About miracles, in general

[Sophia]

I read the thread called “Miracles to convince me, a non-believer” and I saw a lot of strange assertions. First, one must slow down, and contemplate:

What is the definition of a miracle?

An event which cannot have a material cause, not just according to our current and limited knowledge, but in principle. Something that logically points to a non-physical entity who brought this physical event forth (let’s call it: God). Of course this would require omniscience on the part of the apologist, who must have full and total knowledge about all the laws of nature. Now, that is impossible, so we can safely say that no apologist has the epistemological right to declare that event “X” is or was a miracle. Mind you, it does not say that miracles themselves are impossible, only that no apologist is qualified to declare that a certain event was a miracle.

Now, some people would prefer to lower the standard, and assert that some events could rightfully be declared miraculous, even if we cannot have full knowledge about ALL the laws of nature. Let’s examine this possibility. Not ALL the laws of nature are equally well substantiated. The most fundamental ones are the basic laws of physics, the “conservation laws”, conservation of matter, energy, momentum, etc… These laws are so well established that only some extremely well designed and repeated experiment could falsify them. Again, these laws are “descriptive”, not “prescriptive” so - theoretically - they might be incorrect.

Then there are some other laws of physics, equally well established. The known “constants”, like the speed of light in vacuum, the existence and value of absolute zero, the Avogadro number, the number of electrons on the successive electron shells, and many other ones. Any experiment - sufficiently well designed and repeated - that would violate these laws could be declared a “miracle”. Observe the importance of repeatability. It is important, since these would be “impersonal” miracles.

One example might be to see the stars on the night sky reorganize themselves and display the Lord’s Prayer in different languages. Or, all of a sudden we would discover a new atom, where the innermost electron shell would contain more than two electrons. There is no sufficiently advanced alien race that could provide such a miracle.

Continued below…

 

[Sophia]

Continued from above…

So, if you wish to present a true-blue, bona fide miracle, you can safely forget about “miraculous healings”, “Eucharistic miracles”, the “events at Fatima”, or the “shroud of Turin”, “stories about resurrection” and the like. None of them qualify as real miracles. To make them to be miracles, the definition must be “diluted” further. It would be the “God of the gaps”-type definition: “we currently have no explanation, so it MUST be an act of God”.

Now, even this seriously “watered down” definition could have some convincing value, IF it would be predictable and repeatable. If some group of apologists could declare up-front that they will pray (in the name of Jesus) for some desirable outcome of events (like the eradication of contagious diseases, or the conversion of all the “evil” atheists ), something that would meet God’s assumed approval. And then after a certain, previously declared time, the desired effect would materialize.

However, the believers have a sure-fire “argument” against those: “You cannot put God to the test”. Observe, the word: “cannot” does not mean that you are unable to put God to the test… Of course you can, and if the test is properly designed, double blind test, you should follow the outcome. If the test comes up with a positive result, your hypothesis gained some credibility. If the test comes up with a negative result, your hypothesis lost credibility. (Usually just one negative result should disqualify the hypothesis. You can never “prove” a hypothesis, only “disprove” it.)

The expression “You cannot put God to the test” the word “cannot” means: “you are forbidden to put God to the test!”. And the reason is obvious: “your test WILL fail”. And before you ask: “am I omniscient to make such a strong prediction?” - no, I am NOT omniscient, but I am willing to bet on it, bet everything I have, and everything I can borrow, too. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? “Banque ouvert” - as the croupier says - the bank is open and willing to take your “bet”. The only requirement is that the bet must be honest, clean, designed and submitted by a group of believers and skeptics together.

So, any takers?

 

[undead_rat]

Your cannot dismiss the Shroud of Turin.
In 1898 Pia’s astounding negative plate provided proof that this cloth really was the burial shroud of Jesus.
The first theory as to the cause of Jesus’ image was proposed by Vignon in THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, 1902. This was the “vaporographic” postulation that Jesus’ corpse emitted fumes which resulted in His image being imprinted onto His burial cloth. This theory has been disproven. The intensive 1978 investigation of the Shroud supported the 1898 proof, but was unable to provide any viable theory as to how Jesus’ image was coded unto the cloth.*

In 1988 carbon fouteen data was taken from a Shroud sample. Since the Shroud had already been proven to be the burial cloth of Jesus, any C-14 data that did not indicate an age of 2000 years would have to be proof that the Shroud had been subjected to a neutron flux (which would have increased C-14 content of its linen.) No one has ever alleged that Shroud was taken to a nuclear reactor. Therefore, the neutron flux must have been a side effect of the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse into another dimension. Atoms are composed of both protons and neutrons, so if a neutron flux occurred, then a residual proton radiation field must also have been present at the vanishing.
The characteristics of the image on the Shroud are consistent with having been formed by the cloth passing through a proton radiation field.**

The conclusion is that the 1988 C-14 data is proof that Jesus’ corpse vanished into another dimesion. That, my friend, is proof of a miracle, one that the whole world can witness. The Shroud of Turin is the long ago predicted Sign of Jonah.

*REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Heller, 1983
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015, (chapter on the Historically Consistent Hyposthesis)

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

you can safely forget about…"Eucharistic miracles”

I’ll personally give lifelong funding for the experiments of any scientist that can change bread into actual human flesh. Discounting Eucharistic miracles is, quite honestly, ridiculous.

 

[Sophia]

The conclusion is that the 1988 C-14 data is proof that Jesus’ corpse vanished into another dimesion. That, my friend, is proof of a miracle, one that the whole world can witness. The Shroud of Turin is the long ago predicted Sign of Jonah.

Ouch!

I’ll personally give lifelong funding for the experiments of any scientist that can change bread into actual human flesh. Discounting Eucharistic miracles is, quite honestly, ridiculous.

Any, half competent stage magician can perform such acts.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Oh, so now our priests are magicians? How remarkably offensive.

I also want to see if you can actually prove that it was a magic trick.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Any, half competent stage magician can perform such acts.

A stage magician can turn bread into heart tissue? Like really do it and withstand scientific analysis? I’d love to see that happen!

 

[Sophia]

Edited to clarify:

Oh, so now our priests are magicians? How remarkably offensive.

There is nothing offensive about it. Stage magicians (except the Uri Geller like charlatans) are honest people. They do not try to sell their performance as anything but entertainment. The point is that all the assumed “miracles” can be duplicated by non-miraculous means, thus making the assumption of the miracle uncalled for.

I suggest you all review the examples I provided in the OP. Those would be real miracles, since they would all violate the extremely well substantiated laws of nature.

I also want to see if you can actually prove that it was a magic trick.

I did not say that it WAS a magic trick, only that it could have been. Uri Geller and his brand of charlatans say that their “tricks” are performed via some paranormal powers. Yet, the same tricks can be performed by everyday stage magicians. This does NOT prove the nonexistence of paranormal powers, it proves that the ASSUMPTION of those powers is unnecessary.

Let me repeat from the OP: I do not assert that there are no miracles, only that none of the apologists have the epistemological wherewithal to claim it.

A stage magician can turn bread into heart tissue? Like really do it and withstand scientific analysis? I’d love to see that happen!

Since none of those alleged Eucharistic miracles were performed in properly organized and scientifically analyzed setup, your demand is premature.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Since none of those alleged Eucharistic miracles were performed in properly organized and scientifically analyzed setup, your demand is premature.

No. Actually, it’s not premature. Whether or not you believe the Eucharistic miracles to be true, there has been some testing done. We’d be looking for male heart tissue with the same blood type as the others.

 

[Sophia]

No. Actually, it’s not premature. Whether or not you believe the Eucharistic miracles to be true, there has been some testing done. We’d be looking for male heart tissue with the same blood type as the others.

“Some” testing you say? Performed by whom? Was the chain of custody maintained? Could the sample have been contaminated, either accidentally or maliciously?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

No. Actually, it’s not premature. Whether or not you believe the Eucharistic miracles to be true, there has been some testing done. We’d be looking for male heart tissue with the same blood type as the others.

“Some” testing you say? Performed by whom? Was the chain of custody maintained? Could the sample have been contaminated, either accidentally or maliciously?

I have no idea. I’ve never seriously invested the Eucharistic miracles and I remain quite skeptical of them, so you tell me.

I’m not claiming the magician would have to be held to a different standard. Could he make it past the same level of scrutiny?

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

So to look at miracles you must ignore miracles that have tonnes of positive evidence?

Makes sense if you live in Backwards-Ville,

Another aetheist thread where we are asked to prove the evidence of miracles without using proven miracles.

prove to me the existance of dinosaurs, but you can’t use history and archaeology?

If it didn’t happen in a laboratory, it didn’t happen?
So therefore you don’t exist, the big bang never happened, dinosaurs never walked the earth,

Tell me what living breathing dinosaur was investigated in a laboratory? None. Yet the evidence shows 100% that dinosaurs walked the earth.

Thank goodness you are not on a jury panel right now:
‘Prove to me this case, but only use evidence that happened in a laboratory.’ (Forget about all the historic evidence, witnesses, medical evidence, forensic evidence, psychiatric evidence, geological evidence, )

You would not have made a good detective / police officer/ Judge,…

 

[Sophia]

I have no idea. I’ve never seriously invested the Eucharistic miracles and I remain quite skeptical of them, so you tell me.

If you are skeptical about them, then why did you bring them up?

I’m not claiming the magician would have to be held to a different standard. Could he make it past the same level of scrutiny?

The magician does not claim a “miracle”. When a magician presents a new “trick” - and everyone understands that it is just a trick (not a miracle), other performers will create their own version of it. They do not necessarily use the same methods, only replicate the outcome.

All those “miracles” from the Bible - walking on water, levitating, etc. - can be performed very convincingly without referring to a miracle.

Let me remind you, the definition of a miracle is something that cannot be reproduced by non-miraculous means.

 

[gregoryphealy]

The philosophical distinction you’re approaching is between proof beyond all possible doubt and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and I’ll demonstrate it quite succinctly with your own scenario.

Any experiment - sufficiently well designed and repeated - that would violate these laws could be declared a “miracle”. Observe the importance of repeatability. It is important, since these would be “impersonal” miracles.
…
There is no sufficiently advanced alien race that could provide such a miracle.

Prove the last statement beyond all possible doubt. I’ll wait…You can’t, because, as you mentioned, you’re not omniscient. So why are you parading around like any of the “miracles” you listed would be miraculous?

What I find interesting is that you appeal to science (or science-like methods). Science operates under the assumption that what’s tested through the scientific method is falsifiable (you seem to understand this as you state later on that you can only disprove a hypothesis). Every statement about nature contains some degree of falsifiability, even your constants. There are things that are unfalsifiable, but they are deductively entailed by falsifiable theories and are not found in nature. Things like mathematics, logic, and metaphysics. They’re all immaterial. So what I’m getting at is if you’re asking for something not falsifiable so that you might believe in God, it would have to be something immaterial and unscientific, thereby invalidating your testing procedures. If it’s material, and empirically “testable”, it’s falsifiable. In which case, why would you believe?

Catholics only have to believe in only a handful of miracles. Namely, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and the Resurrection of Christ (though there are more that a Catholic should believe in). But contemporary miracles or miracles of the saints? No, we’re not required to believe those. Can I know that the miracles I’m required to believe in happened in the same way that I know 2+2=4? No, I can’t. Can I have faith that those miracles happened? Sure can.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If you are skeptical about them, then why did you bring them up?

I didn’t!

I responded to your comment about the magician.

The rest of your comment has no bearing on what we have been talking about. You claimed that any competent magician could recreate them.

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

The conclusion is that the 1988 C-14 data is proof that Jesus’ corpse vanished into another dimesion. That, my friend, is proof of a miracle, one that the whole world can witness. The Shroud of Turin is the long ago predicted Sign of Jonah.

Ouch!

Lisa is working on her Phd thesis, and she attempts to carbon date her grandmother’s linen tablecloth as a part of that report. But the C-14 data does not make sense, so she goes to her instructor, Dr. Husayn Fairieson:
Lisa: “Dr. Fairieson, the C-14 data on my grandmother’s tablecloth indicate that its linen was produced from flax that was grown in 2017, but that does not seem possible. Is my grandmother lying to me about this cloth, or is she delusional? Did she very recently go out a buy a table cloth and then make it look 60 years old?”
Dr. Fairieson: “Lisa, how did your grandmother come to possess her tablecloth.?”
Lisa: “She says that she got it as a wedding present in 1959.”
Dr. Fairieson: “Lisa, let this be a lesson to you. One cannot attempt to interpret C-14 data in a vacuum. One must take into account all known historical factors on the artifact being tested. In this case we know that atmospheric nuclear bomb testing had been taking place in the 1950’s, and these events caused neutron fluxes which converted carbon-12 into carbon-14 in the atmosphere. That is why the linen in that tablecloth has a higher level of C-14 than one would expect for its purported history. Its C-14 data indicates an event rather than a date.”
Lisa: “Oh, doctor! I feel like such an idiot to have overlooked that!”
Dr. Fairieson: “Don’t feel bad, Lisa. The British Museum made exactly the same mistake when they received the C-14 data from the Shroud of Turin. The atheist in charge of the data’s analysis ignored the fact that the Shroud had already been proven to be 2000 years old and interpreted that data as indicating a date when it actually indicated an event.”
Lisa: “What event, Dr. Fairieson?”
Dr. Fairieson: “Why the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse from His tomb, which seems to have caused a neutron flux that converted nitrogen atoms in the Shroud’s linen into carbon fourteen. That same event also explains how Jesus’ image came to be imprinted on His burial cloth. Both proton and neutron radiations were residual effects of the vanshing of His corpse into another dimension. It was the proton radiation that discolored some of the Shroud’s linen fibrils resulting in an image.”
Lisa: “Wow! That’s amazing! How did you learn about this?”
Dr. Fairieson: “Here is a copy of a book written by a former prosecuting attorney in collaboration with a nuclear physicist. It explains how the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse explains all of the strange features that have been found on His Shroud. Don’t think that we do not have proof of a miracle until you read this book!”***

***TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015 (in collaboration with nuclear physicist, Robert Rucker)

 

[Sophia]

Prove the last statement beyond all possible doubt.

Even the most advanced race would live within the universe (the universe is everything there is) . So they could not perform any act that would violate the basic laws of the universe. It is true that we might not know ALL the laws, but we know enough of them so we can rely on them.