Are there miracles?

[steveandersen]

Sam88:

…If an event does not fit into any known pattern, then the observer is likely to conclude that the pattern is actually more complex, and will therefore devise a more complex pattern into which the new event will fit. Therefore, every event either fits into a pattern – or the pattern is changed until it does!

In other words, when ever an event does not conform to what I understand the laws of nature to be, I just redefine my understanding of the laws of nature until it does. Therefore, every event can be made to conform to the flexible “laws” of nature…

err
I’m not quite sure I follow you here.
The “laws” of nature are pretty cut and dry.
One outlying data point doesn’t allow you to “change the pattern”. Naturalistic explanations will always have to go with the preponderance of the evidence, not the exceptions.

The loaves and fishes clearly violates the conservation of matter….no amount of “flexibility” is going to change that

Although, AFAIK, most modern miracles involve medical matters. Medicine has a large empirical component to it and has to contend with a large amount of natural variance so the “laws” of nature are rarely involved rather it is the realm of probability and certain deterministic process.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sam88:

…

For this post I will assume that by a “law of nature”, I mean any consistently observed pattern of events that can be identified and could potentially be used to predict future events. When some event occurs, we say that we have an explanation of that event when the event fits into one of these previously identified patterns.

…

Given these definitions (which I do not agree with), the question of whether “miracles” occur is equivalent to asking whether all events which occur are consistent with some predictable pattern, or whether some are truly unpredictable or random. This I take to be equivalent to the question of whether the universe is deterministic, or whether “random” events that are not predictable or explainable occur.

…

I think it is wrong to conclude that your definition of laws of nature does not imply determinism. Such laws of nature could indeed be probabilistic and thus account for randomness and that breed of unpredictability.

 

[I_Leatherman]

The character of the unexplained event could also be interesting.
If your argument is that a miracle is not a miracle because it may just be the result of some random natural process which we are of yet unaware of - this denies any possibility of the unexplained event displaying any type of personal character of its own.
As in someones example above of radiation acting on a photosensitive plate - very mysterious indeed when your have no knowledge of radiation, but how would you explain it if the exposed film showed character by including the words on the exposed film:

HEAVEN
01/04/18**

DEAR Hitetlen,
BE GOOD.
LOVE,
GOD.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

EnterTheBowser:

I think it is wrong to conclude that your definition of laws of nature does not imply determinism. Such laws of nature could indeed be probabilistic and thus account for randomness and that breed of unpredictability.

Sorry, misspoke (“spoke”). I think it is wrong to conclude that that definition of the laws of nature does imply determinism.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Suppose I asserted that everything I read on this forum might be generated by a computer program, therefore none of these people really exist?

It is a possibility that this assertion is correct. Do you have any evidence to support it?

hurst:

The fact is, if the instantaneous replacement of missing limbs has a natural explanation, then why does it not happen naturally?

It does not happen at all. If it would happen, we would start to look for an explanation.

hurst:

Perhaps to the one who has the knowledge and power, it would not seem “miraculous”.

But to the poor recipient, it certainly is.

Arthur C. Clarke said once: “every sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. But that does not imply that we should just say: “magic”, when something hitherto unexplained event occurs. In old times when technology and human knowledge was miniscule compared to today, people filled up the gaps of their knowledge with “magical explanations”. As knowledge expanded, miracles and magic started to disappear.

There are still many unexplained events today. When science comes up with an answer, it seems to open new unknown paths, which can be pursued. And that is precisely what science does. No scientist worthy of his salt will just cry: “magic” or “miracle” and let it pass. The more astonishing a new event is, the more people are willing to spend time and energy to explain it.

 

[Hitetlen]

Fidelis:

An absolute statement such as this last one does not reflect an “open mind.”

Well, as the old saying goes, “one should have an open mind, but not too open, so it will not fall out”. Besides, having an open mind only means that one is willing to consider evidence, not that any idea should be given equal consideration. New agers use similar argument when people dismiss their claim for which there is no evidence at all.

To have an open mind does not equal gullibility.

 

[asteroid]

At college we had to write an essay with the title “God, Miracles, and David Hume”.

Basically Hume said the following about miracles:

a) a miracle is an event contrary to the laws of nature.

b) if an event happens it is not contrary to the laws of nature.

c) therefore there are no miracles.

He would thus say that if a few loaves of bread multiplied to feed 5000, if someone’s leg suddenly grew back after prayer, then it is not a miracle - we just don’t understand the laws of nature well enough.

That’s a bit oversimplified but gives the gist of his arguments.

In Hume’s view there are no miracles - but surely that’s only because

a) he’s eliminated the possibility of them in his definition of miracle.

b) he rests his case on his second assumption - which personally I believe to be false - and on his first assumption - which personally I believe to be a too narrow definition of miracle.

Regarding that definition - if I were to pray that God removed a despotic regime of some country next Tuesday and then the regime was removed in some way, no laws of nature need have been broken but I’d put it in my definition of miracle.

Needless to say, I never followed the conclusions of Hume in my essay.

 

[Hitetlen]

Marilena:

Tell me something, do you believe Jesus Christ performed miracles when He was on earth? Do you believe what it says in the Bible about the account of some of the miracles He performed while He was on earth? Do you deny it? Also, do you believe in God, or are you an athiest, agnostic?

I am an atheist so I do not believe any of them, but I am open to consider evidence if and when it is presented.

Marilena:

Do you believe in the resurrection? Do you think Christ was resurrected? Do you believe He raised Lazarus from the tomb? The Bible states that Jesus performed far more miracles than was documented in the Bible. or do you think that Christ did not exist, and therefore He did not perform any miracles?

Whether Jesus was a historical person or not is unknown.

Marilena:

I myself do believe in miracles, look at the account of Fatima, Lourdes, Medugorje, Padre Pio, Guadalupe, look at the Holy Shroud of Turin! 70,000 people in Fatima witnessed the miracle of the sun. You can read about that account online. or do you think it was mass hallucination? Not possible.

Yes it is very possible. Unfortunately most people see what they expect to see. It happened that a Christmas card was printed with a serious typo in it. Hundreds of thousand of people never realized it, becuase they saw what they wanted or expected to see. When an accident occurs the investigators know that eye-witnesses are extremely unreliable witnesses.

Marilena:

What about all the miraculous healings from Lourdes? I can personally testify that my neice was ill, and when my sister put some Lourdes Holy Water on her, her fever left. That is a fact.

I don’t doubt your fact, but I doubt the explanation. the problem with such “evidence” is that it is so incomplete. I bet you do not believe that everyone who ever used that “holy water” was healed every time. Forgive me for going into a little mathematics here.

There are four possibilities:

1. Holy Water applied, patient is healed.
2. Holy Water is NOT applied, patient is healed.
3. Holy Water is applied, patient is NOT healed.
4. Holy Water is NOT applied, patient is NOT healed.

Of these only the first one is ever reported. If you would like to substantiate that application of the Holy Water has curative powers, you should investigate all four possibilities, and THEN we would be in the position to evaluate the probabilities. The trouble is that the fourth event is impossible to know.

Marilena:

Jesus states that “things impossible with man, are possible with God” I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe He performed miracles while He was on earth, Jesus is True God, and True Man. I believe in Him, and always will.

Well, yes, Jesus also said that if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can perform miracles, like moving that mountain from your way. Actually Jesus promised that such miracles can be performed by anyone if they ask God in his name. Unfortunately the miracles are not forthcoming. So either no one has enough faith, of Jesus was mistaken.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

asteroid:

At college we had to write an essay with the title “God, Miracles, and David Hume”.

Basically Hume said the following about miracles:

a) a miracle is an event contrary to the laws of nature.

b) if an event happens it is not contrary to the laws of nature.

c) therefore there are no miracles.

He would thus say that if a few loaves of bread multiplied to feed 5000, if someone’s leg suddenly grew back after prayer, then it is not a miracle - we just don’t understand the laws of nature well enough.

That’s a bit oversimplified but gives the gist of his arguments.

…

I have also read section 10 of the Enquiry, and that is definitely not a correct reading of his arguments, even a simplified version. Rather, Hume says something more like this: the events claimed as miracles are generally contrary to known laws of nature. This immediately presents an exceedingly strong inductive argument for supposing that they did not happen, especially given that the evidence for miracles generally comes from the testimony of other people about past events. He then talks about other situations where we are inclined to doubt such evidence (that sort of testimony), and notes that they are generally cases where there is strong reason to doubt the thing described happened. So miracles are no different: we have the words of individuals regarding past events versus exceedingly strong inductive arguments; and in nonreligious contexts we generally give preference to the inductive argument.

Additionally, Hume talks about how each religion has its miracles, and that for that reason they are rather contradictory, since each supposedly establishes the validity of mutually exclusive beliefs about the world.

Additionally Hume remarks that miracles always occur in old times and “uncivilized” places - that, in other words, we rarely hear about well-documented miracles (with evidence other than personal testimony).

 

[asteroid]

EnterTheBowser:

Additionally Hume remarks that miracles always occur in old times and “uncivilized” places - that, in other words, we rarely hear about well-documented miracles (with evidence other than personal testimony).

Well, he’s wrong on two counts there. I personally know people to whom miracles have occurred.

An example: One woman I know was sick and so she had an operation in which was removed all the things she would need to have a baby (womb etc), making pregnancy a medical impossibility. She has had two children since that time. I don’t know if 2000AD in Wales counts as old times and uncivilised. Hume should have looked a little further.

Regarding miracles at Lourdes, for them to be categorised as a healing miracle it takes the testimony of doctors at Lourdes, full medical notes, the impossibility of the miracle, and then the investigation of a further team of doctors including experts in all relevant fields of medicine. These aren’t “old time” or “uncivilised” either.

In any case, why argue that something probably didn’t happen if it is contrary to known natural laws, if there are good eyewitness and medical accounts? (as Hume would have us do)

Sorry for my poor rendition of Hume - in either case his arguments seem very poor to me.

 

[Vicia]

livingmiracles.net/Incorrupt.html

Hitetlen, you said “I am an atheist so I do not believe any of them, but I am open to consider evidence if and when it is presented.” Here it is. Have you looked at it yet?

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

Yes it is very possible. Unfortunately most people see what they expect to see. It happened that a Christmas card was printed with a serious typo in it. Hundreds of thousand of people never realized it, becuase they saw what they wanted or expected to see. When an accident occurs the investigators know that eye-witnesses are extremely unreliable witnesses.

Hitetlen -
Have you actually done any research on the miracles mentioned? Many of the observers were skeptics, and though the apparitions had said there would be a miracle, they did not specify what the miracle would be. Everyone knows what to expect in a Christmas card, and people do not generally look for errors in them. On the other hand, when a large crowd of people, some atheists like yourself, simultaneously witness the same unexplained event, this is not so easily dismissed; unless, of course, you have made up your mind to dismiss it beforehand. If you are so quick to regard personal experience as completely invalid one wonders how you can claim to know anything at all.

 

[Sam88]

steveandersen:

err
I’m not quite sure I follow you here.
The “laws” of nature are pretty cut and dry.
One outlying data point doesn’t allow you to “change the pattern”. Naturalistic explanations will always have to go with the preponderance of the evidence, not the exceptions.

No, the “laws of nature” as understood by science are modified regularly. For example, the “law” said that the mass of an electron was unchangable - but then we had strong evidence that this is false, so now scientists say that the “rest mass” unchangable. I don’t think that reality changed, but human understanding of the laws of nature certainly does.

If a observation that breaks the pattern is readily reproducable, then we adapt the “law” so that it can accomodate the new datum. But if it is not reproducable, then most will conclude that the observers were mistaken.

 

[Sam88]

EnterTheBowser:

I think it is wrong to conclude that that definition of the laws of nature does imply determinism.

Yes I agree. But, the stipulated definitions (which I don’t agree with but was using for the sake of discussion) indicate that a “miracle” is a event that is not predictable, based on knolwledge of past events and of the laws of nature.

If the universe is non-deterministic, and a unpredictable (“random”) event occurs, this would be unpredictable and hence would meet this definition of a “miracle”.

As stated, I don’t agree with the OPs definitions, but I was trying to follow them to their logical conclusion. And that conclusion is that either events occur which could not be predicted by the “laws of nature”, or the universe would necessarily be completely deterministic.

(If on the other hand, “laws of nature” are redefined to be a description of “what usually happens”, or “what happens on average”, then the definition of a miracle would also have to be different. Suppose the “law of nature” says that if I throw a rock, it falls down – with a very high probability but there is a minute chance that one thrown rock will be the exception. In this case, a miracle is merely an unusual or improbable event, which I don’t think was the OPs intent.)

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I think what the OP (and perhaps myself) were trying to say is that if an event occurs that defies natural explanation (using currently accepted natural laws; there is no other way), this does not indicate that something occurred which is contrary to the laws of nature, but that our conception of the laws of nature was mistaken - that is, if we discount supernatural interference. If we already accept supernatural entities, then it might indeed be reasonable to explain this event as a miracle, and not as a previously unknown or misunderstood natural phenomenon.

 

[Philthy]

Hitetlen:

Let’s make sure we define the word miracle in the same way: “an event which cannot be explained by natural causes”. I hope we can agree on this definition.

This is weak. A miracle is a manifestation of supernatural power in the natural realm.

Hitetlen:

With this definition comes the question: how can we declare that an event was a bona fide miracle? Suppose we see something that our level of knowledge cannot explain. The only honest way to put it: “as of now, our knowledge does not provide a natural explanation”. That does not preclude that the event cannot be explained in natural terms, merely that we don’t have an explanation today.

It also does not preclude a supernatural explanation. It also requires omniscience to assume that all occurances in nature have, as their origin, natural sources.

Hitetlen:

The event we observe would happen in nature. That is a fact. To state that the cause is supernatural would require omniscience, the person who would assert that would have to know that a natural explanation is forever impossible. Since we have no omniscience, we can never be sure that there is no natural explanation. Therefore it is always an error to declare something miraculous.

Everything we know is subject to change because time does not stand still. All knowledge is history. We just consider it knowledge until it is refuted.

Hitetlen:
Besides, what would qualify as a true miracle? Suppose God came down and would start healing amputees, by the wave of his hand. Would that be a true miracle? It would not.

Yes, of course it would. That is unnatural. God may supernaturally USE nature in a manner that would not naturally occur. Please review my definition of a miracle.

Hitetlen:

Maybe there is a natural explanation for it. A better example of a miracle would be something that contradicts our knowledge of natrue. If God came down and would declare the next ten Powerball winners, along with the exact amount they will win in the future, now that would be astonishing.

Simply statistically unlikely, not miraculous.

Hitetlen:

Would it qualify as a miracle? No, it would only tell us, that our understanding of time is incomplete.

Miracles do not exist, only lack of knowledge exists.

False conclusion. We, being of finite intelligence, cannot, with absolute certainty, prove that an event was miraculous. We are limited to determining if a natural explanation can be found.

 

[Trento]

To be impartial i will use this article from the International Survivalist Society.

Suppurating Fracture of the Leg. - Pierre de Rudder, who lived at Jabbeke, near Ostend, had his leg broken by a falling tree. Dr. Affenaer reduced the fracture and placed it in a starch splint, both bones being fractured and protruding through the skin. The flesh turned gangrenous, a large ulcer formed on the dorsal part of the foot, the wound was full of pus, and Dr. Vassanaere and others, called to a consultation, advised immediate amputation; to which the patient would not consent. About the middle of January Dr. Verriest again advised amputation, without effect. In April the patient was taken to the Grotto at Lourdes. There was a gap of over an inch between the ends of the bones and foul pus poured from the wound. Arriving at the Grotto De Rudder turned his face to the Statue asking pardon for his sins and begging Our Lady of Lourdes for the grace to be able to earn a livelyhood for his wife and children. He knelt down and got up unaided, his leg resumed its normal size, the wounds healed up and the bones were solidly united. De Rudder then got up and walked without crutches to the omnibus which took him back to Ghent. The next day Dr. Affenaer came to visit him;

“he found the bones quite smooth at the scat of fracture, which was firmly united without any callus. The man lived for twenty-three years after, and during that time worked continually on his land without the least sign of fatigue or pain.”

“As this case excited an enormous amount of interest throughout Belgium, Dr. van Hoestenberghe, after De Rudder’s death, got permission to exhume the body, and he removed the bones of the legs, which are now in the possession of the Bishop of Bruges.”

These bones were photographed, right and left leg for comparison: the photograph shows deformity at the scat of the fracture, but perfect union of the bones; there is no shortening and only slight displacement from the straight. The medical gentleman who has so kindly brought this case to my special notice remarks:

How can we explain this case? We are confronted with the same difficulty as in the previous one. It is impossible to reject the direct evidence of so many competent medical men who examined the fracture both before and after the cure. Besides, we have the direct evidence of the united bones which were exhumed in the presence of a number of witnesses. We have no alternative but to admit the miraculous, although it goes dead against all our preconceived notions of the inviolability of natural laws to do so. Are we to believe that Nature’s laws can be set aside, or are we to reject all human testimony and the evidence of the bones themselves? Or may it be that the miracle is the result of some unknown law of the spiritual world? When Dr. Verriest examined the fracture three months before the cure, he stated that there was a separation of three centimetres (1 1/3 inches) between the two ends. In the centre of the wound two bony fragments could be seen, blackened and necrosed, and bathed in pus. To obtain a natural cure the necrosed ends would first have to be removed, and by that time the separation of the bones would have amounted to three inches or more. How was this cavity filled up? The periosteum had long since been destroyed by the suppuration … But here is another difficulty: where did the phosphate of lime come from to fill the gap? It could only come from the blood. Now the whole blood in the body only contains about 1.6 grammes of phosphate of lime, and the callus would require at least four times that amount. Where could it come from?(1) And further, what became of the sequestra? They must have disappeared, but where? And where did all the pus go to? It was so profuse that it poured over the cushions of the vehicle that brought him to the Grotto, much to the annoyance of the driver. And, lastly, the muscles during all these years after the fracture took place were atrophied and useless. How did they regain instantly their pristine vigor? No one is able to answer any of these questions, and yet the cure is incontestable.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Trento:

To be impartial i will use this article from the International Survivalist Society.

Suppurating Fracture of the Leg. -

…

You seem to have rather missed the point of the argument.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hitetlen:

I am an atheist so I do not believe any of them, but I am open to consider evidence if and when it is presented.

Whether Jesus was a historical person or not is unknown.

Yes it is very possible. Unfortunately most people see what they expect to see. It happened that a Christmas card was printed with a serious typo in it. Hundreds of thousand of people never realized it, becuase they saw what they wanted or expected to see. When an accident occurs the investigators know that eye-witnesses are extremely unreliable witnesses.

I don’t doubt your fact, but I doubt the explanation. the problem with such “evidence” is that it is so incomplete. I bet you do not believe that everyone who ever used that “holy water” was healed every time. Forgive me for going into a little mathematics here.

There are four possibilities:

1. Holy Water applied, patient is healed.
2. Holy Water is NOT applied, patient is healed.
3. Holy Water is applied, patient is NOT healed.
4. Holy Water is NOT applied, patient is NOT healed.

Of these only the first one is ever reported. If you would like to substantiate that application of the Holy Water has curative powers, you should investigate all four possibilities, and THEN we would be in the position to evaluate the probabilities. The trouble is that the fourth event is impossible to know.

Well, yes, Jesus also said that if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can perform miracles, like moving that mountain from your way. Actually Jesus promised that such miracles can be performed by anyone if they ask God in his name. Unfortunately the miracles are not forthcoming. So either no one has enough faith, of Jesus was mistaken.

Or else He has been misunderstood - He may well have been referring to the “mountain of the Lord” in the OT; not to any empirically-available mountain of the petrous kind ​

There may be further possibilities ##