The main argument against miracles

[ShynSup]

I take “miracle” to mean “direct activity of God on the world (as opposed to mediated by secondary causes).”

Occasionalism is essentially the idea that there are no secondary causes; everything that happens is directly caused by God, and there just seems to be natural causality. It essentially implies that everything is a miracle. Gravitational attraction is not just a natural disposition of all mass-energy in the universe. When a leaf falls to the ground, God is directly moving it. We have the law of universal gravitation because in all instances we have seen, God has in fact been moving things according to the law we’ve generalized.

I am not endorsing occasionalism, but I am pointing out that it is consistent with the way the world is, and since scientific practice works, occasionalism is therefore consistent with scientific practice. (In such a case, we have just misconceived what the “laws of physics” are.*) Since occasionalism is just the case where miracles are universal (everything is directly caused by God), miracles are consistent with scientific practice.

The above is a case where miracles are consistent and predictable. Let us take the other case that they are not consistent and predictable. Suppose, for instance, a team of doctors pronounces someone to be terminally ill. He dies. After several days he comes back to life and there is no evidence of his illness (or even, indeed, that he was dead). The Church pronounces such an event a miracle. (Suppose that it is, in fact, a miracle.)

Scientists, say, go on to investigate the incidence. They cannot replicate the effect in any case. In the end they consign that while the event might have had a natural explanation, but they cannot figure out what it is, and direct evidence is no longer at hand.

It seems to me that such a case is consistent with scientific practice (it does not cause any issues or doubt in our continued application of “laws of physics”) and provides rational (if not completely indefeasible) grounds for believing in miracles. For I do think that we know too much about the way the world works for such an event to occur and for us to say, “We can’t quite rule out a naturalistic explanation.” But I think it is a weak epistemology (that does not properly credit our current knowledge of the natural world) that would suggest that in such a case as I have outlined, we would not have plausible (again, if not indefeasible) grounds for believing that the event was miraculous. We know enough to reasonably suppose that advances in knowledge will not reveal naturalistic explanations for prolonged periods of death followed by revival and complete health. (I don’t claim that everyone who hears of such an event ought to believe it, just that it is implausible to say that it is irrational to believe it.)

I agree that if everything is a miracle, then not all miracles are created equal. But I don’t believe the antecedent (I am just providing the example of occasionalism, which I claim is consistent with our view of the world, in which laws are applied, to show that the occurrence of miracles is not just consistent with application of the laws of physics–but that universality of miracles would be consistent with application of the laws of physics). And I believe the consequent anyway. Not all miracles are created equal. I am not sure how I could predicate equality (or inequality, even) of such a diverse array of events as miracles.

Good explanation

In my opinion, occasionalism is nothing more that a misconception. Laws of physics were created by God. They function on their own.

Animals are ruled by instinct, God is not actually moving them, controlling their feet as a puppet.

Plants grow. God made it so that plants can grow. But he is not adding a new leaf or stretching the trunks.
Same way with photosynthesis. Its a process that just happens and was created by God to work like that, and there is no further intervention.

And the same with every process.

 

[Ion]

Good explanation

In my opinion, occasionalism is nothing more that a misconception. Laws of physics were created by God. They function on their own.

Animals are ruled by instinct, God is not actually moving them, controlling their feet as a puppet.

Plants grow. God made it so that plants can grow. But he is not adding a new leaf or stretching the trunks.
Same way with photosynthesis. Its a process that just happens and was created by God to work like that, and there is no further intervention.

And the same with every process.

There is not even a leaf falling off a tree, out of God’s will. God is in control of everything.

 

[ShynSup]

There is not even a leaf falling off a tree, out of God’s will. God is in control of everything.

Yes, God is indeed in control, of everything.

Still, you are wrong.

Meaning God is in control, does not mean hHis will is always done.

For example, He would like everyone to get saved, be know this is not the case.

Now, nature was created by God.

And nature can reveal on its won against man, because of its wickedness, and how we have treated the planet.

God permits this, but nature, the force God created, is actually making the work.

In the same way, if a leaf falls, God is not actually pulling the leaf off, and making it fall, nature was already programmed to do so.

Just as if a man kills a man, its not God killing, its the man for ing his free will.

 

[Ion]

Yes, God is indeed in control, of everything.

Still, you are wrong.

Meaning God is in control, does not mean hHis will is always done.

For example, He would like everyone to get saved, be know this is not the case.

Now, nature was created by God.

And nature can reveal on its won against man, because of its wickedness, and how we have treated the planet.

God permits this, but nature, the force God created, is actually making the work.

In the same way, if a leaf falls, God is not actually pulling the leaf off, and making it fall, nature was already programmed to do so.

Just as if a man kills a man, its not God killing, its the man for ing his free will.

At the day of the great judgement we will see God rightneuness and we will understand why he left all sort of wicked things to happen. One that was murdered will understand why it was the right thing to let it happen. God’s will prevails.

 

[polytropos]

Laws of physics were created by God. They function on their own.

I don’t believe that God, at the beginning of time, sat down and decided on “laws of physics,” which he stipulated and let a hunk of mass-energy adhere to. The laws of physics are not entities that stand in causal (or functional) relationships. They are abstractions from the characteristic powers of matter. They are “beings of reason.”

Animals are ruled by instinct, God is not actually moving them, controlling their feet as a puppet.

Plants grow. God made it so that plants can grow. But he is not adding a new leaf or stretching the trunks.
Same way with photosynthesis. Its a process that just happens and was created by God to work like that, and there is no further intervention.

And the same with every process.

I agree that God is not the proximate cause of changes in the world (or, in such cases that he is, a miracle occurs). But I would hold that God is the ultimate cause of all that occurs.

 

[ShynSup]

At the day of the great judgement we will see God rightneuness and we will understand why he left all sort of wicked things to happen. One that was murdered will understand why it was the right thing to let it happen. God’s will prevails.

No.

“3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV)

As I said, God’s will is for everyone to be saved. And not everyone is saved.

You have to understand God suffers seeing where humanity has gone, away from Him, forgetting God, doing abominations in the eyes of God.

Our free will implies going against what God wants for us. Just like a father feels sad for his son, seeing he has fallen in addictions and earthly pleasures.

Moreover, if God’s will was that a man killed another one, you are suggesting God is forcing man to go against the commandments He instructed us to follow.
When the bible clearly sates the contrary. His word.

He lets things happen because He made us free. What do you expect? That when you are going to kill someone you freeze by an act of God? Or that a hand grabs yours before pulling the trigger?

People go against God all time. And his will is not always done.

Now, you are right, He is in final control of everything. But He lets certain things happen because our freedom.

Still His control implies things such as: The Church will never fall, the fulfillment of prophecies, the defeat of Satan, etc.

Edit: Thats why they are prayers to specially address and heal, or at least recompense, for the wickedness of man, for its aggressions and sacrileges against God

 

[ShynSup]

I don’t believe that God, at the beginning of time, sat down and decided on “laws of physics,” which he stipulated and let a hunk of mass-energy adhere to. The laws of physics are not entities that stand in causal (or functional) relationships. They are abstractions from the characteristic powers of matter. They are “beings of reason.”

I agree that God is not the proximate cause of changes in the world (or, in such cases that he is, a miracle occurs). But I would hold that God is the ultimate cause of all that occurs.

I mean, our laws of physics are not just mathematical coincidences, God made it to be that way.

Law of physics: An object keeps still or moving at same speed if there is no external force acting on it.

God made that, that specific way.

Agreed with the second paragraph, God is the ultimate cause of all that occurs, as He created everything.

But: this ultimate cause, does not imply blame. God created everything is quite vague.

God crated for instance, freedom, but He does not create evil. Evil comes with free will.

For example, the wickedness of the world cant be blamed on God, for He created everything, but its purely man’s fault.

In the same way, if a man kills another one, its not God’s will, or “touch” behind that action, its purely in man’s free will to go against God.

 

[Ion]

No.

“3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV)

As I said, God’s will is for everyone to be saved. And not everyone is saved.

You have to understand God suffers seeing where humanity has gone, away from Him, forgetting God, doing abominations in the eyes of God.

Our free will implies going against what God wants for us. Just like a father feels sad for his son, seeing he has fallen in addictions and earthly pleasures.

Moreover, if God’s will was that a man killed another one, you are suggesting God is forcing man to go against the commandments He instructed us to follow.
When the bible clearly sates the contrary. His word.

He lets things happen because He made us free. What do you expect? That when you are going to kill someone you freeze by an act of God? Or that a hand grabs yours before pulling the trigger?

People go against God all time. And his will is not always done.

Now, you are right, He is in final control of everything. But He lets certain things happen because our freedom.

Still His control implies things such as: The Church will never fall, the fulfillment of prophecies, the defeat of Satan, etc.

Edit: Thats why they are prayers to specially address and heal, or at least recompense, for the wickedness of man, for its aggressions and sacrileges against God

You misunderstnad the quote; God wants all people to be saved and he provided for this purpose; The quote does not say that God will save all the people. This is his will, that we choose by our own will. His will is always done.

 

[ShynSup]

You misunderstnad the quote; God wants all people to be saved and he provided for this purpose; The quote does not say that God will save all the people. This is his will, that we choose by our own will. His will is always done.

I never said that God will save all people.

The qoute clearly states that God’s will is that we all get saved.

God’s will= what He wants.

He wants all of us to get saved. But not everyone is saved.

Also, I like how you ignore the rest of my comment:

“Moreover, if God’s will was that a man killed another one, you are suggesting God is forcing man to go against the commandments He instructed us to follow.
When the bible clearly sates the contrary. His word.”

“Thats why they are prayers to specially address and heal, or at least recompense, for the wickedness of man, for its aggressions and sacrileges against God”

If we want to have a fair conversation we must adress all arguments…

If Gods will is always done, you can reserve yourself from resisting and fighting temptation, get in orgys, be unjust, selfish, vengative, etc and say " its God’s will"

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Having read over the thread, I think the commentators might be overlooking something that is crucial especially in the OP’s original context and the subsequent train of thought and debate it produced; namely, that it can’t be argued that:

If X can be accomplished naturally,
And X occurred,
Then X was accomplished naturally.

If by ‘naturally’ it is meant that we understand the nature of how X happens or can result either by a truly natural process (e.g. generation or destruction, say) or by an artificial process, which is also, of course, based on our knowledge or understanding of nature.

If X was accomplished naturally, then we know either i) nature brought this about or ii) some artificial process did. In either case, we still need to investigate before disqualifying the claim of the miraculous because -while it is true that doctors might be able to restore a man’s sight if he is blind- it doesn’t mean a doctor actually did so, especially if the (otherwise credible) witness is saying no doctor intervened; and if it’s true that sometimes some patients have, e.g., a powerful resilience or uncanny or fluke immunity to a horrible virus (say), which is ordinarily lethal, it doesn’t follow that this is what actually happened; or, if it did, presumably we could run tests and check to see if there is any evidence of just how nature actually accomplished this.

Completely useless would be to argue to the effect that, “Well, we have made significant progress in explaining everything that happens naturalistically. Therefore, even though X actually contradicts how we know nature actually works; notwithstanding, X will still be explained naturalistically.” At the very least such a fellow is just admitting -contrary to his original premise- that we obviously **don’**t actually understand how nature works, if in admitting X we necessarily contradict that very understanding, which X is yet still supposed to be explained naturalistically.

 

[ShynSup]

Having read over the thread, I think the commentators might be overlooking something that is crucial especially in the OP’s original context and the subsequent train of thought and debate it produced; namely, that it can’t be argued that:

If X can be accomplished naturally,
And X occurred,
Then X was accomplished naturally.

If by ‘naturally’ it is meant that we understand the nature of how X happens or can result either by a truly natural process (e.g. generation or destruction, say) or by an artificial process, which is also, of course, based on our knowledge or understanding of nature.

If X was accomplished naturally, then we know either i) nature brought this about or ii) some artificial process did. In either case, we still need to investigate before disqualifying the claim of the miraculous because -while it is true that doctors might be able to restore a man’s sight if he is blind- it doesn’t mean a doctor actually did so, especially if the (otherwise credible) witness is saying no doctor intervened; and if it’s true that sometimes some patients have, e.g., a powerful resilience or uncanny or fluke immunity to a horrible virus (say), which is ordinarily lethal, it doesn’t follow that this is what actually happened; or, if it did, presumably we could run tests and check to see if there is any evidence of just how nature actually accomplished this.

Completely useless would be to argue to the effect that, “Well, we have made significant progress in explaining everything that happens naturalistically. Therefore, even though X actually contradicts how we know nature actually works; notwithstanding, X will still be explained naturalistically.” At the very least such a fellow is just admitting -contrary to his original premise- that we obviously **don’**t actually understand how nature works, if in admitting X we necessarily contradict that very understanding, which X is yet still supposed to be explained naturalistically.

I guess that applies to medical miracles.

But the most impacting miracles are others, and these leave no room for questioning:

The Holy Eucharist bleeding human blood, or even turning to tissue in some cases.

Fatima.

Tilma of Saint Diego, located in Mexico.

Incorruptible corpses.

Stigmas, Saint Pio of Pietrelcina

And so many many others that cant be questioned.

.

 

[Ion]

I never said that God will save all people.

The qoute clearly states that God’s will is that we all get saved.

God’s will= what He wants.

He wants all of us to get saved. But not everyone is saved.

Here you should have a big ??? How then is God almighty?
The problem is your thinking…God wants us to be saved and provided for our salvation. But he wants a specific way for our salvation, that we choose it and do it acording with the truth. The quote means that even for Hitler, even the day he commited suicide there was a way for his salvation. If there is no way as one can’t see it, God will make a way.

Also, I like how you ignore the rest of my comment:

“Moreover, if God’s will was that a man killed another one, you are suggesting God is forcing man to go against the commandments He instructed us to follow.
When the bible clearly sates the contrary. His word.”

Another misunderstanding. I didn’t say that in the day of judgement a murdered person will understand the reasons and agree with the person that have murdered him. The criminal is a criminal and is responsible for his wrongdoings. What i said is that the murdered person will understand why God let it to happen. God is right when he lets this kind of things to happen.

“Thats why they are prayers to specially address and heal, or at least recompense, for the wickedness of man, for its aggressions and sacrileges against God”

Every sin is an offense to God.

If Gods will is always done, you can reserve yourself from resisting and fighting temptation, get in orgys, be unjust, selfish, vengative, etc and say " its God’s will"

Unfortunately there are people who want to understant God’s almighty power this way. They say that God is almighty and if he real wants he can save them anyway. But this in not the way God wants it. Again, God wants us to work our salvation, and he provided everything for his purpose so we can achieve it. If you choose wrong you are not out of God plan, but you might end up in Hell. Here is a point of focus so to speak, because one is not forced to make only one decision only once in his life time, with no return. Repentance is possible for the sinner, and also Hell for the lazy. The no return point is the death.

 

[Ion]

Sorry, we were a little bit off the thread but I wanted to clarify our posts…

 

[Bahman]

The main question is whether God - and persons for that matter - is subject to any laws at all!

Any system for that matter goes from state X to Y unless you deny the existence of any state as well. My question from you is whether that change is subject to any law. It might be a set of law that we are closed to it, nevertheless you can deny that motion from state X to Y is lawless.

Are you compelled to think and act like a cog in a machine?

Everywhere I look I see changes based on law. Do you have any better explanation? How thinking could emerge from a set of law is subject of another discussion.

 

[Bahman]

Science was invented to explain what regularly happens around us, and to use the nature, and not to explain the miracles. It has at his basis the experiment.

Miracle is something that happen around us but it is very rare if it real at all. The fact that is rare does not mean that it could not be subject of study by science.

 

[aragonjohn1]

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.

well. as many holy and saintly people throughout the ages have said God’s miracles are for those who do not believe and to strengthen those who doubt. So, am not surprised that when more aspects of God’s love and truth are revealed many sadly reject His advances and forget in someway about God and His love.

great blog post. If You ever do a follow up could You post the link sometime? i loved the part where you combined reason and evidence,

thank You

God bless

 

[Ion]

Miracle is something that happen around us but it is very rare if it real at all. The fact that is rare does not mean that it could not be subject of study by science.

matthey 17:20:
“For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.”
Matthew 14:13-21
16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

There was no “device” from where they took the bread and the fish so to speak, nor a place holding an Invisible one…

 

[tonyrey]

*The main question is whether God - and persons for that matter - is subject to any laws at all! *

You are assuming that** personal **activity is subject to **physical **laws as if we are biological machines. How do you justify that opinion?

 Q

Are you compelled to think and act like a cog in a machine?

Everywhere I look I see changes based on law.

Have you looked inside yourself?

Do you have any better explanation?

Yes! We are persons created in the image and likeness of God.

How thinking could emerge from a set of law is subject of another discussion.

On the contrary. That argument against miracles is destroyed by the fact that thinking is not a mechanical process but presupposes insight, creativity and free will.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Have you looked inside yourself?

Indeed, why would we have such a powerful sense of free will if it did not exist?

Psychological determinism has always been an embarrassment to the materialist and the mechanist philosophies. Just as the physical determinists dismiss as an illusion the notion that the universe is designed because it appears to be designed.

All the anti-God people can barely wait to mock our “illusions” as if they had proven them to be illusions.

 

[ShynSup]

Here you should have a big ??? How then is God almighty?
The problem is your thinking…God wants us to be saved and provided for our salvation. But he wants a specific way for our salvation, that we choose it and do it acording with the truth. The quote means that even for Hitler, even the day he commited suicide there was a way for his salvation. If there is no way as one can’t see it, God will make a way.

Another misunderstanding. I didn’t say that in the day of judgement a murdered person will understand the reasons and agree with the person that have murdered him. The criminal is a criminal and is responsible for his wrongdoings. What i said is that the murdered person will understand why God let it to happen. God is right when he lets this kind of things to happen.

Every sin is an offense to God.

Unfortunately there are people who want to understant God’s almighty power this way. They say that God is almighty and if he real wants he can save them anyway. But this in not the way God wants it. Again, God wants us to work our salvation, and he provided everything for his purpose so we can achieve it. If you choose wrong you are not out of God plan, but you might end up in Hell. Here is a point of focus so to speak, because one is not forced to make only one decision only once in his life time, with no return. Repentance is possible for the sinner, and also Hell for the lazy. The no return point is the death.

Almighty does not mean God can save everyone. This will be in conflict with his perfect justice.

Take for example satanists. They sell their soul to satan and there is no turning back.

28 Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.
Mark 3:28

Of course there was a salvation for hitler is he didn’t made a pact with satan. Confession, and that would be it.

---

Do you understand that God’s will is what He wants to happen?

The bible clearly says what God wants: People to be just, pure, honest, modest, humble, etc.

That is His will.

He would like everyone to be like saints. But most people is far far away from that.

If God lets things happen, is because of our free will, not because in his perfect plan, we are supposed to do so. No.

If you want to kill a man, you are free to do so, God wont stop you, He made you free to do whatever you want.

Still, this act does not go according to His wants, His will.

“If you choose wrong you are not out of God’s plan”

So God’s plan is for some people to end up in hell?

If God’s will is always done, you are saying that His plan was for x person to go to hell from the start.

Edit: Jesus also taught us to pray: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done,” which certainly implies that His Father’s will is not always done at every moment (otherwise, why would we need to pray that it might be done).