.
What, exactly, is a “miracle�?
Many of these debates involve mention of “miracles�, and many decisions appear to be based upon “miracles�. So, it seems reasonable to ask exactly what constitutes a “miracle�.
What, exactly, is a “miracle�?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
What, exactly, is a “miracle�?
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
TRANSPONDER
- Savant
- Posts: 8253
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 962 times
- Been thanked: 3569 times
Re: What, exactly, is a “miracle�?
Post #31There are two approaches to this: The technical and the polemic.
Which is to say we might ask how a miracle is supposed to happen; what does it and whether some particles react or it is purely an act of divine magic and nothing needs to actually take place.
The polemical is really a faith - claim. that there is no other possible explanation but a god dunnit, and Which god is not even addressed, as one particular God is just assumed, which sorta tells you all you need to know about this kind of polemic.
This is logically and evidentially a fail (not that this is known or admitted when explained, but we must persist) because a miracle (given the event even happened) is simply an unexplained event and unknowns are not evidence, merely events which have not been explained as yet, which is everything from the Sacsayhuaman stonework to Cosmic origins, or from the miracle of the empty tomb to the Fatima apparitions (which I believe I can explain - both of them).
Even if the reports were credible, and actually happened, the explanation of the empty tomb is not known (1) and could be explained in natural/mundane terms (especially using the deletion of inconvenient narrative and invention of occurrences that Bible apologists use), and this (as is usual in Bible apologetics) means the miracle- claim fails at the outset as the miracle claim requires that (Holmes dictum) all other possible explanations must be totally eliminated, leaving a 'Miracle' as the only possible explanation.
This is what Bible apologetics does. In Abiogenesis all other explanations must be dismissed as "Impossible" (the term is regularly used) in order to leave a Miracle as the only possible explanation.
We have seen this just recently here with an alternative explanation for Cosmic origins to goddunnit dismissed on any and every pretext in order to leave 'god'as the only possible explanation, when 'we don't know' is actually the default, not a 'god'.
But this is the failure of theist -thinking. It is Faith -based, and it does not realise that it is, and can't and won't be told.
(1) cue of course the resurrection - accounts, but the fact is that they are terminally contradictory and can be shown on evidence to be invented after the fact and are invalid as evidence.
Which is to say we might ask how a miracle is supposed to happen; what does it and whether some particles react or it is purely an act of divine magic and nothing needs to actually take place.
The polemical is really a faith - claim. that there is no other possible explanation but a god dunnit, and Which god is not even addressed, as one particular God is just assumed, which sorta tells you all you need to know about this kind of polemic.
This is logically and evidentially a fail (not that this is known or admitted when explained, but we must persist) because a miracle (given the event even happened) is simply an unexplained event and unknowns are not evidence, merely events which have not been explained as yet, which is everything from the Sacsayhuaman stonework to Cosmic origins, or from the miracle of the empty tomb to the Fatima apparitions (which I believe I can explain - both of them).
Even if the reports were credible, and actually happened, the explanation of the empty tomb is not known (1) and could be explained in natural/mundane terms (especially using the deletion of inconvenient narrative and invention of occurrences that Bible apologists use), and this (as is usual in Bible apologetics) means the miracle- claim fails at the outset as the miracle claim requires that (Holmes dictum) all other possible explanations must be totally eliminated, leaving a 'Miracle' as the only possible explanation.
This is what Bible apologetics does. In Abiogenesis all other explanations must be dismissed as "Impossible" (the term is regularly used) in order to leave a Miracle as the only possible explanation.
We have seen this just recently here with an alternative explanation for Cosmic origins to goddunnit dismissed on any and every pretext in order to leave 'god'as the only possible explanation, when 'we don't know' is actually the default, not a 'god'.
But this is the failure of theist -thinking. It is Faith -based, and it does not realise that it is, and can't and won't be told.
(1) cue of course the resurrection - accounts, but the fact is that they are terminally contradictory and can be shown on evidence to be invented after the fact and are invalid as evidence.
