Its MIRACLES- Not High Falootin First Cause Debate

[David Sklansky]

I'll be leaving you fellas for a while with these two thoughts regarding most religions.

All these arguments between believers and non believers about whether the universe had a creator are irrelvant. Because if the philosophers are right that it need not have a creater or first cause, it doesn't begin to prove that it DID not. And if the religious people are right that the universe must have a first cause it doesn't begin to prove that there is anything like the God they believe in.

On the other hand, the subject of whether miracles currently happen, IS important in deciding whether religious beliefs are true. My stance on religions is almost totally related to my stance on miracles. And religious people shouldn't try to wiggle out of it by saying that God won't give us obvious evidence to insure we have "faith". If that was true, why did he supposedly perform obvious miracles in the past? And why do Catholics, at least, require miracles for sainthood, exorcisms, or other reasons and often "investigate" (and usually deny) miracle status to what they see? These "investigations" are supposedly based on logic and maybe probability. But then why are there never clearcut miracles? Events that can not be explained away with probability, the Amazing Randi, or not yet fully understood medical anomalies. Something little like a Hannukah oil miracle for instance. Or a nun winning three lotteries in a week. If the only miracles are vague and indirect like BluffTHIS postulates, that don't violate known (I put that in for you, maurile) physical laws, then why wasn't that always the case? And why would the Church claim that there are still real miracles?

A few hundred years ago many of the merely day to day goings on seemed like a miracle. Like there was a God who had his hands on things all the time. The simple fact that the sun steadily gave off the right amount of heat, always rose and never fell into the Earth or flew away, provided enough apparent evidence for a person like me, who needs to see miracles to believe, to believe. But the workings of the sun are no longer something that we think a present day god has a hand in. Its not in the same category as a resurrection.

I'm not going to go into more detail on this subject. Plus I'm not very conversant with what recent events the Church or others have claimed to be miracles. I'll let you guys run with it. I just hope you might agree that it is THIS subject that most closely reflects the crux of the issue between believers or non believers. It is not First Cause, not whether there is meaning without God, nor whether atheists can be moral.

For most people, including me, it is the miracle debate, that most closely maps on to the religion debate. So go to it.

[Bigdaddydvo]

OK...I'll kick it off. At the Blessed Mother's final appariton to Lucia, Fransisco, and Jacinta at Fatima in France on 17 October 1917, 70,000 people witnessed what they described as "the sun touching the Earth." This solar phenomenon was widely reported in many secular newspapers.

Any logical explanation for this? Here's EWTN's take:

http://www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/October.htm

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

For most people, including me, it is the miracle debate, that most closely maps on to the religion debate. So go to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Miracles are the heart of Christianity. The resurrection is the heart of miracle. Produce the corpse of Christ and destroy us.

[Georgia Avenue]

Very succinct and clear response, but does that mean we have to give up on proving or understanding all others?

You say that the Resurrection is the "Heart" of miracles. Do God's miracles after the R. differ from Old Testament miracles? What is a miracle?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Produce the corpse of Christ and destroy us.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would it take to persuade you it was the right corpse?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Produce the corpse of Christ and destroy us.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would it take to persuade you it was the right corpse?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Only if it was resurrected could it be the corpse of christ.

[Georgia Avenue]

Well, there could be many explanations. Sunspots, Aliens, etc. That doesn't make them right, but, they're there. As many "true" stories as you produce, a non-believer simply has to say, "Well, I wasn't there I don't buy it." In practice, it's only REALLY a miracle if it happens to you.

The fundamental problem is that many people say they can only believe in a higher power if he reveals himself to them: yet when they are informed of others' conversion stories they assume the phenomena are either lies or illusions. This is why I disagree with the David that miracles are indeed the Central Question of religion. Faith is not subsequent to a miracle IT IS (paradoxically) CONCURRENT. Therefore it is the only miracle.

SO the CQofR is: What is Faith?

Which falls out of "What is Knowing?"
Which falls out of "What is a Person?"
Which begins with "What is a soul?"

I'm gonna go reread Spinoza and post some thoughts from him this afternoon. I know you can hardly wait!!!

[Jeff V]

Who could give an account of witnessing a miracle and be taken seriously by someone who didn't witness it? CNN, the Pope, David Sklansky, me?

I can imagine what the replies would be if I posted I here that I witnessed a true miracle. If my next post was "hey I saw a parapalegic get out of his wheelchair today, and he's walking perfectly right now!!"

I think most people would have to"see it with their own eyes", before believing. This amount of skepticism leads me to believe that at the heart of the matter a good percentage of people don't want to believe for whatever reason.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This amount of skepticism leads me to believe that at the heart of the matter a good percentage of people don't want to believe for whatever reason.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is that what seperates us. I don't think it makes any difference what I want to believe. Do you?

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do God's miracles after the R. differ from Old Testament miracles? What is a miracle?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the last miracles of which we can be certain were performed by the apostles. The reason is these are testified to in the Bible. Claimed miracles since then are less sure. Most miracles in the Bible were given as signs, not that God exists, but to attest to a prophet of God. The plagues of Egypt were done to certify Moses and to warn Egypt and Pharoah. Biblical miracles were always clear and associated with God, His Word and or His prophets.

Definition of miracle is really one of degree. Scripture says God is in some way involved in everything in creation, that He upholds and maintains creation by His power. In that sense, everything is a miracle. Theologians usually define it as something out of the ordinary. And as stated above, they are done with a specific purpose and closely associated with God's Word.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What would it take to persuade you it was the right corpse?


[/ QUOTE ]

My statement was rhetorical as it's obviously impossible now, unless you have a time machine.

However, if you objectively research the issue you might be surprised at the persuasiveness of the evidence. Think about the Jewish and Roman leaders of the time. They had a strong motive for disproving the resurrection and perfect opportunity to do so, but apparently made very little effort.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What would it take to persuade you it was the right corpse?


[/ QUOTE ]

My statement was rhetorical as it's obviously impossible now, unless you have a time machine.

However, if you objectively research the issue you might be surprised at the persuasiveness of the evidence. Think about the Jewish and Roman leaders of the time. They had a strong motive for disproving the resurrection and perfect opportunity to do so, but apparently made very little effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they made little effort for the same reason as me.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they made little effort for the same reason as me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never thought of that.

[MaxPowerPoker]

God is in control of when and where miracles happen. The fact remains that if you do not personally see miracles (I have not either) that is no evidence that the Christian gospel is not true. Below, Jesus addresses those who have seen miracles and still refused to repent. He says that if Tyre and Sidon had seen the miracles that were performed that they would have long ago repented. Again, God determined to show miracles to some and not to others. This fact alone tells us something about God but it does not indicate that Christianity is false.

(Mat 11:20) Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent.

(Mat 11:21) "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

(Mat 11:22) But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.

(Mat 11:23) And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

(Mat 11:24) But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

(Mat 11:25) At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

(Mat 11:26) yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

(Mat 11:27) All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

(Mat 11:28) Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

(Mat 11:29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

(Mat 11:30) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they made little effort for the same reason as me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never thought of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pleased to be of help /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

We don't have the report of 70,000 witnesses. We have the reports of a few witnesses who claim what 70,000 saw. Curiously, all of the pictures we have of the event are of the crowd looking up at the sky. One of the reporter's photographers saw nothing so he took to taking pictures of the crowd: "Reporter Avelino de Almeida, who had been skeptical of Fatima in previous articles, saw and reported the phenomena, while his photographer saw nothing but shot pictures of the mesmerized crowd looking up."

It is not uncommon, when a meteor is sighted, for numerous people to report that they saw heads peering out of the portholes.

[andyfox]

The solar effects described by witnesses, such as pulsations and coloured streams of light emanating from the sun, can all be explained in biological terms of what happens when a person looks at a very bright object. Only those who stared at the sun reported the phenomena.

[andyfox]

"God determined to show miracles to some and not to others."

This is the crux of the problem, then, isn't it? I say I saw a miracle. Nobody else saw it. No problem, God determined to show it just to me.

Isn't it much more likely that I'm simply making it up, or hallucinating, especially if I consider myself the head of a religious movement?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the problem, then, isn't it? I say I saw a miracle. Nobody else saw it. No problem, God determined to show it just to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paul says in his defense before King Agrippa:

Acts 26:
26"For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner.
27"King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do."
28Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."

[andyfox]

"I think most people would have to 'see it with their own eyes', before believing. This amount of skepticism leads me to believe that at the heart of the matter a good percentage of people don't want to believe for whatever reason."

But I've seen miracles with my own eyes. Siegfried and Roy made a tiger disappear. I saw a table levitate at a seance. I saw the sun get covered up and the daylight waned during mid-day.

But I know that the disappearing tiger is a trick. And the levitating table as well. And while I might not have understood the mid-day darkness were I an Arawak Indian in Hispaniola in the 1490s (Columbus used his knowledge of an upcoming solar eclipse to scare the natives), I understand it now.

It's not that I don't want to believe. It's that every "miracle" has an explanation that shows it was not a miracle. It's those who want to believe who deny rational, scientific explanations. Note that one poster here said that most miracles occurred in the time of the apostles. It's much more difficult for them to occur now. Why would that be?

When my son was little he loved a magic trick my mother performed for him. When he got a little older he pleaded with her to show him how the magic was done. So she showed him.

He thought for a few seconds and then complained, "That's not magic!"

[Georgia Avenue]

[ QUOTE ]
In that sense, everything is a miracle. Theologians usually define it as something out of the ordinary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all of creation is a miracle, even things explicable by science, then wouldn't you say, if (par example) the Fatima miracle were explained by some scientific breakthough, that it was STILL a miracle?

Therefore, aren't miracle useless in and of themselves, including those detailed in the Bible? They may be the result of natural phenomena, so what?

My point is that Miracles are not the cause of faith nor vice-versa. So arguing about them is a waste of time.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that I don't want to believe.It's that every "miracle" has an explanation that shows it was not a miracle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I'm sitting here with my buddy Ralph who up until 5 minutes ago was blind. He can see, and is describing the room in great detail. Here comes my wife and daughter, we're all in awe at Ralph as he soaks it all in as he now understands what red looks like, and how beautiful a flower is. We call NBC news- they're on their way.

Ralph decides it's too much and shoots himself.

Besides the nasty clean-up, now what?

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps they made little effort for the same reason as me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps is a big word here. With the speed that this story spread, along with the vast number of converts even though they risked their lives by believing puts a little more urgency in their case as opposed to yours IMO.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

My point is that Miracles are not the cause of faith nor vice-versa. So arguing about them is a waste of time.


[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with this concerning extra-Biblical miracles. I neither deny nor affirm on that score. God works in this world and I'm not going to limit His method.

Biblical miracles are important though. Christianity without the miracles of the Bible is empty. And the resurrection is clearly a one-of-a-kind event, different in quality from that of Lazarus and the saints that rose as recorded in Acts.

1 Corinthians 15:

12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

[carlo]

There cannot be an event occuring outside of the universal cosmic laws. Any event which purports to be such is a matter of lack of knowledge by individual men which can of course transform to lack of knowledge of sects, groups, etc.

This being said, the scientist(not all) may attempt to abscond with these laws and lay claim to their validity. This is of course pompous arrogance. Just considering the myriad of hopotheses, theorems, and pure speculations passed off as fact one can only wonder about this scientific clarity of mind. Momentum, its all momentum.

At the other extreme there are those who say, implicitly or explicity, that these laws can be broken. Lack of knowledge again.

There is no contradiction between "universal cosmic laws" and an event occuring which is not understandable in a scientific or religious sense.

To the scientist: do you have the whole banana? I think not.

To the religious: do you understand totally the nature of HE whom you profess to know? Please!!!

The miracles as noted in the bible are absolutely true events in world reality which only can be appreciated by furthuring our knowledge and in fact the closer scientific pursuit displays its sacredness the more will this be evident. This dichotomy between science and religion, which to external apperance began with Galileo is the difficulty in this type of discussion.

At a time in the future, real science will be a holy act performed by man at sacred beat of rhythmic time.

carlo

P.S. What the hell is a "universal cosmic law"? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps they made little effort for the same reason as me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps is a big word here. With the speed that this story spread, along with the vast number of converts even though they risked their lives by believing puts a little more urgency in their case as opposed to yours IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't that depend on what my reason is?

chez

In my skepticism, I try to adhere to two principles:

Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

-and-

Hume's Maxim: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish."

Summed up: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This is the theme used in criminal court where a suspect must be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt". Let's ponder that someone is in court being accused of a heinous crime: "raising a dead man back to life". What preponderance of evidence would be required to send this "evil doer" to death row? What would constitute a "reasonable doubt" in this case? Personally, I would not believe this on the eyewitness accounts of even a million people. This is a very extraordinary claim, and, to me, only a very high level of evidence could convince me that it was true.

I don't hold this high standard due to the religious nature of the subject (ie: Jesus being resurrected). I would have similar standards to something as naturally possible as aliens visiting earth. I believe somewhere out there, there is most likely extraterrestrial intelligence. But, if someone claimed they crashed in New Mexico, even if there are hundreds of eye witnesses, I'm going to need something else. It's an extraordinary claim -- it doesn't happen every day -- in fact, there's no record that it's ever happened. Many people believe that aliens have been to Earth... I don't. I'm a skeptic. I don't fault those who do, but, I think I rightfully believe that they require a lower standard of evidence than I would to have a similar belief. That doesn't make me right or wrong... just different.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
There cannot be an event occuring outside of the universal cosmic laws. Any event which purports to be such is a matter of lack of knowledge by individual men which can of course transform to lack of knowledge of sects, groups, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are begging the question.

[Jeff V]

Touche.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not that I don't want to believe.It's that every "miracle" has an explanation that shows it was not a miracle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I'm sitting here with my buddy Ralph who up until 5 minutes ago was blind. He can see, and is describing the room in great detail. Here comes my wife and daughter, we're all in awe at Ralph as he soaks it all in as he now understands what red looks like, and how beautiful a flower is. We call NBC news- they're on their way.

Ralph decides it's too much and shoots himself.

Besides the nasty clean-up, now what?

[/ QUOTE ]
NBC News gets a great story about how you shot a blind guy.

If we have to lower the standard of proof for Christian miracles, why should we believe in them instead of ESP, alien abductions, the one about the cactus filled with spiders, etc. ?

[carlo]

No I'm not.You explain.

carlo

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There cannot be an event occuring outside of the universal cosmic laws. Any event which purports to be such is a matter of lack of knowledge by individual men which can of course transform to lack of knowledge of sects, groups, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are begging the question.

[/ QUOTE ] No I'm not.You explain.

carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument against the occurance of miracles assumes that miracles do not occur.

[RJT]

To readers who have not read the book (it really is a remake of an older book, a few of the particulars were changed in the newer version), let me give you a quick synopsis of the story and tell you how it ends (the newer version).

A wise (genius) man starts promulgating a basic concept. He goes around preaching his Message for a brief moment in time. He talks mainly in riddles and examples. Often his language is vague (sometimes indecipherable.) Always concise. The Message is a pretty good idea and thought provoking. While he is still around sermonizing, he starts to gather a following. He also starts to gather critics. The followers and the critics sometimes get into heated discussions of this man’s main idea.

Before anything can really be decided to the satisfaction of both sides, the man ends his tour. He bids adieu and walks into the sunset. Leaving his followers with more questions and his critics still talking about nuances of what he said.

There is hope for his return. His second appearance. Most probably this will not happen soon. (He is not unlike Seinfeld, either, in this regard. )

His followers continue to spread his Message. His critics still argue its point. Both agree there is more to be said about it. And there is and so they do.

In the original book - the Hero comes back in 3 days after his original departure. Chats with his followers, clears up a few things and splits. The newer version, I think, he does not.

What is agreed by both sides is that they are all delighted to have heard him speak and have had the opportunity to chat with him.

Both versions of the book are good. I prefer the Original. But, it is also not unlike Godfather I And II. Either movie has great moments. Arguments could be made for both movies being the better one. Indeed, Godfather II is quite an accomplishment (which most often is not the case for sequels) . Personally, I feel that even though Pacino is one of the best, Brando is still a hard act to follow.

[carlo]

"Your argument against the occurance of miracles assumes that miracles do not occur."

No, I'm trying to be clear as possible.If the creator does indeed present us with universal cosmic laws does HE break his own laws? This sounds like the Greek Olympus where Zeus,Appolo,etc. have human characteristics. I could see Zeus changing his mind and acting directly in the affairs of men. I could see these gods choosing a side in the Trojan war. .

I believe the rest of my post absolutely states that these events do occur and that the Bible is absolutely true. I see this type of event pointing to a spiritual reality of which we can learn and thus broaden our being.

Who moves the sun?

carlo

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If the creator does indeed present us with universal cosmic laws does HE break his own laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

If God is the one that governs the natural laws of the universe, wouldn't it follow that only God could suspend those laws?

As to the rest of your message...I didn't really get it. That's probably because I'm dense. Oh well.

[carlo]

"If God is the one that governs the natural laws of the universe, wouldn't it follow that only God could suspend those laws?"

This is the real problem--can we lay any attributes on the Creator? An interesting read is Dionysus the Areopagite who reaches to the spiritual world by negating all human qualities which one may lay on the Divine One.

IsHE Justice? negate this and work beyond human justice. Is HE the Light. negate and work beyond human concepts. etc.

I don't quite have this right but this is the method of an early Christian mystic to reach the Godhead.By using his thinking he arrives to a spiritual realm. Dionysus was converted by Paul and I believe this is pictured in the Acts of the Apostles. Dionysus is quite often referred to in the works of Thomas Aquinas.

The works of Rudolf Steiner would help in the understanding of spiritual realities.

carlo

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
"If God is the one that governs the natural laws of the universe, wouldn't it follow that only God could suspend those laws?"

This is the real problem--can we lay any attributes on the Creator? An interesting read is Dionysus the Areopagite who reaches to the spiritual world by negating all human qualities which one may lay on the Divine One.

IsHE Justice? negate this and work beyond human justice. Is HE the Light. negate and work beyond human concepts. etc.

I don't quite have this right but this is the method of an early Christian mystic to reach the Godhead.By using his thinking he arrives to a spiritual realm. Dionysus was converted by Paul and I believe this is pictured in the Acts of the Apostles. Dionysus is quite often referred to in the works of Thomas Aquinas.

The works of Rudolf Steiner would help in the understanding of spiritual realities.

carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world are you talking about? I've gone back and read most of your posts over the last couple of months to see if I can maybe get an understanding of where you are coming from and what you are talking about. I'm at a loss. The only thing I can figure is you like the writings of a dude named Rudolf Steiner. None of the rest of it seems to make much sense.

[NLSoldier]

Didnt you see the story about the lady who sold the piece of bread that looked like the virgin mary on ebay? What more proof do you need?

[carlo]

Sorry-next time I'll try to make things clearer.

carlo