Forums → WEPR → Miracles
| 80 | 30314 |
I don't quite remember who doubted miracles, but how do you explain these? Scientists have always chosen to stay away from these. Kinda funny how these people were known as holy people when alive.
http://www.protestanterrors.com/incorruptibles.htm
- 80 Replies
a miracle is something that is impossible and its always good
I am just barely competent in the philosophy of religion, but I can tell you straightaway that this definition won't work. First off, it's too vague. What do you mean by 'impossible' and 'good'? I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but you need to clarify these things rather than just throw them out there.
For example, the great flood which wiped out humanity - in what sense is this 'good'?
The other problem is that this definition is so narrow that it's ridiculous. No one - be it a philosopher of religion or a theistic scholar - would accept this definition.
Let's say we do having something that for all we know is impossible. How could we determine that it's actually a miracle and not just some unknown form of physics at work. Or for that matter some sort of error occurred giving us an unusual result?
a miracle is something that is impossible and its always good
1) Impossible to what standards?
2) Good for all?
Hypothetical situation:
Alan is dating Chelsea. Chelsea loves Alan. Alan has much stronger feelings for Danielle, though. Alan asked Danielle out before Chelsea, and was rejected. Alan, in short, has no hope for getting Danielle. Alan starts to become miserable while in the relationship, due to his lack of feelings for Chelsea, but the only other girl he wants to be with isn't interested in him. So, one night, Alan prays to god to have Danielle like him and want to be with him.
The next day, Alan awakes to a text from Danielle stating that she has feelings for him and wants to be with him. Alan breaks up with Chelsea* (respectfully) and goes with Danielle, and they live happily ever after. It's a miracle! =D
*Chelsea, however, falls into a strong spell of depression due to this break up and losing her love. She begins to have major self confidence issues, which lead to her attempting suicide. But who cares? =D Did you see that miracle that just happened to Alan?? =D
religion is a part of life but atheism is just plain stupid and anyway its not like im telling you to reply so just be quiet
religion is a part of life but atheism is just plain stupid and anyway its not like im telling you to reply so just be quiet
You gave a really terrible definition and got hammered for it. Grow up, kiddo - it's part of life.
If you'd like to clarify your definition or retract in favour of a better one, then feel free. But don't sit there being a pouty pants and tell people that their ideas are stupid and to be quiet.
At any rate, I think we should do away with the 'impossibility' part of the definition. Not only is the notion vague (do we mean logically, metaphysically, or physically impossible?) but it is simply god-of-the-gaps thinking just in a different hat. Just because something doesn't lend itself to an explanation in our current understanding of the universe doesn't mean it lack an explanation altogether. Reasoning in this way risks eliminating god from the equation if/when a proper explanation is discovered.
So what does this leave us with? Is it not just trivially true (or question begging) to say that a miracle is any event which obtains through divine intervention?
I think we should do away with the 'impossibility' part of the definition.
then we have only the mathematics left, right?
thats not a miracle, thats mathematics.
then we have only the mathematics left, right?
thats not a miracle, thats mathematics.
By this do you mean the inherent probability of the event obtaining? I think we definitely need a necessary condition having to do with divine intervention since the notion of improbability and miraculousness can come apart.
But I'm wondering if including the probability into a definition might be a mistake as well. It would seem to introduce a threshold problem - how improbable must an event be for it to be classified as a miracle?
As an atheist, I'm obviously sceptical of the mere presence of miracles. But that shouldn't preclude us from at least providing a coherent definition.
Reasoning in this way risks eliminating god from the equation if/when a proper explanation is discovered.
Isn't that what happens almost every time?
So what does this leave us with? Is it not just trivially true (or question begging) to say that a miracle is any event which obtains through divine intervention?
The problem is, I guess, the amount of non-miraculous events purportedly involving some amount of divine intervention. "Thank God I found my car keys!" is such an example; you know, when people start attributing every good thing to god and every bad thing to devils. Miracles usually are called that either because of their impossibility (in which case a rational explanation kills the miracle (as happens usually)), or because of their improbability (the belief that this event was not just mere statistics, but that there was a reason for that to happen (divine intervention)).
The impossibility issue has the problem you mentioned; the improbability issue is mere belief and comes close to your divine intervention definition, although it is a subjective one. Objective evidence for such an intervention is often claimed by some individuals, but proving this would defeat the purpose of believing.
I think we definitely need a necessary condition having to do with divine intervention since the notion of improbability and miraculousness can come apart.
I'm wondering if including the probability into a definition might be a mistake as well. It would seem to introduce a threshold problem - how improbable must an event be for it to be classified as a miracle?
so basically your looking for a threshold, but you dont want one? =S
(this edge looks as sharp as the edge between patriotism and nationalism.(but then way higher))
He's not looking for a threshold of one parameter, he's looking for a distinct, new parameter that has no gradient. So instead of a certain percentage of probability, we'd have a 1/0 situation - divine intervention or no divine intervention.
religion is a part of life but atheism is just plain stupid and anyway its not like im telling you to reply so just be quiet
No need to get upset. All that was needed was a further clarification of your statement. As for replying or not, it's rather hard to hold a discussion on a subject without replying.
At any rate, I think we should do away with the 'impossibility' part of the definition. Not only is the notion vague (do we mean logically, metaphysically, or physically impossible?) but it is simply god-of-the-gaps thinking just in a different hat. Just because something doesn't lend itself to an explanation in our current understanding of the universe doesn't mean it lack an explanation altogether. Reasoning in this way risks eliminating god from the equation if/when a proper explanation is discovered.
When saying impossible it's referring to as wiki puts it "a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature" basically it would be something going against physical laws. But what you said gets to what I was trying to say. It could just be the function of an unknown physical law rather than a supernatural agent. It could even be a known physical law and we just overlooked the actual cause for the anomaly.
The fact that I got to eat beef for breakfast was a miracle.
yea you can call the few hundred people and 1 cow that were needed for the production a miracle. just like it's a miracle that i take a piss out of my wee-wee.
Isn't that what happens almost every time?
In the entire history of the universe, the answer to every question we've ever asked and found was, "not god."
You must be logged in to post a reply!