Its MIRACLES- Not High Falootin First Cause Debate

[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"? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[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. ?