Are miracles possible or impossible?

[Prodigal_Son]

Arizona Mike and inocente,

Why all the fuss about prayer studies? Suppose, for a moment, that God exists and often answers prayer. It does not follow that God answers prayers prayed in the context of a scientific study. Why would He? If praying worked like clockwork, if it was causally efficacious like exercising and then losing weight, then people would pray, not as an expression of faith, but as a magic spell.

Thus, God would have a vested interest in making the studies NOT work, since they are obstacles to faith. So, under the theory that God exists and answers prayer, prayer studies are worthless.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But they would not be able to reproduce the event. How do you find the simplest hypothetical laws of nature to explain such a one-time event? It is impossible, given the very concept of a law of nature.

If they could not reproduce the event, then they would claim that it never happened, that it was a fraud. Unless the evidence of its happening were extremely strong. In that case, it would become a huge puzzle in science, and students would constantly be attempting to demystify the study, and explain how physical forces could explain this.

An example: I once read a reliable news report of a shepherd whose flock burst into flames in the middle of a field. This sounded pretty miraculous to me. But scientists just explained it away, saying that the field was full of some gas, and that a random spontaneous combustion occurred. Sure, that explains it.

But that’s what science has to say, or else it admits that some things are inexplicable. (I suppose “God did it” might actually be a scientific hypothesis, but scientists avoid this type of explanation.)

 

[inocente]

Suppose a piece of bread turned into a piece of human heart tissue. Are you really saying that science would simply say “ah-ha!, we have discovered a new law of physics (or chemistry, or biology)!”?

Reminded me of a video claiming just that which someone posted last year, and which turned out to be completely bogus. See here - the linked video and still on YouTube (btw my nickname isn’t Bones, that was someone else on the thread ).

In these cases the first thing is always to carefully check the evidence, and it almost always turns out to be a scam or a hoax or just mistaken.

 

[tonyrey]

Arizona Mike and inocente,

Why all the fuss about prayer studies? Suppose, for a moment, that God exists and often answers prayer. It does not follow that God answers prayers prayed in the context of a scientific study. Why would He? If praying worked like clockwork, if it was causally efficacious like exercising and then losing weight, then people would pray, not as an expression of faith, but as a magic spell.

Thus, God would have a vested interest in making the studies NOT work, since they are obstacles to faith. So, under the theory that God exists and answers prayer, prayer studies are worthless.

Some people seem to have the notion that God is a slot machine…

 

[inocente]

Arizona Mike and inocente,

Why all the fuss about prayer studies? Suppose, for a moment, that God exists and often answers prayer. It does not follow that God answers prayers prayed in the context of a scientific study. Why would He? If praying worked like clockwork, if it was causally efficacious like exercising and then losing weight, then people would pray, not as an expression of faith, but as a magic spell.

Thus, God would have a vested interest in making the studies NOT work, since they are obstacles to faith. So, under the theory that God exists and answers prayer, prayer studies are worthless.

Up until a few years ago people said the same thing about ghosts, they said ghosts will stop haunting as soon as you bring a camera into a haunted house.

But then everyone started carrying a mobile phone with built-in camera, and all the ghosts had to leg it out of here to some other planet!

If God didn’t answer prayer when being watched, that would give us a way to control God like a slot machine, but no one can control God so your plan won’t work.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Reminded me of a video claiming just that which someone posted last year, and which turned out to be completely bogus. See here - the linked video and still on YouTube (btw my nickname isn’t Bones, that was someone else on the thread ).

In these cases the first thing is always to carefully check the evidence, and it almost always turns out to be a scam or a hoax or just mistaken.

Well, sure. Most reported cases of unusual supernatural events are misidentifications, mental illness, or fraudulent. Some aren’t, and the procedures for verifying miracles advanced for the cause of sainthood are as well examined as anything I’ve seen from CSICOP or by any other scientific board. Are they “proofs” for God’s existence? No, how could they be? A proof would require a larger framework than that which we are advancing as a cause. Do they provide evidence, however, that can point us that way? Yes.

I bring up prayer studies not because I think they are particularly valid - anyone showing cause and concern for your well being will probably have an impact on your overall health - but because the issue was raised of the many cases where prayer was (apparently) not answered. A reasonable answer to this is that there seems to be a correlation between prayer by others and an improved state of health in metastudies. There is the possibility of observation bias in anecdotal studies, but it is not UNlikely that prayer could have an effect on medical health, based on the data, unless one enters into the debate with a bias towards methodological materialism.

If we are looking at an exceptionally rare observable phenomenon, pointing out the instances where it doesn’t happen isn’t really useful other than to point out how uncommon it is. Comets are comparatively rare visitors to our skies. In the early days of astronomy, some observers (including Galileo) denied they existed because they didn’t fit some theoretical models, and they were held by Galileo, among others, to be mere imperfections in the optics of the telescope or the human eye. Meteoric falls were also questioned by some (including Thomas Jefferson) as they were not regularly observed. This does not mean that they did not actually occur, or that they were not worthy of further study.

 

[snarflemike]

Reminded me of a video claiming just that which someone posted last year, and which turned out to be completely bogus. See here - the linked video and still on YouTube (btw my nickname isn’t Bones, that was someone else on the thread ).

In these cases the first thing is always to carefully check the evidence, and it almost always turns out to be a scam or a hoax or just mistaken.

Fine, but I’m not talking about scams. I’m talking about the real deal. Is it possible for e.g. a piece of bread to turn (or be turned) into a piece of human heart tissue? Why or why not?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If God didn’t answer prayer when being watched, that would give us a way to control God like a slot machine, but no one can control God so your plan won’t work.

Huh?

“We can’t control God.” Does that mean we can’t cause God to do anything? Surely not! If I sin, I can cause God to extend mercy. Now, surely this is a loose sense of “cause”: I do not determine God’s character, I just provide a prompt for God’s character to express itself. But if you’re asking whether God is predictable, yes, He is. If you think that means we control God, then you use a funny sense of “control”.

 

[tonyrey]

There has been no response to my remark that the only basis for the irrational belief that miracles are impossible is the **unverifiable **assumption that everything can in principle be explained by science - which is restricted to the study of physical objects.

Silence implies assent or impotent dissent!

 

[JDaniel]

There has been no response to my remark that the only basis for the irrational belief that miracles are impossible is the **unverifiable **assumption that everything can in principle be explained by science - which is restricted to the study of physical objects.

Silence implies assent or impotent dissent!

Tony:

And, interestingly, the “restriction” is “self-imposed.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There has been no response to my remark that the only basis for the irrational belief that miracles are impossible is the **unverifiable **assumption that everything can in principle be explained by science - which is restricted to the study of physical objects.

Well, I agree. However, this points scientists in a bind, since they don’t have any principles from which to distinguish things that can be explained by science from those that cannot. So I don’t think scientists should give up the assumption underlying their investigation. However, they should have the humility to say that this fundamental assumption could be false.

 

[epan]

I didn’t, because I suspect that the discussion would immediately get hung up on definitions. I’ll throw out one definition, but leave the option for others different and/or better.

“A miracle is an occurrence which cannot be explained by any known or unknown laws of science.”

The “laws” of science are finite, and always will be. So, by this definition, miracles will always exist. However, some things which have been called miracles, are probably not miracles, as they can be explained scientifically.

 

[inocente]

Well, sure. Most reported cases of unusual supernatural events are misidentifications, mental illness, or fraudulent. Some aren’t, and the procedures for verifying miracles advanced for the cause of sainthood are as well examined as anything I’ve seen from CSICOP or by any other scientific board. Are they “proofs” for God’s existence? No, how could they be? A proof would require a larger framework than that which we are advancing as a cause. Do they provide evidence, however, that can point us that way? Yes.

But the evidence is that spontaneous remissions occur no matter what the patient’s faith or lack of faith, and therefore they are due to some not yet understood process. My main beef with calling them miracles is that it precludes any attempt to determine the cause of the remission (it’s assumed to be a mystery), and that prevents a cure being found.

I bring up prayer studies not because I think they are particularly valid - anyone showing cause and concern for your well being will probably have an impact on your overall health - but because the issue was raised of the many cases where prayer was (apparently) not answered. A reasonable answer to this is that there seems to be a correlation between prayer by others and an improved state of health in metastudies. There is the possibility of observation bias in anecdotal studies, but it is not UNlikely that prayer could have an effect on medical health, based on the data, unless one enters into the debate with a bias towards methodological materialism.

That’s a form of special pleading, i.e. as the evidence isn’t in our favor let’s ignore it and say instead that logically praying ought to make a difference. But it doesn’t change the fact that so far the evidence is not in our favor, although bigger and better run studies are needed.

And you might not like methodological materialists, but they have cured far more people than miracle hunters. When we are ill, virtually all of us go to a scientifically trained medic. Only if they can’t help do we try alternatives as a last resort.

If we are looking at an exceptionally rare observable phenomenon, pointing out the instances where it doesn’t happen isn’t really useful other than to point out how uncommon it is. Comets are comparatively rare visitors to our skies. In the early days of astronomy, some observers (including Galileo) denied they existed because they didn’t fit some theoretical models, and they were held by Galileo, among others, to be mere imperfections in the optics of the telescope or the human eye. Meteoric falls were also questioned by some (including Thomas Jefferson) as they were not regularly observed. This does not mean that they did not actually occur, or that they were not worthy of further study.

But in the cases I saw, the phenomenon was accepted if the person was prayed for and cured, but denied if the person wasn’t prayed for and cured. In fact not just denied but completely ignored.

There are guys who sit in front of the TV supporting their team, wearing a silly hat because once when they wore it their team won. We all of us are very prone to adding two and two and getting five, to imagining causal relationships where there are none, to seeing what we want to see.

 

[inocente]

Fine, but I’m not talking about scams. I’m talking about the real deal. Is it possible for e.g. a piece of bread to turn (or be turned) into a piece of human heart tissue? Why or why not?

No. As well as the structure having to change, some of the atoms would need to change, and while I’m no expert I think the amount of atomic energy required would leave a large smoking hole.

And if it’s human heart tissue, it will have human DNA, so we could trace who the tissue came from.

In that video the guy claimed the wafer turned into tissue from Jesus’ heart, not realizing that would mean he had a sample of God’s DNA.

 

[inocente]

Huh?

“We can’t control God.” Does that mean we can’t cause God to do anything? Surely not! If I sin, I can cause God to extend mercy. Now, surely this is a loose sense of “cause”: I do not determine God’s character, I just provide a prompt for God’s character to express itself. But if you’re asking whether God is predictable, yes, He is. If you think that means we control God, then you use a funny sense of “control”.

I was commenting on your claim that “God would have a vested interest in making the studies NOT work”. If a foreign leader was ill and the CIA wanted him dead, they could get unsuspecting people to pray for him to get well, and according to you God could have to sit back and do nothing! Thus if God made studies not work, that could be used to control outcomes.

But also of course if God made the studies not work, He would be acting to deceive us. God isn’t a deceiver.

 

[inocente]

There has been no response to my remark that the only basis for the irrational belief that miracles are impossible is the **unverifiable **assumption that everything can in principle be explained by science - which is restricted to the study of physical objects.

Silence implies assent or impotent dissent!

That’s also the standard of credibility for UFOs and alien abductions and ghosts and ghoulies and the government can read our minds and fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Basically then, whatever anyone believes must to true if it can’t be explained.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I was commenting on your claim that “God would have a vested interest in making the studies NOT work”. If a foreign leader was ill and the CIA wanted him dead, they could get unsuspecting people to pray for him to get well, and according to you God could have to sit back and do nothing! Thus if God made studies not work, that could be used to control outcomes.

We can trick God. :ehh:

But also of course if God made the studies not work, He would be acting to deceive us. God isn’t a deceiver.

We don’t have a right to answered prayer. Moreover, God would not be acting to deceive us: not answering prayer is not an action.

And I’m not so sure God isn’t capable of deception, either. I mean, consider the story of Abraham and Isaac.

 

[inocente]

And I’m not so sure God isn’t capable of deception, either. I mean, consider the story of Abraham and Isaac.

Abraham was not deceived, it’s Satan who is called the Great Deceiver.
*
CCC 156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”*

(And not to deceive you, no I didn’t know that was in the CCC, just typed “does god deceive us” into Google and there it was.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Abraham was not deceived

So he thought that God wouldn’t require him to sacrifice Isaac, after all?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So he thought that God wouldn’t require him to sacrifice Isaac, after all?

God ordered him to kill his son. He then rescinded the order. That’s not lying. If God had told Abraham that he would wind up killing his son and that nothing could stop it, that would be lying.

I tend to agree with Kierkegaard - the test for Abraham was not that he was willing to sacrifice even his own son at God’s order, but that Abraham believed, even as the knife started to descend, that God would stop him. It was also, of course, a foreshadowing of another Father who would offer up his own Son for sacrifice in the place of man.