The main argument against miracles

[Lotharson57]

In our modern day and age, a belief in miracles seems utterly irrational for many people.
Yet if something supernatural did not occur at Easter, our whole faith is vain.

In the following post I went into one of the most popular objections against miracles:
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/do-extraordinary-claims-demand-extraordinary-evidence-erfordern-ausergewohnliche-behauptungen-ausergewohnliche-beweise-siehe-unten
It is used by both atheists and deists.
I would be glad to learn your own take on that thorny issue.

I think that one of the blessings of Internet is to search together for answers on a global level.

Lovely greetings in Christ.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Welcome to the forum!

Here’s the problem. Since a miracle is a unique event, there is no way to repeat it under controlled circumstances in order to prove it did happen or that it could happen.

The usual person who opposes miracles argues that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This cannot be true in the case of miracles. Either the miracle occurred or it did not. There is no way of going back to collect the evidence. For example, if a paralytic suddenly begins to walk after someone prays over him, there is no way to prove that God did it. But there also no way to prove that God didn’t do it. The cynic can always argue that the power of suggestion is a natural phenomena with sometimes powerful consequences. The cynic can also argue that physicians who had attested to the enheable status of the paralysis were simply mistaken. Etc. Etc.

The cynic is therefore in a position to deny the truthfulness of the claim, or to assert that the so-called miracle was illusory by whoever witnessed it or experienced it. But (as C. S. Lewis suggests) those also are extraordinary claims that ought to require extraordinary evidence, for which none can be provided unless the witness to the miracle admits duplicity. But that would only expose the duplicity of that particular claim of the miraculous, and cannot defeat all the other claims of miraculous experiences down through history.

I think the only argument against the supernatural quality of miracles is to deny the supernatural, to deny God. That also requires extraordinary evidence that God does not exist. There is no such thing as that extraordinary evidence.

 

[balto]

The usual person who opposes miracles argues that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This cannot be true in the case of miracles. Either the miracle occurred or it did not. There is no way of going back to collect the evidence. For example, if a paralytic suddenly begins to walk after someone prays over him, there is no way to prove that God did it. But there also no way to prove that God didn’t do it. The cynic can always argue that the power of suggestion is a natural phenomena with sometimes powerful consequences. The cynic can also argue that physicians who had attested to the enheable status of the paralysis were simply mistaken. Etc. Etc.

You beat me to it! The whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence mantra kind of cripples the theist’s argument. It seems that the people who make this argument are already committed to materialism so everything for them has a natural cause. Well a miracle would have a supernatural or non-material cause which the atheist has already ruled out. So the argument starts out with miracles already being defined as impossible to the atheist so how is the theist supposed to produce any evidence of a miracle that is acceptable to the atheist?

If someone makes this claim you should ask them if they believe that the material world is all that there is. If the answer is yes then this argument is meaningless because it’s impossible in the objector’s mind for you to win it. Instead you would need to have a discussion over whether materialism is true. Appealing to miraculous healings won’t help because as Charlemange III pointed out the objector will either claim that the story was made up or that there’s some natural thing going on that we just don’t know about yet.

 

[ShynSup]

There is no argument against miracles.

People just label you as crazy, delusional. And even saying that many people in all the other religions claim miracles too.

Thats it.

But we all know that the other religions do not have miracles, that satan can disguise himself as an angel of light and thus perform certain miracles, and we also know that science have studied many miracles, and found no explanation.

Such as for the Tila of Saint Diego. Which has been studied by numerours scientists.

Even the consagrated Eucharists that have turned into the blood and flesh of our Lord, have been studied.

Witness are millions all over the world.

People will still not believe, because satan blinds them and controls them as puppets, they have their heart hardened as a rock, and so are their minds.

All we need to ask is for discerniment to indentify the miracles that are from God or not, because many false prophets have gone into the world

 

[vz71]

In the article, the author tries to make a point by giving us an example of him saying there is a red car parked outside and him saying a UFO just landed.
He argues that in one instance, one standard of evidence, but in the other (the UFO) there needs to be a higher standard since it is such an extraordinary claim.

But he is wrong. And basic logic proves it out.
With either statement, the proof is the same, produce the object.

Either produce the car or produce the UFO.
It is the same standard in either case.

I believe they are mistaking the unusual qualities the evidence would have to be for ‘extraordinary evidence’
The standard is unchanged.

 

[Elostirion]

If a person’s testimony is rejected as evidence, then there is no evidence that I was born.

 

[Ion]

The main argument is that they do not happens as one wants,what he wants, how he wants, and when he wants. Other than that, only to speak of something extraordinary, would be without meaning.

 

[oldcelt]

Miracles reside in the neighborhood of faith. If you believe in the one who could perform such things, you are far more likely to believe in a miraculous event.

If you don’t, just flip the results.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m an atheist, but my position on this matter isn’t typical of atheists.

It is the Catholic position that God is not capricious, correct? God does what he does for reasons, and a sufficiently wise person may be able to discern the reasons. Thus, God’s behavior is predictable within this framework in a manner analogous to the predictability of physical events.

Since God’s actions are understandable, predictable, and give us a complete understanding of the universe (since God controls everything), the “reasons” for his behavior give us the basis for a new set of laws of physics that would account for his miracles. With these “divine” laws of physics, there is nothing particularly miraculous about miracles.

Basically, from God’s perspective, nothing is miraculous. Miracles, then, are just arguments from incredulity made by humans.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m an atheist, but my position on this matter isn’t typical of atheists.

It is the Catholic position that God is not capricious, correct? God does what he does for reasons, and a sufficiently wise person may be able to discern the reasons. Thus, God’s behavior is predictable within this framework in a manner analogous to the predictability of physical events.

Since God’s actions are understandable, predictable, and give us a complete understanding of the universe (since God controls everything), the “reasons” for his behavior give us the basis for a new set of laws of physics that would account for his miracles. With these “divine” laws of physics, there is nothing particularly miraculous about miracles.

Basically, from God’s perspective, nothing is miraculous. Miracles, then, are just arguments from incredulity made by humans.

I agree with you to some extent but I’m not sure how miracles could be subject to a new set of laws of physics…

 

[Oreoracle]

I agree with you to some extent but I’m not sure how miracles could be subject to a new set of laws of physics…

The common misperception is that science is all about space, time, energy, matter, and nothing else. But historically this is not the case. There was a time when no one believed in “energy” as we know it today; if anyone referred to energy it was understood in a magical sense. Once it was defined in a way that was understandable and relevant to observable phenomena, it became a part of physics. God could be regarded as part of physics as well if he were fully understood.

So physics is not limited to certain entities as people tend to believe. Anything related to observable phenomena that behaves in a consistent way can be regarded as “physical”. So basically “physical”=“predictable”.

 

[tonyrey]

The common misperception is that science is all about space, time, energy, matter, and nothing else. But historically this is not the case. There was a time when no one believed in “energy” as we know it today; if anyone referred to energy it was understood in a magical sense. Once it was defined in a way that was understandable and relevant to observable phenomena, it became a part of physics. God could be regarded as part of physics as well if he were fully understood.

So physics is not limited to certain entities as people tend to believe. Anything related to observable phenomena that behaves in a consistent way can be regarded as “physical”. So basically “physical”=“predictable”.

Being part of physics implies that God is a predictable Machine without free will!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In our modern day and age, a belief in miracles seems utterly irrational for many people.
Yet if something supernatural did not occur at Easter, our whole faith is vain.

In the following post I went into one of the most popular objections against miracles:
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/do-extraordinary-claims-demand-extraordinary-evidence-erfordern-ausergewohnliche-behauptungen-ausergewohnliche-beweise-siehe-unten
It is used by both atheists and deists.
I would be glad to learn your own take on that thorny issue.

I think that one of the blessings of Internet is to search together for answers on a global level.

Lovely greetings in Christ.

Don’t worry about it, they won’t accept anything which threatens their world view. They oppose any reasons the Church traditionally accepts as reasonable in demonstrating the existence of God and the Supernatural. However someone has offered scientific proof of the existence of the Star of Bethlehem which demonstrates the actuality of a Divine Revelation which, by extension, validates not only the existence of God and the Supernatural, but supports the reality of miracles since they are part and parcel of the Divine Revelation. You can see the evidence here. youtube.com/watch?v=zPHKg0M3mEo . I promote this video every chance I get because of its importance. The author is not Catholic, but God uses all instruments to get His Truth out for all. And guess what, the atheists just ignore it, I haven’t been able to get them to view it. I guess it leaves them speachless.

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

Being part of physics implies that God is a predictable Machine without free will!

A common sentiment I see on these forums is that “God is Logic”. Would you concur with this?

My point is that, if God exists, the logic of God can be understood–that is what theologians have attempted for ages, right? And God doesn’t deviate from his logic, or else he would be capricious. That is why Catholics maintain that God doesn’t simply change his moral standards for humans.

Since God follows certain rules (those of logic) and the rules can be understood in principle, his behavior should be fundamentally predictable. Whether this implies a lack of free will is none of my concern. God could fully predict our future actions and yet Christians still maintain that we have free will. Just use the same mental gymnastics on God.

 

[tonyrey]

A common sentiment I see on these forums is that “God is Logic”. Would you concur with this?

Life is far richer than logic! Love may seem illogical but it is more fulfilling than lack of love.

My point is that, if God exists, the logic of God can be understood–that is what theologians have attempted for ages, right? And God doesn’t deviate from his logic, or else he would be capricious. That is why Catholics maintain that God doesn’t simply change his moral standards for humans.

Since God follows certain rules (those of logic) and the rules can be understood in principle, his behavior should be fundamentally predictable. Whether this implies a lack of free will is none of my concern. God could fully predict our future actions and yet Christians still maintain that we have free will. Just use the same mental gymnastics on God.

Life is composed of far more than moral rules and principles! God can fully predict the **consequences **of our future actions but our future decisions don’t exist. Aristotle pointed out they are indeterminate and therefore - like nothing - intrinsically unknowable. Unlike machines persons are creative and directive.

 

[Lotharson57]

Thanks for your very interesting answers.

Charlemagne: precisely!

If God exists, there is no longer a way to calculate the probability of a miracle, neither in a statistic nor in a Bayesian sense.

I’m writing a long post about this, since statistical arguments are often employed to challenge the virgin birth, among other things.

I have already written several posts on the topic of probabilities and explained why I am very skeptical of the Bayesian approach.

Best wishes from Europe.

 

[DrTaffy]

He argues that in one instance, one standard of evidence, but in the other (the UFO) there needs to be a higher standard since it is such an extraordinary claim.
…]
Either produce the car or produce the UFO.
It is the same standard in either case.

Yet you might accept the claim about the car as not ‘proven’ but ‘likely’, whereas you may demand more evidence before accepting the claim about the UFO.

 

[balto]

I’m an atheist, but my position on this matter isn’t typical of atheists.

It is the Catholic position that God is not capricious, correct? God does what he does for reasons, and a sufficiently wise person may be able to discern the reasons. Thus, God’s behavior is predictable within this framework in a manner analogous to the predictability of physical events.

Since God’s actions are understandable, predictable, and give us a complete understanding of the universe (since God controls everything), the “reasons” for his behavior give us the basis for a new set of laws of physics that would account for his miracles. With these “divine” laws of physics, there is nothing particularly miraculous about miracles.

Basically, from God’s perspective, nothing is miraculous. Miracles, then, are just arguments from incredulity made by humans.

Ironically enough, I actually agree with some of what you’re saying too. You are correct in saying that from God’s perspective everything is predictable, but the problem is that it is impossible for a human to have God’s perspective due to our finite nature. So it’s impossible for a miracle to be predictable to us.

I wouldn’t say that a miracle is “magical” in the sense that it is completely random and without cause. It could be that something that occurs naturally but is so ordered that it’s chance of occurring randomly is so small counts as a miracle. For instance, its physically possible for all the oxygen molecules in the room in which I am sitting to congregate in the corner of the room causing me to die of suffocation, but if that happened I don’t think we’d say that it was a completely natural process.

 

[balto]

Yet you might accept the claim about the car as not ‘proven’ but ‘likely’, whereas you may demand more evidence before accepting the claim about the UFO.

Agreed, but the argument for extraordinary evidence makes it seem like the evidence required for the UFO is somehow different than the evidence for the car. The evidence demanded is the same, it’s just that you’re more likely to accept the existence of the car on fiat because you have experiences with cars.

 

[vz71]

Yet you might accept the claim about the car as not ‘proven’ but ‘likely’, whereas you may demand more evidence before accepting the claim about the UFO.

Not quite.
Cars are common. UFO’S are not.

So the likelihood is considerably less.

But the standard is the same.