.
This illustrates the importance and necessity of the qualifier that there is no evidence either way. If I reword the dichotomy as a country with a widget and one without and allow the ambiguity of the term widget to stand in for the lack of evidence, then the principle applies. If we don't even know what a widget is, then we have no information about whether the country has one or not. Once we add even a partial definition of widget, then we run into the possibility of evidence spoiling the principle.
Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:25 amHence you're right that any particular conception of a deity couldn't be inferred to have a provisionally 50/50 likelihood based on the principle of indifference. Two binaries which would be symmetrical would be the presence/absence of agency or choice as a fundamental aspect of reality, and the presence/absence of consciousness or thought as a fundamental aspect of reality. Obviously neither of those necessarily imply, say, Christianity or even monotheism; strictly speaking, they might not necessarily imply 'theism' at all, at least in the case of consciousness as the binary variable (cf. panpsychism), although that may be entering the realm of semantic games rather than meaningful distinctions. But again in terms of discussing the reality of miracles, Christianity or monotheism or arguably even strictly-defined theism are not specifically necessary as the causative agents. I suppose in the case of panpsychism the term 'magic' might be a better one than 'miracles,' but the key point - that it still obviously invalidates the already-absurd 'presumption of impossibility' argument which Brunumb etc. have tried to run with - remains in all cases as far as I'm aware.
I think you're splitting hairs to the point that the argument is meaningless. If you're still insisting on the "no evidence" aspect, then both theism and miracle must necessarily be as ill-defined as widget. Otherwise, it's just another conflation of "possible" with "probable." Once we're talking about a specific miracle under specific circumstances, we can at least do statistical analysis. How many stories of similar miracles do we have versus the number of verified miracles? If that number is "a bunch" and "zero" respectively, then the odds that any of them is actually a miracle is low. It's not impossible, but one also can't reasonably claim a lack of evidence unless miracles and deities defy statistical analysis. That has been claimed before by others, but I don't think it's been reasonably supported.
Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:25 amOf course, following on from that provisional starting point, the apparent occurrence of miracles is one (of several) factors which imply a higher than 50/50 probability of thought and choice being fundamental to reality. Some folk no doubt would counter that there are other factors implying it to be lower; but I don't think you have really offered anything in that vein in this post, unless you wanted to further discuss the leap from scientific to philosophical naturalism?
I'd argue that "the apparent occurrence of miracles" is the unfounded presumption. We have claims that are scientifically implausible. Is science unworthy to evaluate such claims? It's possible, but absent another method, "science might be wrong" is too little upon which to affirm "apparent occurrence."
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Your miracle

Post #80

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Mithrae wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 9:05 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:09 am
Mithrae wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 4:14 pm You seemingly didn't know what I mean, because you've done exactly what I highlighted and what Brunumb has tried to avoid; claimed a broad 'natural' hypothesis of reality as the [better] alternative to theism, without justifying that alternative independently of the observations which suggest its veracity (as is being demanded of theism).

I've never suggested that theism is any kind of default hypothesis, and professing to analyze "the theist mindset" is obviously fallacious ad hominem. Where I begin from, as a starting point, is the logical/epistemic principle of indifference which "states that in the absence of any relevant evidence, agents should distribute their credence (or 'degrees of belief') equally among all the possible outcomes under consideration." Logical possibilities for causation at a fundamental/universal level can be divided into agent-driven, which can be loosely viewed as theistic, and non-agent-driven; two mutually exclusive (at least in any specific instance), logically exhaustive and interchangeable options which therefore, pending some evidence validating one or the other, must be viewed as having equal 50/50 epistemic plausibilities. What we frequently see in discussions such as these, including explicitly from your post above, are attempts to sneak in a metaphysics or broad hypothesis of non-agent causation as a default against which agent causation/theism must be proven in a way that non-agent causation never has been (ie, independently of the observations which suggest its veracity).

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:29 am That's it indeed. Even without that materialist default (and the Believers hate that almost as much as they hate the burden of proof :P ) equal argument means that the god (whichever) claim has no more force than the possibility that it's natural. It means 'don't know' is the logical and evidence based answer - not God.
Yes, "don't know" is the logical starting point - a genuine, 50/50 "don't know," not the 'don't know' created as a pretext for debate which pretends that one of two epistemically equivalent positions can be dismissed and ridiculed pending its proof by standards never applied to the one quietly accepted as a default.

Brunumb asks for proof that a god is even possible, that causation of observed events at some fundamental agent-driven level can be even considered as an explanatory theory: Clearly it's not merely 'possible' but (pending some contrary evidence) it's at least as plausible as the absence of any such causative agent... and the observation of remarkable events apparently best explained by the relevant experts with reference to such a causative agent makes its existence more plausible still.
Brunum will do it his own way but - yes - exactly. Materialism/science has made its' case for explaining how things work and the unexplained (whether gaps in science or possible miracles) should have the default of a natural (non -supernatural) explanation as a first option if only because the supernatural has no mechanism. That apart from whether supernatural miracle claims are validated. You airily claim that 55% of doctors (suposedly) claim some kind of supernatural effect. And just under half don't see any such thing :D you don't see a problem? Would you like to post a link to where your claim came from?
I've posted a link to a relevant thread a couple of times:
Mithrae wrote: Fri Mar 20, 2020 6:04 am 3 > There appear to be hundreds of thousands of expert reports of observed miracles over the past few decades, even in the USA alone: A 2004 survey by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies and HCD Research "found that 74% of doctors believe that miracles have occurred in the past and 73% believe that can occur today," but in particular that "a majority of doctors (55%) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous." Those results seem to be consistent with additional surveys in 2008 and 2010. Extrapolating from the fact that there are over 1 million doctors in the USA, we can infer well over half a million expert reports of observed miracles in that country over the past few decades.
Googling the rates at which the general American population believe in miracles (~80% in many older surveys, potentially as low as 67% in some recent ones) and claim to have personally witnessed a miracle (~30-40%) is easy enough. There's no reason to suppose that all doctors should witness miracles if they occur; but among a highly intelligent and educated subset of the population trained to diagnose natural causes and cures, there are excellent reasons to expect that they would not report non-existent miracles at a higher than normal rate. Similarly the medical field is where we might reasonably expect interventions from a benevolent agency to most commonly occur, if they occur at all, since disease and sickness tend to be our times of greatest need and helplessness.
The same as I said above. near half don't see any miracle at all. And I'd need to see the source of the claim. I am only too familiar with believers fiddling what was said (e.g 'By rights we ought to have had his leg off - but it healed up...it was like a miracle'. The terms is too freely used. I'll have a look at the links.

Post Reply