In reply to kurt vonnegut
You can't examine miracles in isolation from logic and reason and truth. Their possibility doesn't mean all miracle claims are owed equal deference, and the fact that not all miracle claims are true doesn't diminish their possibility. I doubt you apply the same standard to other categories of truth claims.
Imagine serving on juries for two murder trials a year apart. You determine for the first the prosecutor was mistaken, and find the defendant not guilty. What does that tell you about the second trial? Pretty much nothing. The nature of the individual claims are the same, that the defendant murdered someone and you'll use your faculties of logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt or innocence. Going into it, you at least acknowledge that it's possible for people to murder people, even after you've made a determination about the first defendant's innocence.
kurt vonnegut said:I am open to the possibility of certain types of miracle.Bob Lee said:12thAngryMan said:
Can you say more about these miracles you and your acquaintances have witnessed firsthand? What if someone claimed to have seen a miracle performed by Allah or in the name of some other god? Apologies if I'm detailing or retreading old ground for the R&P board, but I'm curious how you can be confident 1) that it's your god performing the miracles, and 2) that there isn't some other logical explanation.
You missed the point. He has a philosophical bias that doesn't allow for the possibility of miracles. Miracles strictly speaking are acts of God. I know priests who've experienced Eucharistic miracles first hand. These are people who would not try to conjure something in their minds, and they would not lie. So the likeliest explanation is it's an act of God. Of course if I have a wrong predisposition, then it's easy to just reject it out of hand. You just say the one thing you know for sure is that it was not a miracle and explore all other possibilities to the exclusion of the possibility that the account is accurate. The super sensible is real. Why should we reject that as a possibility? Can you give a good reason?
The problem with revelation type miracles is the sheer volume and variety of conflicting 'miracles'. Your priest experienced a miracle that confirms the Christian God. A Muslim experiences one where he sees and hears Mohammad. A Hindu experiences their own miracle. And the Buddhist. And the Mystic. And then some lady hears a voice that tells here to drown her children in a bathtub.
I don't have any reason to not believe your priest. Or to not believe he is being genuine and sincere. However, to accept it as a miracle all of its implications is to reject all of the miracles experienced by non-Christians as simply false. If this is a miracle and proof of God, then it means that every non-Christian that has claimed a miracle is delusional or dishonest.
When you presuppose Christian miracles are real, its easy to believe Christian miracles from reliable sources. When you do not presuppose Christian miracles, skepticism is hardly an irrational reaction.
You can't examine miracles in isolation from logic and reason and truth. Their possibility doesn't mean all miracle claims are owed equal deference, and the fact that not all miracle claims are true doesn't diminish their possibility. I doubt you apply the same standard to other categories of truth claims.
Imagine serving on juries for two murder trials a year apart. You determine for the first the prosecutor was mistaken, and find the defendant not guilty. What does that tell you about the second trial? Pretty much nothing. The nature of the individual claims are the same, that the defendant murdered someone and you'll use your faculties of logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt or innocence. Going into it, you at least acknowledge that it's possible for people to murder people, even after you've made a determination about the first defendant's innocence.