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.