Can We Today Believe In Miracles?

[Doubting John]

David Hume’s argument against miracles: “even if...but in fact.” He argues first that miracles could never be identified in principle, even if they took place, but in fact there can’t be enough evidence to believe they took place. Hume never said miracles couldn’t occur, he only argued that it is not rational to believe that a miracle took place unless it would be more “miraculous” that it didn’t. The wise man proportions his belief based upon what is most likely to be the case.

Hume Defines Miracles as Violations of Natural Laws. We couldn’t argue that a miracle is just a surprising event that was timed right, or a psychosomatic healing, because then what right do we have to assert that it is a miracle at all? We couldn’t argue that a miracle is an event that occurs outside the knowledge and control of natural law as available to the miracle worker at that time. Then the problem resurfaces, maybe people believed for less than adequate reasons? Hume’s definition of miracles as “violations of natural laws” might seem too strident of a definition, however. What does it mean to violate natural law? While miracles must have a cause that lies outside natural law itself, they wouldn’t violate the principle of cause and effect—miracles would just have a supernatural cause. Still, Dr. Eric Mascall insisted that a miracle signifies “a striking interposition of divine power by which the operations of the ordinary course of nature are overruled, suspended, or modified. “Miracles” in Chamber’s Encyclopedia. We can define it no better than that, although I know of many good attempts to define them.

Hume argues that the probability of a miracle happening (that is, violation of natural law) will always be lower than the probability that miracle has not occurred (that is, that natural law was not violated). Why? Because “there must be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation.” Hence the wise person should not believe a miracle occurred unless it is more “miraculous” not to believe it occurred, than to believe that it did. And in the modern world we have a strong presumption in favor of natural law, based on science as opposed to the miraculous, as Anthony Flew explains: “a strong notion of the truly miraculous can only be generated if there is first an equally strong conception of a natural order. Where there is as yet no strong conception of a natural order, there is little room for the idea of a genuinely miraculous event as distinct from the phenomenon of a prodigy, of a wonder, or of a divine sign. But once such a conception of a natural order has taken firm root, there is a great reluctance to allow that miracles have in fact occurred, or even to admit as legitimate a concept of the miraculous.” “Exceptions are logically dependent upon rules. Only in so far as it can be shown that there is an order does it begin to be possible to show that the order is occasionally overridden. The difficulty (perhaps an insoluble one) is to maintain simultaneously both the strong rules and the genuine exceptions to them.” “Miracles” in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Critical Biblical scholar David F. Strauss agreed with this and wrote: “We may summarily reject all miracles, prophecies, narratives of angels and demons, and the like, as simply impossible and irreconcilable with the known and universal laws which govern the course of events.” In his Life of Jesus.

Hume Offers Four “but in fact” Arguments. 1) Miraculous claims are mainly made by uneducated superstitious people who lack common sense, integrity, or a good reputation. 2) There are many instances of forged miracles, which prove the strong propensity of mankind to believe a wondrous and extraordinary story, and then exaggerate it when they retell it. 3) Miracle claims originate among tribes who are uncivilized, ignorant and barbarous. Hume asks, why is it that “such prodigious events never happen in our days?” 4) Competing religions support their beliefs by claims of miracles; thus these claims and their religious systems cancel each other out. That is, any miracles that count for one religion cancel out the miracles of the other, and vise versa.

Hume concludes: “Therefore we may establish it as a maxim that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion.” Should a miracle be ascribed to a system of religion, we are obliged “to compare the instances of the violation of truth in the testimony of men, with those of the violation of the laws of nature by miracles, in order to judge which of them is most likely and probable. As the violations of truth are more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles than in that concerning any other matter of fact; this must diminish very much the former testimony, and make us form a general resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be covered.” Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, (chapter 10).

Can You Refute Hume? I remember sitting down and talking with my former professor, William Lane Craig, at an apologetics conference. Craig is one of the leading defenders of the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus, and in his popular book, Apologetics: An Introduction, (Moody Press, 1984) he devoted a full chapter to the problem of miracles. While we were talking he said to me “Hume has been refuted years ago.” To which I replied, “I didn’t know Hume could be refuted because he merely said that the wise man proportions his belief based upon what is most likely to be the case.” To which Bill admitted, on second thought, that I was right, “You’re right, Hume cannot be refuted.” But he argued that we could believe in miracles in spite of Hume, and I agreed. But Hume makes a great deal of sense. I have about a dozen books that take issue with Hume’s argument, showing that it’s still possible in spite of Hume to believe in miracles. But again, Hume never said miracles cannot occur, only that there is no reason he knows of to believe in any of them.

Stephen T. Davis wrote an essay in the journal, Faith and Philosophy, which is produced by the Society of Christian Philosophers. While Davis thinks Hume “overstates his case,” he wrote: “Hume is not the sort of philosopher one can dismiss with a casual wave of the hand. Much of his argument, I believe is beyond reproach…He is surely correct that rational people will require very strong evidence indeed before they will believe that a miracle has occurred.” (“Is it Possible to Know That Jesus Was Raised From the Dead,” April 1984 issue).

What’s Wrong With This Kind of Skepticism Anyway? Michael Shermer, a former Christian turned skeptic wrote a book titled: Why People Believe Weird Things (2002). There are a great many weird things that people believe took place in history. How do you decide what happened? Whether you know it or not, when it comes to the apparent unexplainable event, you apply Hume’s standards, especially when it comes to the miraculous claims of religions you don’t accept. Likewise, adherents of those religions, including atheists, apply Hume’s standards to the miracles you accept.

Michael Shremer calls skepticism a virtue: “Skepticism is a virtue and science is a valuable tool that makes skepticism virtuous. Science and skepticism are the best methods of determining how strong your convictions are, regardless of the outcome of the inquiry. If you challenge your belief tenets and end up as a nonbeliever, then apparently your faith was not all that sound to begin with and you have improved your thinking in the process. If you question your religion but in the end retain your belief, you have lost nothing and gained a deeper understanding of the God question. It is okay to be skeptical.” In How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, (W.H. Freeman, 2000, p. 23). The late atheist Carl Sagan listed some “tools for skeptical thinking” which he called his “baloney detection kit,” in The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Random House, 1996, pp. 210-18). Here are a few of them: 1) “Whenever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts;” 2) “Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view;” 3) “Spin more than one hypothesis;” 4) “Try not to get attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours;” 5) “Always ask if the proposition can at least in principle be falsified,” and so on.

Objections to Hume’s Argument:
The major objection with Hume’s main argument against miracles is that he begs the question of whether miracles have in fact taken place. By defining a miracle as a violation of natural law, it then automatically follows that a miracle is less probable, as it must be for it to be classified as a miracle. Based upon this understanding Hume claims that a wise man should not believe in miracles because by definition they are less probable. C.S. Lewis: “If there is absolute ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have? Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all reports of them are false. And we know all the reports to be false only if we already know that miracles have never happened.” Miracles (p. 105). William Lane Craig: “To say that uniform experience is against miracles is to implicitly assume already that miracles have never occurred. The only way Hume can place uniform experience for the regularity of nature on one side of the scale is by assuming that the testimony for miracles on the other side of the scale is false. And that, quite simply, is begging the question.” Apologetics: An Introduction (p. 121). Or to put it another way, just because it’s very improbable that a miracle has actually occurred doesn’t mean that it didn’t. By saying a wise man shouldn’t believe in a miracle begs the question of whether or not a miracle occurred in the past.

Hume does overstate his case somewhat when he indicates that a wise person “shouldn’t believe” a miracle occurred because of our confidence in the regular order of the laws of nature. But there’s nothing wrong with Hume when he argues that the preponderance of historical, physical, testimonial and circumstantial evidence should outweigh our confidence in the laws of nature. He could still admit the possibility of a miracle but yet deny that there is enough evidence to lead him to believe one has occurred. And yet, he did say that. He said that it is not rational to believe that a miracle took place unless it would be more “miraculous” that it didn’t.

Hume is surely right that we should be skeptical of any claim of a miracle. As I said before: When it comes to the apparent unexplainable event, you apply Hume’s standards, especially when it comes to the miraculous claims of religions you don’t accept. Likewise, adherents of those religions apply Hume’s standards to the miracles you accept. So the issue of question begging can be turned back on both C.S Lewis and Craig, who defend the truth of the Christian faith. Since they both believe in Christianity then they won’t believe any miracles that attest to the major truth claims of other religions. Which one of them, for instance will take seriously the claim that God spoke “miraculously” to Muhammad so that the Koran is his word? Conversely, since they believe in Christianity, they do not approach the Biblical miracles with the same kind of scrutiny or skepticism they use to judge miracles outside of their faith. They have a very strong presumption in favor of Christian miracles, just like Hume—a Deist—has a very strong presumption that miracles shouldn’t be believed. If Hume begs the question, then in practice so does Craig and C.S. Lewis when it comes to the miraculous claims of religions they reject.

Another objection has to do with the possibility that Hume commits the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a generalization hastily based upon a small sample of experiences or tests. John King-Farlow and William Niels Christensen ask us to imagine a container hidden from sight so we don’t know how large it is. From this container we draw out nothing but red marbles, every time. Based on our limited sampling we conclude that the container has nothing but red marbles in it. But since we don’t know how large the container is it may actually contain more blue marbles than red ones, because it’s extremely huge. In the same way, events that seem miraculous to us might prove in the end to be more probable after all. Judging things as Hume does might prove to be too hasty of a conclusion before all experience is in. Faith and the Life of Reason, 1972 (p. 50). This could be true, if there is a God. And just because we today don’t experience miracles doesn’t mean that throughout the history of mankind God has done a plethora of them, and will do so again when the time is right in the future too.

King-Farlow and Christensen are asking us to believe against the overwhelming present day experience of nearly all modern people that things might turn out differently than we now experience. Is this impossible? No, not at all. But we must still ask whether this is probable given our present day confirmations of natural law. The only basis for asking us to consider whether events that seem to be miraculous to us might prove in the end to be more probable after all, is the existence of God. As C. Stephen Evans writes: “The defender of miracles may claim that whether miracles occur depends largely on whether God exists, what kind of God he is, and what purposes he has.” Philosophy of Religion (IVP, 1985, p. 113). Evans is surely right here: it depends on whether God exists, who he is, and his goals for us.

What if, as Alvin Plantinga has argued, that the belief in God is properly basic for human beings? How much content can that properly basic belief contain? The ontological argument for the existence of God helps fill in the content to our faith in God. But does this properly basic belief in God further contain the ideas that Jesus was God incarnate born of a virgin in Bethlehem, or that Jesus bodily rose from the grave? These are historical questions of miracles that must be believed additionally. So here’s the catch-22. For someone to believe the evidence for the foundational Christian miracle claims, as I’ll call them, then as Evans admits, he must first believe in the Christian God. He cannot bring himself to believe those miracles if he begins by first believing in Allah, as we’ve seen, because then he will apply Hume’s standards to those miracle claims. But in order to believe in the Christian God, as opposed to Allah, he must first have some pretty strong historical, physical, testimonial and circumstantial evidence to believe in the foundational Christian miracle claims. Think about this. We either start with the Christian God, or the evidence must be very strong. From where comes this starting point? People born into different religions have a different starting point. So we’re left with just the evidence, but as I’ll argue next, evidence alone cannot convince someone otherwise!

There are Christian evidentialists, like Gary R. Habermas, who think otherwise and argue that the evidence for one particular Christian miracle, the bodily resurrection of Christ, can be strong enough to convince a rational skeptic to believe in Christ and the Christian world-view. But Stephen T. Davis argued convincingly against Habermas in a debate on how we can know the resurrection of Jesus occurred, in the Journal Faith and Philosophy (April 1984, July 1985). Davis: “The non-believer’s position is probably convincing to the non-believer not primarily because of the evidence or arguments in its favor but because it is entailed by the world-view he or she accepts. Similarly, the believer’s position is probably convincing to the believer not primarily because of the evidence or arguments in its favor but because it dovetails with the world view he or she accepts.” “There is no such thing as bare uninterrupted evidence or experience, and so the way one evaluates the evidence one see depends to a great extent on one’s world-view, i.e., on whether or not one thinks miracles are possible or probable.” (April 1984, p. 154-155). “All people interpret their experience within a certain philosophical framework. For many people, their philosophical assumptions exclude God’s existence and the possibility of miracles. The odd thing is that a decision a person makes whether to believe in the resurrection is usually made on some basis other than the evidence pro and con. Those who believe in Christ believe in the resurrection; those who accept naturalism do not. There is a curious circularity here,” but it is “not an instance of committing the fallacy of circular reasoning,” (i.e., it’s not “viciously circular”). Some episodes of circularity are “unavoidable.” (July 1985, p. 306).

Norman Geisler stated this problem much stronger: “The mere fact of the resurrection cannot be used to establish the truth that there is a God. For the resurrection cannot even be a miracle unless there already is a God.” “The real problem for the Christian apologist is to find some way apart from the mere facts themselves to establish the justifiability of interpreting the facts in a theistic way.” “No fact, event, or series thereof within an overall framework which derives all of its meaning from the framework can be determinative of the framework which bestows that meaning on it. For no fact or set of facts can of and by themselves, apart from any meaning or interpretation given to them, establish which of the alternative viewpoints should be taken on the fact(s).” Christian Apologetics, (pp. 94-98).

[Mark Little]

Hume does overstate his case somewhat when he indicates that a wise person “shouldn’t believe” a miracle occurred because of our confidence in the regular order of the laws of nature. But there’s nothing wrong with Hume when he argues that the preponderance of historical, physical, testimonial and circumstantial evidence should outweigh our confidence in the laws of nature. He could still admit the possibility of a miracle but yet deny that there is enough evidence to lead him to believe one has occurred. And yet, he did say that. He said that it is not rational to believe that a miracle took place unless it would be more “miraculous” that it didn’t.

Are you sure that you aren't mis-interpreting that last statement?

Let's look at the ressurection. One may believe that Jesus rose from the dead. The probability of a person doing that is highly improbable. That a human survives massive injury for a long time is unusual, but not unknown. That a person may appear to be dead and revive later is also not unknown. It is also known that it is very common for people to inflate stories to convince people of a point of view and that the tale grows with the telling.

So, using "Hume's principle", a rational man would conclude that based on what we know of the world, the "rational" conclusion is that a dead body does not back to life and that there is another non-miraculous explanation. If, on the other hand, Jesus took you by the hand and rose to the heavens and shot past the Moon and the Sun with you in tow, this would be "more miraculous" if it were not a miracle.

[Johnny Skeptic]

If God wants to prove that he can perform miracles today, he can do so anytime that he wants to. Obviously, he doesn't want to. If he did, that would provide too much proof that he exists, and he has proven that he will have none of that.

[JonAdams]

Hume Offers Four “but in fact” Arguments. 1) Miraculous claims are mainly made by uneducated superstitious people who lack common sense, integrity, or a good reputation.
3) Miracle claims originate among tribes who are uncivilized, ignorant and barbarous. Hume asks, why is it that “such prodigious events never happen in our days?”

These two points speak more for enlightenment arrogance than against miracles. Anyone who is "ignorant" for example could never claim to see a miracle for the simple reason that one must know what is normal to recognise the miraculous. (e.g. Joseph knew women don't get pregnant without having sex so when Mary got pregnant he assumed this is what had happened, hence planned to divorce her - see Matt 1:19). People of Humes day liked to assume they were better than their predecesors, and obviously anyone who believed in such silly things as miracles had to be ignorant and superstitious.
As well as this, miracles do happen in our day (and I suspect in Humes day as well). However, most people refuse to see them due to pre-existing assumptions (specifically that they don't happen!) I could tell you stories of healings and the like but I wont because it is pointless (I can't prove them, you'd have to accept my word and there is no reason for you to do that). Inspite of what people like to say, seeing is not believing, believing is seeing (the gospels show this well).

2) There are many instances of forged miracles, which prove the strong propensity of mankind to believe a wondrous and extraordinary story, and then exaggerate it when they retell it.

All this proves is that people like the attention and fame such things can get them. This is like saying because there are many imitation rolex watches there are no real rolex watches (I mean, I've never seen one so they can't exist!)

4) Competing religions support their beliefs by claims of miracles; thus these claims and their religious systems cancel each other out. That is, any miracles that count for one religion cancel out the miracles of the other, and vise versa.

Actually most religions do not depend on miracles at all, and would get along quite nicely without them. The only major religion for which this is not true is Christianity, take away the resurrection (the greastest miracles of all) and what is left is empty, some nice sayings and stories but not much else.

Jonathan.

[salvationfound]

If God wants to prove that he can perform miracles today, he can do so anytime that he wants to. Obviously, he doesn't want to. If he did, that would provide too much proof that he exists, and he has proven that he will have none of that.

No because many people believe God has performed miracles today. The
only problem is you just aren't willing to accept any of them as true.

Here is an example:
http://birdsongatmidnight.com/sunvideo.html

Do you believe this video clip is of a miracle? Probably not. This shows that
even if God does miracles the skeptic may still deny it.

Here is an example:

God: hmmmm I'm gonna part the seas today for skeptics.

Skeptic: There was a storm and the wind was strong enough to push the
water away. There was no miracle.

God: I'm gonna raise ths person from the dead.

Skeptic: That person was in a coma they were never dead.

God: I'm gonna destroy the whole moon.

Skeptic: A big meteor must have hit the moon.

Can you imagine how frustrating that would be? Its no wonder God causes
miracles to happen few and far between. I think God has more patience than
I ever could.

[Doubting John]

J.L. Mackie’s Argument Against Miracles

J.L. Mackie in his book, The Miracle of Theism (Clarendon Press, 1982)
argues for a similar catch-22 as I mentioned above. Let me quote from him.
“The defender of a miracle…must in effect concede to Hume that the
antecedent improbability of this event is as high as it could be, hence that,
apart from the testimony, we have the strongest possible grounds for
believing that the alleged event did not occur. This event must, by the
miracle advocate’s own admission, be contrary to a genuine, not merely
supposed, law of nature, and therefore maximally improbable. It is this
maximal improbability that the weight of the testimony would have to
overcome.” “Where there is some plausible testimony about the occurrence
of what would appear to be a miracle, those who accept this as a miracle
have the double burden of showing both that the event took place and that it
violated the laws of nature. But it will be very hard to sustain this double
burden. For whatever tends to show that it would have been a violation of a
natural law tends for that very reason to make it most unlikely that is
actually happened.”

Mackie then distinguishes between two different contexts in which an
alleged miracle might be considered as a real one. First, there is the context
of two parties in which “already both have accepted some general theistic
doctrines and the point at issue is, whether a miracle has occurred which
would enhance the authority of a specific sect or teacher. In this context
supernatural intervention, though prima facie (“on the surface”) unlikely on
any particular occasion, is, generally speaking, on the cards: it is not
altogether outside the range of reasonable expectation for these parties.” The
second context is a very different matter when “the context is that of
fundamental debate about the truth of theism itself. Here one party to the
debate is initially at least agnostic, and does not yet concede that there is a
supernatural power at all. From this point of view the intrinsic
improbability of a genuine miracle…is very great, and that one or other of
the alternative explanations…will always be much more likely—that is,
either that the alleged event is not miraculous, or that it did not occur,
or that the testimony is faulty in some way.” Mackie concludes by saying: “This
entails that it is pretty well impossible that reported miracles should provide
a worthwhile argument for theism addressed to those who are initially
inclined to atheism or even to agnosticism.” (From chapter one).

Why is it that someone like Hume has had such a great influence over
us, and yet William Lane Craig could say at one point that “Hume has been
refuted”? William Lane Craig said in the introduction to the Truth
Journal that "Mackie's critique of miracles is “particularly shockingly
superficial” (emphasis mine). Mackie’s arguments are not superficial.
Craig made this statement in a footnote while discussing Alvin Plantinga’s critique
of Mackie’s book, The Miracle of Theism (Clarendon Press, 1982). Alvin Plantinga is credited
with the resurgence of Christian theism among philosophers today. So I
reread Plantinga's essay in the Faith and Philosophy journal (April 1986).

And as I was doing so, I thought to
myself that this was superficial too. Really. It's obvious that Plantinga
critiques Mackie from a theistic perspective. He even says so. Plantinga
refers repeatedly to the phrase "to me," or "my evidence," "my experience," or
"our evidence." Take for example this sentence: “as a matter of fact it could
be that what is in fact a violation of a law of nature (a miracle) not only
wasn’t particularly improbable with respect to our evidence (emphasis mine),
but was in fact more probable than not with respect to it.” What kind of
evidence is he speaking to that is specifically his? He’s debating Mackie
from within a viewpoint Mackie doesn’t accept. That is, he totally ignores
Mackie’s distinction between the two contexts in which an alleged miracle
might be considered as a real one. Mackie’s debate is inside the second
context where it’s a “fundamental debate about the truth of theism itself.”
Plantinga asks the following question: "why should we think it is
particularly improbable that a law of nature be interfered with?" "I have no
reason to suppose that the world is not regularly interfered with. Why
couldn't interferences with nature be the rule rather than the exception?" But
to people who disagree with Plantinga, that's not a very bright question at
all. How often has anyone ever seen a real miracle? Science has progressed
on the assumption that miracles don't occur in the laboratory. Plantinga
debates with modern science. Now to those of us who question the
believability of miracles, that just seems superficial--sorry.

[Mark Little]

No because many people believe God has performed miracles today. The
only problem is you just aren't willing to accept any of them as true.

Here is an example:
http://birdsongatmidnight.com/sunvideo.html

Do you believe this video clip is of a miracle? Probably not. This shows that
even if God does miracles the skeptic may still deny it.

That "miracle" is as weak as it gets. First the sun does not "jump all around", it remains in the same place. This can be see by watching the tree branches. What is happening is that the blob of light gets wider and narrower. Also look that the camera is out of focus at the start, but way, way out of focus at the end.

Now, what other explanation is possible? Simple. Try this. Get your camera and point it at a light. Now put the camera on manual and open and close the aperture. What you see is the image of the light getting bigger and smaller.

Oh no. A miracle!!

[salvationfound]

That "miracle" is as weak as it gets. First the sun does not "jump all around", it remains in the same place. This can be see by watching the tree branches. What is happening is that the blob of light gets wider and narrower. Also look that the camera is out of focus at the start, but way, way out of focus at the end.

Now, what other explanation is possible? Simple. Try this. Get your camera and point it at a light. Now put the camera on manual and open and close the aperture. What you see is the image of the light getting bigger and smaller.

Oh no. A miracle!!

Thank you Mark for proving my point.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: If God wants to prove that he can perform miracles today, he can do so anytime that he wants to. Obviously, he doesn't want to. If he did, that would provide too much proof that he exists, and he has proven that he will have none of that.

Salvationfound replied: No, because many people believe God has performs miracles today. The only problem is you just aren't willing to accept any of them as true.

Here is an example:
http://birdsongatmidnight.com/sunvideo.html

Johnny: I would rather have an example of a tangible miracle in your own life.

Salvationfound: Do you believe this video clip is of a miracle? Probably not. This shows that even if God does miracles the skeptic may still deny it.

Here is an example:

God: hmmmm I'm gonna part the seas today for skeptics.

Skeptic: There was a storm and the wind was strong enough to push the water away. There was no miracle.

God: I'm gonna raise ths person from the dead.

Skeptic: That person was in a coma they were never dead.

God: I'm gonna destroy the whole moon.

Skeptic: A big meteor must have hit the moon.

Can you imagine how frustrating that would be? Its no wonder God causes miracles to happen few and far between. I think God has more patience than I ever could.

Johnny: Now please, Salvationfound. God could easily get around the objections that you mentioned from skeptics. One way would be to predict on the worldwide media that he was going to instantly repair every road on in the world that needed repair in at a specific time and then do it. Another way would be to predict that he would instantly heal all of the sick people in the world and then do it. Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.” How much compassion for sick people does God have today? How about the suffering of innocent animals?

[sandlewood]

No because many people believe God has performed miracles today. The only problem is you just aren't willing to accept any of them as true.

Here is an example:
http://birdsongatmidnight.com/sunvideo.html

That is just sad.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Salvationfound wrote: No, because many people believe God has performed miracles today. The only problem is you just aren't willing to accept any of them as true.

Johnny: Nothing could be further from the truth. Any skeptic would love for a powerful extra-terrestrial being to show up on earth, clearly identity himself, state what his powers are and help us with our many problems. What I would like to know is why God doesn't have more compassion for sick people and heal them.

[Mark Little]

Thank you Mark for proving my point.

Your gullibility index must be extremely high! It appears all someone has to do is do a simple video trick and you are prepared to believe it is a miracle.

I went to that web site expecting to see something that would indeed be puzzling and have no obvious alternate explanation, but I was sorely disappointed to find that such an obvious and repeatable alternative was so apparent.

So, tell me, what about this video do you believe demonstrates that it is a miracle? Why do you think that the much simplier altenative that the camera aperature was manipulated should be rejected?

As an example, Martin showed video footage taken outside the Channel 2 TV station which duplicated "authentic" footage of the "Miracle of the Sun" filmed in Medjugorje. However, this was quickly countered with, "But that doesn't explain this . . ." followed by a show of a rosary that the owner said had turned to gold six months after he went to Medjugorje. The latter was reported completely uncritically, without question or comment.

Ms. Martin also showed people holding pictures of the sun and "The Golden
Door". Despite the fact that she had been provided with a copy of the Georgia Skeptic article by Dale Heatherington, which showed this phenomenon to be an artifact of the Polaroid camera design, she made no mention of this
explanation and left the clear impression that miracles were occurring.

If one can duplicate a "miracle" on demand, then either one is a god, or it isn't a miracle. The think the latter is the more likely occurence, don't you?

There may be debate about things that may or may not be a miracle, but anyone with any interest in serious photography/video will immediately see that this isn't one of them.

[Johnny Skeptic]

JonAdams wrote: As well as this, miracles do happen in our day (and I suspect in Hume's day as well).

Johnny Skeptic: Please mention a few miracles that you have witnessed or experienced yourself, or a few miracles that were experienced by someone who you know. Tangible miracles only, please.

JohAdams: However, most people refuse to see them due to pre-existing assumptions (specifically that they don't happen!)

Johnny: That is nonsense. As I have said before, what skeptic wouldn't like for a powerful extra-terrestrial being to come to earth, clearly identify himself, prove what his powers are and start helping us with our many problems?

JonAdams: I could tell you stories of healings and the like but I won't because it is pointless (I can't prove them, you'd have to accept my word and there is no reason for you to do that).

Johnny: The occurrence of very unusual things does not necessarily indicate divine involvement. The odds are much greater that very unusual things will sometimes occur than they are that very unusual things will never occur. Gambling easily proves that, and most certainly without any divine involvement. In fact, the odds are astronomical that very unusual things will sometimes occur. The very best example of a miracle that I can think of is if very unusual things "never" happened, a situation that could occur by means of divine intervention.

JonAdams: In spite of what people like to say, seeing is not believing, believing is seeing (the gospels show this well).

Johnny: The New Testament disagrees with you. John 10:37-38 say “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” The New International Version translates “works” as “miracles.” Does the verse not say that seeing is believing? My gracious. Even today, millions of Christians themselves disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. The same would have certainly been true 2,000 years ago.

[JonAdams]

Please mention a few miracles that you have witnessed or experienced yourself, or a few miracles that were experienced by someone who you know. Tangible miracles only, please.

As you quote me saying below, what's the point. I can't prove them (certainly not on an internet forum), you simply have to deny them and it's your word against mine.

That is nonsense. As I have said before, what skeptic wouldn't like for a powerful extra-terrestrial being to come to earth, clearly identify himself, prove what his powers are and start helping us with our many problems?

Actually, you would not want God to come to Earth visably, his very presence would destroy you, but that aside. Why should he? He has provided witnesses for himself that are more than enough for people to believe. What makes you (or anyother skeptic) so special that he should do something so drastic?

The occurrence of very unusual things does not necessarily indicate divine involvement. The odds are much greater that very unusual things will sometimes occur than they are that very unusual things will never occur. Gambling easily proves that, and most certainly without any divine involvement. In fact, the odds are astronomical that very unusual things will sometimes occur. The very best example of a miracle that I can think of is if very unusual things "never" happened, a situation that could occur by means of divine intervention.

Yes, but the medically impossible never happens, that is the meaning of impossible. Okay, I'll give one story to demonstrate. A friend of mine once accidentally overdosed on insulin. When they told the nurse how much she'd taken the nurse didn't believe them saying if she'd taken that much she'd be dead (which she clearly wasn't) hence she hadn't taken that much (but she had). The human body works in a certain way, we don't know everything about it but we do know somethings including, if you take more than a certain amount of insulin you will die. She didn't. That is a miracle (now all you have to do is deny it ever happened since I can't prove it did - which is my point).

The New Testament disagrees with you. John 10:37-38 say “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” The New International Version translates “works” as “miracles.” Does the verse not say that seeing is believing? My gracious. Even today, millions of Christians themselves disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. The same would have certainly been true 2,000 years ago.

Those Jesus were talking to had no problem believing in miracles in general. What Jesus was telling them to believe was the claims he was making about himself, and that his miracles (which they had no problem believing) were confirmation of these claims. We are talking about people who do not believe in miracles at all. It is a completely different situation.

Jonathan.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: Please mention a few miracles that you have witnessed or experienced yourself, or a few miracles that were experienced by someone who you know. Tangible miracles only, please.

JonAdams replied: As you quote me saying below, what's the point. I can't prove them (certainly not on an internet forum), you simply have to deny them and it's your word against mine.

Johnny: And your word against millions of Christians as well. Are you a Charismatic?

Johnny Skeptic wrote: That is nonsense. As I have said before, what skeptic wouldn't like for a powerful extra-terrestrial being to come to earth, clearly identify himself, prove what his powers are and start helping us with our many problems?

JA: Actually, you would not want God to come to Earth visibly. His very presence would destroy you, but that aside. Why should he? He has provided witnesses for himself that are more than enough for people to believe. What makes you (or any other skeptic) so special that he should do something so drastic?

Johnny: Which witnesses has God provided? Have you spoken with any of them?

Johnny Skeptic wrote: The occurrence of very unusual things does not necessarily indicate divine involvement. The odds are much greater that very unusual things will sometimes occur than they are that very unusual things will never occur. Gambling easily proves that, and most certainly without any divine involvement. In fact, the odds are astronomical that very unusual things will sometimes occur. The very best example of a miracle that I can think of is if very unusual things "never" happened, a situation that could occur by means of divine intervention.

JA: Yes, but the medically impossible never happens, that is the meaning of impossible.

Johnny: Who is qualified to say what is medically impossible?

JA: Okay, I'll give one story to demonstrate. A friend of mine once accidentally overdosed on insulin. When they told the nurse how much she'd taken the nurse didn't believe them saying if she'd taken that much she'd be dead (which she clearly wasn't) hence she hadn't taken that much (but she had). The human body works in a certain way, we don't know everything about it but we do know some things including, if you take more than a certain amount of insulin you will die. She didn't. That is a miracle (now all you have to do is deny it ever happened since I can't prove it did - which is my point).

Johnny: Even a good number of Christian doctors disagree with you. No two people are alike.

Johnny Skeptic wrote: The New Testament disagrees with you. John 10:37-38 say “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” The New International Version translates “works” as “miracles.” Does the verse not say that seeing is believing? My gracious. Even today, millions of Christians themselves disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. The same would have certainly been true 2,000 years ago.

JA: Those Jesus were talking to had no problem believing in miracles in general. What Jesus was telling them to believe was the claims he was making about himself, and that his miracles (which they had no problem believing) were confirmation of these claims. We are talking about people who do not believe in miracles at all. It is a completely different situation.

Johnny: I would love it if there was conclusive evidence that miracles exist.

Do you believe that animals, both wild and dometic, experience miracle healings?