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

[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!!!

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.