A few "miraculous" questions about miracles

[setarcos]

What or who is the primary purpose of miracles for?
Must a miracle be experienced in some fashion in order that it be capable of being a miracle? Can there be unrecognized miracles and how would we know if there are or is this the same as asking the old philosophical question of the tree falling in the forest with no one around ? This last question would relate to the first.

 

[Della]

What or who is the primary purpose of miracles for?

To glorify God.

Must a miracle be experienced in some fashion in order that it be capable of being a miracle? Can there be unrecognized miracles and how would we know if there are or is this the same as asking the old philosophical question of the tree falling in the forest with no one around ? This last question would relate to the first.

There is a difference between a bishop investigating a reported occurrence in his diocese, and people merely assuming that some unexplained phenomena is miraculous.

For example, when Captain Sullenberger managed to land his plane on the Hudson River with no loss of life, everyone called it a miracle. It has some of the earmarks of a miracle–an event that is outside the everyday that was beneficial to those involved. But, would it meet the standards of the local bishop if it were to be presented to him for examination as a miracle? I don’t think so. The explanation for everyone’s survival came squarely within the realm of physical possibility. No divine intervention was necessarily involved, although that can’t be ruled out, it certainly isn’t the only explanation that covers the circumstances.

So, it’s not merely a philosophical argument for a Catholic bishop, who may investigate any reported miracles in his diocese. It’s a determination he must make based on the evidence.

 

[setarcos]

Thank you wonderful scholar for your reply.

To glorify God.

In what manner do miracles then glorify our God? Is it through the witness of mankind? We may conclude then that all miracles must be witnessed by beings other than God in order to glorify God since if the only witness to the miracle is God then God would be merely Glorifying himself which I’m not sure he isn’t ultimately doing anyway. Is this correct?

There is a difference between a bishop investigating a reported occurrence in his diocese, and people merely assuming that some unexplained phenomena is miraculous.

Yes I suppose so. One shouldn’t simply accept any ole purported miracle willy nilly without some sort of methodical verification process. I’m sure ignorance of nature breeds many a miracle. This begs the question though, if a purported miracle which caused the experiencer to glorify God turned out later to be proved a natural occurrence what would actually be the difference between this and an actual miracle which was confirmed by the bishop if both events caused the glorification of God as far as the purpose of miracles goes? What about miracles not recognized as such by the experiencer? Is this a one way street? An actual miracle once it occurs is always recognized by laity and clergy before actual confirmation but a natural occurrence mistaken for a miracle is always eventually recognized and confirmed as not a miracle by the bishop? Is it impossible for the bishop to confirm a miracle as a natural event or confirm an actual natural event as a miracle?

For example, when Captain Sullenberger managed to land his plane on the Hudson River with no loss of life, everyone called it a miracle. It has some of the earmarks of a miracle–an event that is outside the everyday that was beneficial to those involved. But, would it meet the standards of the local bishop if it were to be presented to him for examination as a miracle? I don’t think so. The explanation for everyone’s survival came squarely within the realm of physical possibility. No divine intervention was necessarily involved, although that can’t be ruled out, it certainly isn’t the only explanation that covers the circumstances.
So, it’s not merely a philosophical argument for a Catholic bishop, who may investigate any reported miracles in his diocese. It’s a determination he must make based on the evidence.

Quite right, I wonder though…do you not find it ironic that in order to prove a miracle the bishop must base his determination on methods employing empirical evidence which shows an event to have occurred which defies the use of empirical evidence to show how the event occurred since the confirmation of a miracle having occurred is based not only on what occurred but how it occurred as well?
Blessings be upon you this day and night…