Questions on miralces

[samiam1611]

1. Do you not believe because God needs to be presupposed in certain miracles?

1. Not necessarily. Miraclulous events could be caused by magic, and magic could exist in a godless world. It doesn’t, but it could. For instance, on the TV show True Blood, vampire blood heals humans’ wounds: The human can get a big gash and just smear some blood on it and it is healed in seconds. God did not heal the wounds, the vampire blood did. So even if a miraculous event could be confirmed as supernatural, that would just show that supernatural stuff can happen, not that God did it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. Not necessarily. Miraclulous events could be caused by magic, and magic could exist in a godless world.

I mentiined the same thing. You can encounter a number of miracle cures on late night advertisements complete with testimonial evidence

 

[danserr]

1. Not necessarily. Miraclulous events could be caused by magic, and magic could exist in a godless world. It doesn’t, but it could. For instance, on the TV show True Blood, vampire blood heals humans’ wounds: The human can get a big gash and just smear some blood on it and it is healed in seconds. God did not heal the wounds, the vampire blood did. So even if a miraculous event could be confirmed as supernatural, that would just show that supernatural stuff can happen, not that God did it.

I mentiined the same thing. You can encounter a number of miracle cures on late night advertisements complete with testimonial evidence

But, one has to be careful how he uses the word “miracle.” By “miracle” we mean a “naturally impossible event.” So so called miracle cures from taking something on television probably really are naturally possible, they just use the word “miracle” to mean “amazing” or “really cool.”

On the other hand does anyone seriously think that some of the major Christian miracles, if true, (like the Resurrection) could have another explanation than that God performed them? For instance, Jesus lay in the tomb dead for three days. I think we would have good reasons for thinking that it would be naturally impossible that he should return to life. Second, I don’t think anyone would seriously consider another supernatural explanation.

 

[samiam1611]

But, one has to be careful how he uses the word “miracle.” By “miracle” we mean a “naturally impossible event.” So so called miracle cures from taking something on television probably really are naturally possible, they just use the word “miracle” to mean “amazing” or “really cool.”

Yeah I use miracle in the naturally impossible sense.

On the other hand does anyone seriously think that some of the major Christian miracles, if true, (like the Resurrection) could have another explanation than that God performed them? For instance, Jesus lay in the tomb dead for three days. I think we would have good reasons for thinking that it would be naturally impossible that he should return to life. Second, I don’t think anyone would seriously consider another supernatural explanation.

A necromancer could do that. Wouldn’t that warrant serious consideration as one possible supernatural explanation?

 

[minichibi]

This is to help my understanding of both sides and to promote dialogue between the two.

For the atheists (Pick as many of the following as neccessary, or add your own):

1. Do you not believe the majority because they can be explained naturally?
2. Do you not believe due to insufficient eyewitnesses or possibly innaccurate historical accounts?
3. Do you not believe them because you think there will be an explanation in the future?
4. Do you not believe because God needs to be presupposed in certain miracles?
5. Is there certain number of authentic miracles you feel you’ll need to believe in God?

Thanks, and remember respect.

I’m in the middle of the edge here I’m neither atheist nor religious, so I’ll answer as an agnostic/atheist for now.

1. I believe all said miracles are disputable, yes you can explain all of them SO FAR without the need of a supernatural entity.
2. I can’t consider the eyewitnesses as reliable enough. The miracles need to be testable by scientific means.
3. Believing there will be an explanation in the future is a “matter of faith” I won’t consider this as a valid hypothesis.
4. I have no problem with the existence of God, as long as the miracle can be proved.
5. I have an open mind. I would believe in God with as many indisputable miracles as possible.

 

[danserr]

Yeah I use miracle in the naturally impossible sense.

A necromancer could do that. Wouldn’t that warrant serious consideration as one possible supernatural explanation?

Well, my goal is to be open-minded enough to entertain any consideration, but for me to entertain this one, I would need far more information than simple use of the word “necromancer.” Second, I would have to weigh it as an explanation against the possibility that God raised Jesus from the dead. Is it likely that the disciples would have preached God raised Jesus from the dead if a necromancer did it? Is there any independent reason to suppose necromancy is possible? If a necromancer raised Jesus, how does this account for many features in the gospels like the new appearance of his risen body? The disciples recognizing him or not recognizing him at first? His eventual Ascension into heaven? That locked doors were no barrier to him? The fact that "Resurrection had a specific meaning in Jewish thought, and that mere “reanimation” of a body was not called resurrection?

What about that there are first rate scholars publishing first rate books (you may disagree with them, but the quality of them is undeniable) on the Resurrection that never bother to waste their time on the necromancy hypothesis? What about that Jesus own enemies never suggested a necromancy hypothesis (since they were desperate to avoid God having raised Jesus, since this would confirm Jesus’ teaching for which they had condemned him)?

In short, no, I see no reason for thinking that there is any plausibility at all to a necromancy hypothesis and I suspect that is why neither Christian scholars nor atheist ones seriously entertain it.

 

[danserr]

I’m in the middle of the edge here I’m neither atheist nor religious, so I’ll answer as an agnostic/atheist for now.

1. I believe all said miracles are disputable, yes you can explain all of them SO FAR without the need of a supernatural entity.
2. I can’t consider the eyewitnesses as reliable enough. The miracles need to be testable by scientific means.
3. Believing there will be an explanation in the future is a “matter of faith” I won’t consider this as a valid hypothesis.
4. I have no problem with the existence of God, as long as the miracle can be proved.
5. I have an open mind. I would believe in God with as many indisputable miracles as possible.

1. What about the Resurrection of Jesus? Do you see a better way to explain the evidence than the actual Resurrection?

Remember, it is not enough to just come up with an idea like “he could have had an identical twin from whom he was separated at birth and maybe he stole the body and convinced the disciples that he was Jesus risen.” (believe it or not, I have actually heard this one before). Anyone can make up an idea, but you have to compare it to the Resurrection hypothesis and see what is the best explanation.

That’s just how history works; it doesn’t allow mathematical certainty. No event in history does. But if the evidence is good enough, we should still believe it.

1. Evidence for the Resurrection is not limited to eyewitnesses, but why wouldn’t you trust them anyway? It is very hard to imagine the disciples were lying or deceived about such things. Suppose I testified that I saw a certain individual rob a bank, and suppose I still maintained that testimony even in the face of torture and death? Would it be probable that I would do that if I really did not see that individual rob the bank?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But, one has to be careful how he uses the word “miracle.” By “miracle” we mean a “naturally impossible event.” So so called miracle cures from taking something on television probably really are naturally possible, they just use the word “miracle” to mean “amazing” or “really cool.”

That sounds pretty consistent with my understanding of the word “miracle.” from one of my dictionaries the definition is “An event inexplicable by the laws of nature.” Though given that the laws of nature are descriptive and not prescriptive this also means that natural events that occur due to “unknown laws” (basically laws of which we are ignorant) could end up being classified as miracles.

Some of the claims I’ve heard are based on molecules having memories of where they have been before or putting something out to the universe so that it can respond. To me it sounds like some form of panpsychism. To those that make the claim this is all part of quantum physics (!?) and completely natural. .

 

[danserr]

That sounds pretty consistent with my understanding of the word “miracle.” from one of my dictionaries the definition is “An event inexplicable by the laws of nature.” Though given that the laws of nature are descriptive and not prescriptive this also means that natural events that occur due to “unknown laws” (basically laws of which we are ignorant) could end up being classified as miracles.

Some of the claims I’ve heard are based on molecules having memories of where they have been before or putting something out to the universe so that it can respond. To me it sounds like some form of panpsychism. To those that make the claim this is all part of quantum physics (!?) and completely natural. .

Actually that is an interesting idea about the laws of nature being descriptive rather than prescriptive. I am inclined to agree with you, but there is another theory of the laws of nature (the nomic necessity theory), where the laws are not just descriptions, but rather tell you what can and cannot happen in the natural world. Now under this theory, the laws would still be inductive generalizations, so it would still be possible that a “miracle” could be reclassified as a natural event.

As to a “miraculous” event being reclassified as a natural occurrence, I can see how this would be a consideration in some cases. I imagine it might be possible that a solar eclipse was once regarded as miraculous (though this would have had to be pretty far in the past since they were regarded as quite natural in the ancient world).

On the other hand, some miracles, it is hard to imagine them ever being reclassified as natural. I would list the Resurrection of Jesus among these. We know so well what happens to a body when it dies, the event is so unique occurs in a specific historical/theological context, that it is very hard to imagine that we should ever find a natural explanation of why he rose.