Page 3 of 4

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:04 am
by PaulSacramento
MAGSolo wrote:No, there is plenty of stuff in the bible that clearly violates basic physical principles.
For sure, hence the view of them being miracles.
Of course most, outside of the resurrection(s), can probably be explained by some natural explanation but there are a few that go beyond that.
Jesus feeding the multitudes, walking on water and healing people fall into that category of course.
I recall on explanation of these events by a skeptic that believed that God, Angels and Jesus were just super advanced aliens and that their technology was able to manipulate matter and energy.
So, in his view, these events were not miracles or supernatural, just beyond our immediate understanding and technology.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:15 am
by jlay
If the first miracle is true, then all the others are possible. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:23 am
by PaulSacramento
jlay wrote:If the first miracle is true, then all the others are possible. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Every generation as their own perception of what is natural and supernatural, what a miracle is.
Many of the things we can do now would be viewed as "miraculous" or "supernatural" 2000 years ago.
We really have no idea what will be viewed a such 2000 years from now.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:14 pm
by 1over137
MAGSolo wrote:Why did people of ancient times get to witness either miracles directly from God/Jesus or through prophets/disciples but we do not? Why would God just remove all evidence of the supernatural and ask us to believe in the supernatural just based on faith when ancient people were able to witness truly supernatural miracles?
Once my friend (a pastor) told me that God was doing something new (new covenant) and needed to accompany that with miracles so that people believe Jesus.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:21 pm
by 1over137
MAGSolo wrote:Because in my lifetime I have never seen anything occur that was outside of the physical laws of nature. So for me to believe that the supernatural events that repeatedly occurred in the bible are possible, I would like some proof that supernatural events can occur. Otherwise the supernatural events of the bible can be seen as nothing but fanciful, completely made up stories. I have never seen anything supernatural, so I have no reason to believe that it can occur or that it has ever occurred at any time in human history.
Something outside the physical laws? Maybe their creation. Or were they always here?

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:24 pm
by Jac3510
So let me get this straight . . .

MAG asks why there are no more miracles. Amy gives him one, and he retorts by asking for proof said miracle actually happened? Does anyone else see the circular logic there?

I can throw several explicitly supernatural miracles into the mix. I'll pick just one. I should not have been born. My mother was diagnosed with a severe case of endometriosis. A dye test showed here fallopian tubes were so filled with scar tissue that they were absolutely impassible. She prayed, and lo and behold, here I am (plus a brother and a sister later!). After my brother was born, she had enough of God answering her prayers and had her tubes tied. The same doctor who did the dye test was the same one that delivered all three of us and tied her tubes. He was surprised to see her tubes. He said they were textbook healthy--no scarring whatsoever.

So yes, miracles do happen today. Granted, people like MAG try to either explain them away or insist on more evidence. That just goes to show that the question posed in the OP is not an honest one.

But the question itself is silly for another reason. Even if we granted the premise that miracles don't happen today (which we pretty much all dispute, but let that pass), the question is not whether or not they happen today, but whether or not they ever happened. On that count, things like the Creation and the Resurrection of Christ, fulfilled prophecy, etc., all need explanation. But here we have yet another example of atheistic circular reasoning. You have those conversations and are then just given trite comments like he offered above, accusing theists of god-of-the-gaps reasoning. So no matter how much evidence is presented, in principle they refuse to accept it, not because the evidence favors their view, but because they've already decided on philosophical materialism before the conversation has even begun. Ergo, more circular reasoning.

Finally, I want to highlight what was said by somebody (I missed who) earlier in the thread: even in the biblical times, miracles were rare. They were pretty much performed by a few people: Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Peter, and Paul. All of those people were the main people to introduce major revelation. Moses introduced the Law. Elijah and Elisha the golden age of the Prophets. Jesus, well . . . the whole Messiah thing! And Peter and Paul with the Church. I'm not inclined to believe that people today have that kind of gift of miracles, but I do believe that God still answers prayers miraculously.

That's my $.02 anyway. :)

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:59 pm
by jlay
PaulSacramento wrote:
jlay wrote:If the first miracle is true, then all the others are possible. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Every generation as their own perception of what is natural and supernatural, what a miracle is.
Many of the things we can do now would be viewed as "miraculous" or "supernatural" 2000 years ago.
We really have no idea what will be viewed a such 2000 years from now.
That is really not my point Paul. When discussing miracles, I think it is important to be consistent in the use of the term. A miracle would be anything beyond natural explanation, now or later. now, you point out that not all natural explanations are known. However, a dead person being raised from the dead, or a leper being instantly restored to perfect health will not be able to be naturally explained later. Providence is a better term to describe things that happen naturally but may appear to be supernaturally ordained. For example, I have a fear of flying. I always felt like I was missing out because people I knew were flying to Africa or South America for mission trips. Yet, I knew God had put something on my heart. I was sitting in the church pew, praying, "God, do I really need to fly half way around the world to serve?" That day we had a guest speaker (a good friend now) who came to our congregation to talk about a minsitry. He said, "I know some of you think you have to fly half way around the world to serve in the mission field. But, I'm here to tell you, there is a 3rd world country right in your back yard." Needless to say, He had my attention. Do I believe that God was divinely at work? yes. Were any natural laws superceded? No. It was the providence of God. I would not describe it as a miracle, and I don't think that diminsihes the event one bit. I have served as a local missionary, ministering the Gospel to at-risk children for the past seven years.

Take Jac's example. I am familiar with endometriosis, and sever cases usually means the woman will never carry a child to term, and will likely result in a hysterectomy. Scarring from endometriosis does not heal itself, and surgery is required to remove the scarring. So, either the doctors original diagnosis was wrong, or a miracle occurred.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:56 pm
by MAGSolo
Jac3510 wrote:So let me get this straight . . .

MAG asks why there are no more miracles. Amy gives him one, and he retorts by asking for proof said miracle actually happened? Does anyone else see the circular logic there?

So its circular logic to ask for evidence that an event that was claimed to have happened, actually happened? You clearly dont know what circular logic means. Do you think we should just believe everything anybody tells us without asking for proof?

I can throw several explicitly supernatural miracles into the mix. I'll pick just one. I should not have been born. My mother was diagnosed with a severe case of endometriosis. A dye test showed here fallopian tubes were so filled with scar tissue that they were absolutely impassible. She prayed, and lo and behold, here I am (plus a brother and a sister later!). After my brother was born, she had enough of God answering her prayers and had her tubes tied. The same doctor who did the dye test was the same one that delivered all three of us and tied her tubes. He was surprised to see her tubes. He said they were textbook healthy--no scarring whatsoever.

Endometriosis is not an incurable disease and it does not automatically mean that a woman cannot get pregnant. Thats really the end of the story. Did your mom have any surgery done at all? Endometriosis =/= infertility. Some women with that condition cannot have children and some can, at any rate, your claim that your birth was a miracle (which is here defined as an event that occurs outside of the physical laws of nature) is completely false and flat out incorrect. Please try again.

So yes, miracles do happen today. Granted, people like MAG try to either explain them away or insist on more evidence. That just goes to show that the question posed in the OP is not an honest one.

You have not yet shown that miracles occur. You claimed something to be a miracle that wasnt a miracle and then claimed that this is proof that miracles happen every day. Well the original thing you claimed to be a miracle was not a miracle. Sorry to burst your bubble.

But the question itself is silly for another reason. Even if we granted the premise that miracles don't happen today (which we pretty much all dispute, but let that pass), the question is not whether or not they happen today, but whether or not they ever happened. On that count, things like the Creation and the Resurrection of Christ, fulfilled prophecy, etc., all need explanation. But here we have yet another example of atheistic circular reasoning. You have those conversations and are then just given trite comments like he offered above, accusing theists of god-of-the-gaps reasoning. So no matter how much evidence is presented, in principle they refuse to accept it, not because the evidence favors their view, but because they've already decided on philosophical materialism before the conversation has even begun. Ergo, more circular reasoning.

Wrong, and again you prove that you have no clue what circular reasoning is. A challenge you to look up what circular reasoning is and then come back and show how I have displayed circular reasoning according to its definition. Anyway, the bottom line is that if miracles occurred in the past, then they should occur today. I will wait for you to post another example of a miracle since your first one failed miserably.

Finally, I want to highlight what was said by somebody (I missed who) earlier in the thread: even in the biblical times, miracles were rare. They were pretty much performed by a few people: Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Peter, and Paul. All of those people were the main people to introduce major revelation. Moses introduced the Law. Elijah and Elisha the golden age of the Prophets. Jesus, well . . . the whole Messiah thing! And Peter and Paul with the Church. I'm not inclined to believe that people today have that kind of gift of miracles, but I do believe that God still answers prayers miraculously.

That's my $.02 anyway. :)
There is no evidence that prayer does anything. There are one of two outcomes that can occur when one prays. Either the thing they prayed for will happen or it wont. There is nothing to prove that prayer itself is responsible for an affirmative outcome, and scientific studies have actually shown that prayer does not increased odds for things like recovery from illness and such.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:03 pm
by jlay
So its circular logic to ask for evidence that an event that was claimed to have happened, actually happened? You clearly dont know what circular logic means.
Says Mag to the philosophy Phd.

Endometriosis is not an incurable disease and it does not automatically mean that a woman cannot get pregnant. Thats really the end of the story. Did your mom have any surgery done at all? Endometriosis =/= infertility. Some women with that condition cannot have children and some can, at any rate, your claim that your birth was a miracle (which is here defined as an event that occurs outside of the physical laws of nature) is completely false and flat out incorrect. Please try again.
I suggest you do some research on endometriosis. There is no cure. Read it again, NO CURE. I suggest you at least take the time to google, "cure for endometriosis," before you put your words in black and white for all to read. http://women.webmd.com/endometriosis/en ... t-overview
If her tubes were lined with scar tissue to that degree, and then the scar tissue was gone with no surgery, then it is beyond natural explanation.
Wrong, and again you prove that you have no clue what circular reasoning is. A challenge you to look up what circular reasoning is and then come back and show how I have displayed circular reasoning according to its definition. Anyway, the bottom line is that if miracles occurred in the past, then they should occur today. I will wait for you to post another example of a miracle since your first one failed miserably
This is going to be fun. Buckle your seatbelt.
There is no evidence that prayer does anything.
And who are you to say that? Do you think we should believe everything every mocking atheist tells us?
The question is do miracles occur, and whether prayer can manifest miracles are really different questions, although related. Prayer can not be studieds scientifically, because all the studies I've seen make huge presumptions about what constitutes prayer. I've yet to see one that at all modelled bibilcal prayer. If you think prayer is merely regurgitating request, trying to persuade God to do something, then there is a fundamental error.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:06 pm
by 1over137
Wrong, and again you prove that you have no clue what circular reasoning is. A challenge you to look up what circular reasoning is and then come back and show how I have displayed circular reasoning according to its definition. Anyway, the bottom line is that if miracles occurred in the past, then they should occur today. I will wait for you to post another example of a miracle since your first one failed miserably.
Just wanna say that do not expect miracles occur in the same measure as in Jesus's times.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:43 pm
by cnk12
Even when God was doing miracles now and then, there were still plenty who wanted nothing to do with Him. So why would it matter if He does miracles or not? Most looking for a miracle in order to believe would most likely still not believe even after getting one.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:47 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
I have a miracle to tell that happened to me the other week.

I have had someone do something to me recently which was absolutely terrible and I was having a tough time with feelings of anger, hate, depression and dare I say murder.

I actually came close to running down this person with my car, but luckily I missed or we both would have been destroyed.

I prayed to God constantly to help me to forgive this person, to let go of the anger, hate, depression and thoughts of murder.

On my drive to work the feelings of depression were overwhelming me and I prayed to God for him to do something, I was turning right on a roundabout but for some reason as I was turning I looked to the left into the sky. There was a faint rainbow there just visible to the eye, I thought to myself is this a sign, is God telling me something about his love and forgiveness, I dismissed it from my mind and continued to work.

The next day I was driving again and was having the same troubles, I prayed and prayed for God to relieve me of this burden. Once again I looked to the left into the sky and there was a rainbow which was a bit more visible than the first time. Again I thought what was God saying to me but I still did not understand, I know, I know, I'm a bit dense.

The weekend came and went and I was back at work on Monday, this was going to be the darkest day of my life, I was in that black hole of depression and was ready to give up. I finished work and walked out the front door, once again I looked into the sky and there before me was the most colourful, brightest rainbow I had seen in a long, long time.

At that point I knew what God wanted to say, God not only loves me but he also loves the other person, God forgives me but he also forgives the other person, and as we are both children of God I too should forgive.

The person who wrong me and my family I have forgiven, I wrote them a letter detailing my hurt and the hurt of my family, I told them about God and his forgiveness, I told them as God has forgiven me I forgive them.

The burden has been lifted from my heart and I am now free again, my family is happy and our lives have improved greatly.

Now if that is not a miracle I don't know what is.

God is not always the big booming voice from the sky, I find him to be more subtle than that.


Dan

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:00 am
by Jac3510
MAGSolo wrote:So its circular logic to ask for evidence that an event that was claimed to have happened, actually happened? You clearly dont know what circular logic means. Do you think we should just believe everything anybody tells us without asking for proof?
It's begging the question to ask why miracles don't happen any more (implied premise: there are no miracles today), and then when examples are given that undermine the argument (counter-premise: miracles are happening today) you defend your argument by asking for evidence for said miracle (methodology of requested proof assuming non-existence of miracles--hence, question begging).

To make it clearer still, if I told you I took a shower this morning, you wouldn't bother asking for proof. Why? Because it is part of your normal experience (implied and accepted premise: people take showers today). Or to use a political example, when someone says, "Why are politics today so much more negative than they used to be?" someone can easily respond with, "My great-grandfather used to tell me stories of how negative it was back then, too." No particular proof of the proof is demanded, because the thing itself is part of our experience.

That's what makes your argument circular. You are asking for proof of the proof, but that very question implies the assumption of the non-existence of miracles, which is precisely what your initial argument was.
Endometriosis is not an incurable disease and it does not automatically mean that a woman cannot get pregnant. Thats really the end of the story. Did your mom have any surgery done at all? Endometriosis =/= infertility. Some women with that condition cannot have children and some can, at any rate, your claim that your birth was a miracle (which is here defined as an event that occurs outside of the physical laws of nature) is completely false and flat out incorrect. Please try again.
You obviously don't know anything about endometriosis. As to your question, no, my mother had no surgery of any kind, and the testing showed that due to her endometriosis her fallopian tubes were completely blocked with scar tissue. That rendered her infertile, because when your fallopian tubes are so blocked, there can be no egg to be fertilized. The miracle is not so much that she had children, but that the scar tissue was completely removed.
You have not yet shown that miracles occur. You claimed something to be a miracle that wasnt a miracle and then claimed that this is proof that miracles happen every day. Well the original thing you claimed to be a miracle was not a miracle. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Putting forward a circular argument doesn't burst anyone's bubble. It just shows a weaknesses in your ability to think rationally.
Wrong, and again you prove that you have no clue what circular reasoning is. A challenge you to look up what circular reasoning is and then come back and show how I have displayed circular reasoning according to its definition. Anyway, the bottom line is that if miracles occurred in the past, then they should occur today. I will wait for you to post another example of a miracle since your first one failed miserably.
I'll ignore the fact that you clearly have at best a semester or two of philosophy (that's being generous--you sound more like you've read a couple of books that discuss philosophy and logical fallacies as an aside rather than having done any formal studies of logic in and of itself) and look at the more relevant statement here--the underlined one.

First, I have no reason to accept your assumed premise that they don't happen anymore. Do you have any evidence that they don't/? Here I imagine you'll appeal to the typical atheist remark "U CANT PROOOVE U NEGUTIV!!1!1" which would only further demonstrate your philosophical naivete. In categorical logic, your argument assumes an E type statement, which are perfectly capable of being proved. The real problem for you is that you are making an E type statement when you, at best, are qualified to make an O statement. Less technically, at best, you can argue from your own experience, but then you would just be appealing to personal knowledge, which is insufficient to prove the general case, as in the following absurd argument:
  • I've never met a blond woman, therefore, they don't exist
Even you can see that such an argument fails. The missing (implied) premise is something like "I've met every woman that exists," or "If I've never met a blond woman, they don't exist," which are obviously false.

If you are going to make an argument against miracles, the least you could do is be lazy enough to pull out Hume's long refuted arguments. But your appeals to your (lack of) knowledge of any existing miracles along with the (circularly) embedded assumption of their non-existence isn't just lazy. It would be comical if I thought you were a troll, but seeing that I am under the impression that you actually think you are making valid points, it's . . . well I'll let you finish that.

Second, the underlined statement is essentially a theological statement. Why should I even accept it as true? That is, assuming miracles happened in the past, why should I believe that they should still happen today? Have you not read Hebrews 1:1-2? It says:
  • In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
I doubt you read Greek, so let me help you out a bit here. The word "various ways" refers to a variety of methods, and here the author has in mind the ways in which God spoke to Israel throughout the Old Testament. You can probably think of a few ways: through prophets, yes, but also through dreams, through visions, and . . . wait for it . . . through miracles! All of that, the author says, is past, because it was all partial. Now, he says, we have Jesus, through Whom God has spoken (in Greek, this is emphatic--it's in a tense called the perfect, which is used for a completed action with ongoing results. In English, consider the sentences, "I studied for the test" and "I have studied for the test"; the latter is in the perfect and has a very different connotation than the former), meaning the Divine Revelation is complete, and there is therefore no further need of partial revelation. Thus, things like miracles are no longer necessary for revelatory purposes.

So a related question is, are there non-revelatory miracles? I am inclined to think that there are, but they are very much not the kind we read about in the Bible (generally)--the kind you are referring to. All that is to say that even beyond the question begging of your argument, you just have at best a contested theological premise, one that is flatly wrong at worst.
There is no evidence that prayer does anything. There are one of two outcomes that can occur when one prays. Either the thing they prayed for will happen or it wont. There is nothing to prove that prayer itself is responsible for an affirmative outcome, and scientific studies have actually shown that prayer does not increased odds for things like recovery from illness and such.
Ah, so many assumptions.

1. Are the scientists who studied prayer theologians? For how can you study something you don't understand?
2. What kind of prayer was studied?
3. How many theological variables did they account for?
4. Is God obligated to answer any prayer?
5. Why should we expect God to submit to such a study?

And on and on. I find the last question particularly interesting. I've always thought those kinds of studies were silly (even as I read the ones that supposedly showed prayer being answered), because why on earth would we think that the God of the Universe would play our little parlor games? You think He is a lab-rat? Job tried to put God on trial. He challenged God. And do you know what God's response was? He appeared and put Job on trial. The arrogance of thinking that we can treat God as an impersonal force (at best) that we can measure or our Cosmic Santa Clause who is obligated to wield His omnipotence on behalf of Sovereign Man is stunning.

But again, the assumptions, the assumptions, the assumptions . . .

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:15 am
by PaulSacramento
jlay wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
jlay wrote:If the first miracle is true, then all the others are possible. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Every generation as their own perception of what is natural and supernatural, what a miracle is.
Many of the things we can do now would be viewed as "miraculous" or "supernatural" 2000 years ago.
We really have no idea what will be viewed a such 2000 years from now.
That is really not my point Paul. When discussing miracles, I think it is important to be consistent in the use of the term. A miracle would be anything beyond natural explanation, now or later. now, you point out that not all natural explanations are known. However, a dead person being raised from the dead, or a leper being instantly restored to perfect health will not be able to be naturally explained later. Providence is a better term to describe things that happen naturally but may appear to be supernaturally ordained. For example, I have a fear of flying. I always felt like I was missing out because people I knew were flying to Africa or South America for mission trips. Yet, I knew God had put something on my heart. I was sitting in the church pew, praying, "God, do I really need to fly half way around the world to serve?" That day we had a guest speaker (a good friend now) who came to our congregation to talk about a minsitry. He said, "I know some of you think you have to fly half way around the world to serve in the mission field. But, I'm here to tell you, there is a 3rd world country right in your back yard." Needless to say, He had my attention. Do I believe that God was divinely at work? yes. Were any natural laws superceded? No. It was the providence of God. I would not describe it as a miracle, and I don't think that diminsihes the event one bit. I have served as a local missionary, ministering the Gospel to at-risk children for the past seven years.

Take Jac's example. I am familiar with endometriosis, and sever cases usually means the woman will never carry a child to term, and will likely result in a hysterectomy. Scarring from endometriosis does not heal itself, and surgery is required to remove the scarring. So, either the doctors original diagnosis was wrong, or a miracle occurred.
See, that's just it, miracle is a broad term that not everyone uses the same way.
Many times it seems that miracle, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

The raising of the dead and the instant cure of a leper may be viewed as a miracle now, but what IF in 1000 years, man has evolved tot he point that, with God's help and understanding, we can manipulate energy and matter, in that case, many miracles would be just "natural acts" based on our "more correct" understanding of how the universe works.
I don't think we can say that a miracle is any act that can't be defined by natural laws NOW or EVER.
I think when people used the term in the past and even now, they mean an event that we don't have any explanation for at this time.

Re: Why no more miracles?

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:25 am
by narnia4
MAGSolo wrote:There is no evidence that prayer does anything. There are one of two outcomes that can occur when one prays. Either the thing they prayed for will happen or it wont. There is nothing to prove that prayer itself is responsible for an affirmative outcome, and scientific studies have actually shown that prayer does not increased odds for things like recovery from illness and such.
There are problems with this already alluded to, but if you believe that this is what scientific studies have shown then you're being very selective in choosing what experiments you're paying attention to.

http://onlinesurgicaltechniciancourses. ... d-healing/

Of 25 studies listed here, only 6 found no correlation between prayer/faith and healing. And if there is no positive correlation made that still doesn't prove much for a few reasons. Two of the most obvious ones being-

1. that God isn't like a chemical reaction or a mathematical equation, he can decide how to answer a prayer.
2. Most of the prayer experiments are done with scientists with little to no theological training and are ridiculously sloppy. Trying to weed out statistical anomalies and coming up with accurate and useful numbers is difficult as it is, if you don't have a proper understanding of prayer than its no wonder that some studies come up with negative or no correlation. The infamous 2006 American Heart Journal study, for example. It was set up for failure right from the start with their recruitment methods and the details of the experiments. The intercessors weren't even allowed to pray their own prayers!

For myself, I find it interesting how dramatic miracles seem to be so much more common on mission trips and in foreign countries. Indeed, several missionaries (well-educated too) I've spoken to say that miracles are almost common-place, there's no "shock factor". A few ideas I have on this is that miracles are "more needed" without modern medicine. If a man isn't sick, how can he be healed? Secondly and perhaps most importantly, the Western lack of faith and belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone in the room prays but implicitly is expecting no answer, then they get what they expect. I'm actually convinced that miracles of different sorts happen all the time without our recognition of them.