MIRACLES (proving God's existence)

  • Thread starter Thread starter davidmammola
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

davidmammola

Guest
In a religion class, I mentioned that if we could prove a single miracle, then that would be enough to prove the existence of God, or at least a supernatural being greater than ourselves.

In response, many students argued that apparent miracles are not really miracles at all. According to these students, events that seem like miracles are really just rare physical phenomenon not yet classified by scientists.

From a philosophical point of view, how do I argue that certain events, if true, would indeed constitute miracles, no matter how many new scientific laws we discover?

In other words, can we ever really be sure something is a miracle, when it might just be explained by scientists down the line?
 
The “single miracle that proves the existence of God” is the Resurrection. I know that people won’t accept that answer because they have been taught to disbelieve everything they’ve been told, except what their current left-wing professor is cramming down their throats. But, I stray. 😛

The Church defines a miracle as an event that cannot be explained by current scientific discovery. It’s that simple. And since there is no way to go back in time to see if some test we have now days or will have would “prove” it to have been a miracle, the question is unanswerable.

What we need to ask is this: Is it unreasonable that if there is an all powerful God that he could make things happen that cannot be explained by human tests? If it isn’t unreasonable, then it is probable and if it is probable, there can be no harm in believing it.
 
The sun dancing in the sky at fatima was a miracle and will never be figured out by scientist.
 
Why not stick with the proven classics?

Have a listen to William Lane Craig present the Kalam argument for the existence of God (Download - mp3 (87 MB)).

This argument is similar to St. Thomas’ “First Cause” argument, and goes something along the lines of:
  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause which is not itself.
  2. The Universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause which is not itself.
God, of course, did not began to exist. As space-time is bundled together, and as space-time began to exist at the Big Bang (a term first coined by a priest, BTW), the cause of the Big Bang must be outside of space-time. This being the case, the first cause is eternal, or rather supra-chronological. Because this eternal being is outside of time, this being is also immutable (unchangeable), and therefore (contrary to what Nietzsche said) cannot be ‘dead’ – that would require change, which requires time. These logical follow-ons fit perfectly with the Catholic view (indeed, they’re dogma) and stand contrary to the idiocy asserted by the skeptics.

(Ignorant) people (who can’t think properly) sometimes reply with the ‘bubble universe’ hypothesis, but this does not answer the objection – it only abstracts from it a step. Does that make sense? Can you see why this is a fruitless line of argument?

Hope that helps.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Thanks, RyanL.
In class, I started off using a version of the uncaused cause argument that combines some material from the Kalam argument you mentioned.
  1. Everything that begins to exist is an effect and thus has a cause.
  2. There cannot be an infinite chain of dependent causes (or else the chain would never get started in the first place).
  3. Therefore, there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused (something that never began to exist, but always existed): God.
What I like about the argument you gave (the Kalam argument), however, is that it gives more information about God’s attributes. He is outside of space-time and thus immutable (no chance of dying).

I have 3 more questions:
  1. Are the following objections to the uncaused cause argument valid? a.) There could be multiple first causes. b.)The first cause might not have even had consciousness.
  2. What is the bubble universe hypothesis? Does that mean the universe expands and contracts (multiple big bangs)?
  3. How sure are we about the Big Bang?
 
davidmammola said:
I have 3 more questions:
  1. Are the following objections to the uncaused cause argument valid? a.) There could be multiple first causes. b.)The first cause might not have even had consciousness.
Click to expand...
As for a.), it doesn’t seem likely. Occam’s Razor would seem to indicate that without any belief for this being the case, one exta-corporal eternal being is a simpler than multiple extra-corporal eternal beings acting in unison despite the absence of time.

As for b.), here’s what Craig said in the MP3 I linked (you really should listen!):
William Lane Craig:
The explanation of the universe must be found in a being which transcends space and time, is metaphysically necessary, and is changeless and immaterial. Now the only things we know of that can exist in that way are either abstract objects, like numbers, or a mind. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relationships and so cannot be the explanation of the universe. So the explanation of the universe is most plausibly a transcendent Mind, which is minimally what everybody means by “God”. So thank you, Quentin, for the first argument!
Click to expand...
  1. What is the bubble universe hypothesis? Does that mean the universe expands and contracts (multiple big bangs)?
Click to expand...
What you’re talking about is the “Bouncing Universe”, which is almost universally rejected among cosmologists today. Even this, however, needs a beginning – as you’ve pointed out, there cannot be an infinite chain of dependent causes.

The “Bubble Universe” or “Multiverse” hypothesis states that our universe is simply one of millions, like bubbles in a glass of champagne. Again, this does not answer the objection as it also relies on an infinite string of dependent causes, in addition to being unprovable, contrary to Occam’s Razor and rejected by most modern cosmologists.
  1. How sure are we about the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
Pretty darn sure. I would be highly surprised if someone rejected it, and if they did I would use an ad hominem argument and an appeal to authority to shame them into agreement (i.e., “Are you really so scientifically dense as to reject the consensus of modern scientific research on the matter? Are you really so blinded by your irrational atheistic dogmas?!?”). Notably, this also is in accord with creation ex nihilo, a long time dogma of the Church.

I hope that helps.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Creation ex nihilo is a miracle. Something from nothing, which is in violation of the natural laws of the universe. That’s why I cited it here. 👍
 
RyanL said:
Big Bang (a term first coined by a priest, BTW)
Click to expand...
Not true. The term Big Bang was coined by Fred Hoyle. The priest you thinking of is Georges-Henri Lemaître. He first proposed the theory, but did not call it the Big Bang.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Nobody knows if this is true. We do not know what came before shortly after the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Sorry – are you proposing an infinite series of dependent events? An eternal universe? The logically impossible?

Use your brain. That’s why God gave it to you.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Not true. The term Big Bang was coined by Fred Hoyle. The priest you thinking of is Georges-Henri Lemaître. He first proposed the theory, but did not call it the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Oh – quite right. The good father developed the theory, but didn’t use the clever term. It took a mocking atheist to make up the pithy term. Good brain on that one!

God Bless,
RyanL
 
RyanL said:
Um…yes it does?

Here’s a question: does the universe exist within time or without time?

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Nobody knows. If you do, perhaps you should write this up in paper with your evidence. You will win a Noble Prize if you can do it.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Nobody knows. If you do, perhaps you should write this up in paper with your evidence. You will win a Noble Prize if you can do it.
Click to expand...
Did you happen to miss the last century’s worth of cosmology? Have you really never heard of space-time? Here’s a link.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
RyanL said:
Did you happen to miss the last century’s worth of cosmology? Have you really never heard of space-time? Here’s a link.

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Is space-time a necessary part of the universe that has all existed as a part of the universe? Why couldn’t a field exist before (whatever beofre space-time means) space-time? Can you give a complete defintion of what exactly space-time is? Since you have such a profound understanding of space-time can you tell us if it is quantized?
 
This may be a simplistic response, but I see God in small things that aren’t classified as miracles per se, like Fibonacci numbers in nature.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Is space-time a necessary part of the universe that has all existed as a part of the universe? Why couldn’t a field exist before (whatever beofre space-time means) space-time? Can you give a complete defintion of what exactly space-time is? Since you have such a profound understanding of space-time can you tell us if it is quantized?
Click to expand...
Nice try. Look, if you want to reject modern science, be my guest. I’m not about to write you a dissertation on spacetime so that you can finally believe that there is no such thing as an actual infinite, while you concurrently try to devolve the conversation into an exploration of Hume’s Fork. If you want to believe that there can be no start to something but can still manage to get, not from A to B, but from infinite to B, be my guest.

Don’t try to claim it’s logical, however, because it’s not. If you start at no where (which is where you have to start for an eternal universe to be true), you’re going to get no where. History becomes an infinite regression, a recursive loop. That’s a series of dependent causes, or rather a giant cause-less effect. That’s physically unknown in our universe, and violates the laws of logic.

Moreover, if the universe is eternal (as you propose), there has been an infinite amount of time for everything to occur – an infinite amount of time for everything to have occurred infinite times, to be precise. That being the case, every possibility has occurred, including the possibility that everything ceased to exist. But everything has not ceased to exist, therefore there cannot have been an infinite amount of time prior to this.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
RyanL said:
Nice try. Look, if you want to reject modern science, be my guest. I’m not about to write you a dissertation on spacetime so that you can finally believe that there is no such thing as an actual infinite, while you concurrently try to devolve the conversation into an exploration of Hume’s Fork. If you want to believe that there can be no start to something but can still manage to get, not from A to B, but from infinite to B, be my guest.

Don’t try to claim it’s logical, however, because it’s not. If you start at no where (which is where you have to start for an eternal universe to be true), you’re going to get no where. History becomes an infinite regression, a recursive loop. That’s a series of dependent causes, or rather a giant cause-less effect. That’s physically unknown in our universe, and violates the laws of logic.

Moreover, if the universe is eternal (as you propose), there has been an infinite amount of time for everything to occur – an infinite amount of time for everything to have occurred infinite times, to be precise. That being the case, every possibility has occurred, including the possibility that everything ceased to exist. But everything has not ceased to exist, therefore there cannot have been an infinite amount of time prior to this.

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Lot’s of things in quantum mechanics appear to be to logical. However, the illogic is only apparent not actual. How do you know the universe is not the same? What can’t space-time have arose out of a quantum field?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top