There is one problem with miracles, however: they don't exist. So any conclusions derived from the basis of miracles are therefore baseless.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

There is one problem with miracles, however: they don't exist. So any conclusions derived from the basis of miracles are therefore baseless.

That looks suspiciously like a circular argument

Originally Posted by gansao

That looks suspiciously like a circular argument

Miracles don't exist. Any conclusions based on miracles are false. Don't see how that's circular. Maybe the wording was a bit confusing...

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

Miracles don't exist.
...

You cant be 100% sure..there have been eyewitness accounts

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

Any conclusions based on miracles are false...

.

Not if the eyewitness accounts are true

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

Don't see how that's circular....

Because no one can be completely sure that miracles are false.Your assertion is an assertion without proof.Extremely likely but without proof .

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

Maybe the wording was a bit confusing...

Miracles cannot be scientifically verified is better

Originally Posted by gansao

You cant be 100% sure..there have been eyewitness accounts

There have been eye witness accounts of David Copperfield making the space shuttle disappear, and also eye witness accounts of Elvis after he died. .. And there are also documented 'miracles' that have been shown to be fraud. *(crying statues with little tubes behind the eyes, etc etc etc.

Not if the eyewitness accounts are true

Or, it could be that P. T. Barnum was right. I rather suspect that later. I can verify there are con men and frauds. I have not been able to verify a true miracle.

Aas

Circular logic means that the premise depends on the conclusion being true, and the conclusion depends on the premise being true. For example, my dog has fleas because he's a flea-bitten dog. If my dog wasn't flea bitten, he wouldn't have fleas, but if he didn't have fleas, he wouldn't be flea-bitten.

My statement was was that miracles don't occur, so any conclusions (for example, God's existence) cannot use miracles as a basis. It's not circular reasoning, because the premise is independent of the conclusion. It's simply a "if x, then y" type of deal.

As for eye-witness accounts, any examples? Because I don't know of any. Also, we'd need to agree on what can be considered a "miracle", because I use the definition implied in the bible, i.e., strictly acts of supernatural power, not the common usage like seeing the sun rise, having offspring or surviving an accident.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

Circular logic means that the premise depends on the conclusion being true, and the conclusion depends on the premise being true. For example, my dog has fleas because he's a flea-bitten dog. If my dog wasn't flea bitten, he wouldn't have fleas, but if he didn't have fleas, he wouldn't be flea-bitten.

My statement was was that miracles don't occur, so any conclusions (for example, God's existence) cannot use miracles as a basis. It's not circular reasoning, because the premise is independent of the conclusion. It's simply a "if x, then y" type of deal.

As for eye-witness accounts, any examples? Because I don't know of any. Also, we'd need to agree on what can be considered a "miracle", because I use the definition implied in the bible, i.e., strictly acts of supernatural power, not the common usage like seeing the sun rise, having offspring or surviving an accident.

There are many eyewitness accounts to miracles that are recorded.
They may not reach the criteria to satisfy you but they were recorded just the same.
Your statement is the equivalent of saying



There have been written accounts of ' supernatural occurences' . All it takes is one supernatural occurrence and miracles are proven...or would you then state that by its very existence this occurrence cannot be supernatural ?

Miracle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by gansao

There are many eyewitness accounts to miracles that are recorded.
They may not reach the criteria to satisfy you but they were recorded just the same.
Your statement is the equivalent of saying



There have been written accounts of ' supernatural occurences' . All it takes is one supernatural occurrence and miracles are proven...or would you then state that by its very existence this occurrence cannot be supernatural ?

Miracle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One occurence of a bonafide miracle would be sufficient evidence that miracles are real. Like if you saw the movie Bruce Almighty, that kind of stuff (a smashed pager working, walking on water, making the moon come closer to earth, etc). Or we can just stick to what's in the bible. If and when that happens, then it would be obvious that miracles are real.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

One occurence of a bonafide miracle would be sufficient evidence that miracles are real. Like if you saw the movie Bruce Almighty, that kind of stuff (a smashed pager working, walking on water, making the moon come closer to earth, etc). Or we can just stick to what's in the bible. If and when that happens, then it would be obvious that miracles are real.

The Catholic Church claims to have confirmed the validity of a number of miracles, some of them occurring in modern times.[citation needed] According to the Catholic Church, these miracles have withstood the test of modern scientific scrutiny.[citation needed] Among the more notable miracles approved by the Church are several Eucharistic miracles wherein the Sacred Host is transformed visibly into Christ's living Flesh and Blood, such as the Miracle of Lanciano.

According to 17th-century documents, a young Spanish man's leg was miraculously restored to him in 1640 after having been amputated two and a half years earlier[16] (see miracle of Calanda).

Another miracle approved by the Church is the Miracle of the Sun, which occurred near Fátima, Portugal on October 13, 1917. Anywhere between 70,000 and 100,000 people, who were gathered at a cove near Fátima, witnessed the sun dim, change colors, spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet to earth, radiating great heat in the process. After the ten-minute event, the ground and the people's clothing, which had been drenched by a previous rainstorm, were both dry.

Originally Posted by gansao

The Catholic Church claims to have confirmed the validity of a number of miracles, some of them occurring in modern times.[citation needed] According to the Catholic Church, these miracles have withstood the test of modern scientific scrutiny.[citation needed] Among the more notable miracles approved by the Church are several Eucharistic miracles wherein the Sacred Host is transformed visibly into Christ's living Flesh and Blood, such as the Miracle of Lanciano.

According to 17th-century documents, a young Spanish man's leg was miraculously restored to him in 1640 after having been amputated two and a half years earlier[16] (see miracle of Calanda).

Another miracle approved by the Church is the Miracle of the Sun, which occurred near Fátima, Portugal on October 13, 1917. Anywhere between 70,000 and 100,000 people, who were gathered at a cove near Fátima, witnessed the sun dim, change colors, spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet to earth, radiating great heat in the process. After the ten-minute event, the ground and the people's clothing, which had been drenched by a previous rainstorm, were both dry.

I saw those. I read the entire wikipedia page. I also read the entire page about the miracle of Calanda. Even though its over 250 years ago, it seems to fit the criteria of a legit miracle. If such a thing did occur, then that would be a bonafide miracle. However, it's hard to think that miracles only occur once every 300 years or so, considering the number of religious people between then and now.

I did a little more research on this one. Here's an interesting article that gives a possible explanation for the miracle: The Miracle of Calanda

And here's one on the Sun miracle: Illuminating the Fatima "Miracle of the Sun"

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

I saw those. I read the entire wikipedia page. I also read the entire page about the miracle of Calanda. Even though its over 250 years ago, it seems to fit the criteria of a legit miracle. If such a thing did occur, then that would be a bonafide miracle. However, it's hard to think that miracles only occur once every 300 years or so, considering the number of religious people between then and now.

I did a little more research on this one. Here's an interesting article that gives a possible explanation for the miracle: The Miracle of Calanda

And here's one on the Sun miracle: Illuminating the Fatima "Miracle of the Sun"

Of course when one has not witnessed a miracle then its easy to say that either it did not happen or propose that it was a hoax, hysteria , suggestion or whatever . This may or may not explain what happened..nevertheless unless it can be proved that what appeared to be a supernatural event was a natural one then it cannot be said with 100% certainty that miracles cannot and have not happened , however remote the possibility
Also I disagree that that it is hard to think that miracles would only happen every few hundred years.If God exists then he hasnt really shown much of a presence since Christ died. You know more about the Bible than me but it doesnt seem that god needs to have to demonstrate his presence until it gets near the end of days

Originally Posted by gansao

Of course when one has not witnessed a miracle then its easy to say that either it did not happen or propose that it was a hoax, hysteria , suggestion or whatever . This may or may not explain what happened..nevertheless unless it can be proved that what appeared to be a supernatural event was a natural one then it cannot be said with 100% certainty that miracles cannot and have not happened , however remote the possibility
Also I disagree that that it is hard to think that miracles would only happen every few hundred years.If God exists then he hasnt really shown much of a presence since Christ died. You know more about the Bible than me but it doesnt seem that god needs to have to demonstrate his presence until it gets near the end of days

If God doesn't need to demonstrate his presence (your conclusion, based on I don't know what), then why did he perform miracles in the bible? And why did Peter and Paul also perform miracles after Jesus left? And why did Jesus say to his discples that they will also perform miracles, even greater than those he performed? And if, as you say. God doesn't need to demonstrate his presence, then why should we think any occurence claimed to be a miracle is actually a miracle?

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

If God doesn't need to demonstrate his presence (your conclusion, based on I don't know what), then why did he perform miracles in the bible? And why did Peter and Paul also perform miracles after Jesus left? And why did Jesus say to his discples that they will also perform miracles, even greater than those he performed? And if, as you say. God doesn't need to demonstrate his presence, then why should we think any occurence claimed to be a miracle is actually a miracle?

The new testament sums up the future of mankind and tells in cryptic detail how things are going to end from start to finish .
Jesus could have been as cryptic as Revelations when he told of told of Peter and Pauls ' miracles'. The Roman and Western world domination of a religion borne from a total humilation and apparent failure. Maybe Jesus didnt share your definition of a miracle .
If Jesus's disciples performed miracles more akin to sorcery when Christianity was in its formative years then maybe that was needed to seed the basis of Christianity.... as was Christs .It took his seems words were not enough to persuade people that Jesus was not just a wise man..it took his ' magic' to persuade the masses that he was above' ordinary' men....why do these tricks otherwise?
Thats the problem with dieties, they dont always do what you deem to be the thing that they should to satisfy your criteria.

Originally Posted by gansao

The new testament sums up the future of mankind and tells in cryptic detail how things are going to end from start to finish .
Jesus could have been as cryptic as Revelations when he told of told of Peter and Pauls ' miracles'. The Roman and Western world domination of a religion borne from a total humilation and apparent failure. Maybe Jesus didnt share your definition of a miracle .
If Jesus's disciples performed miracles more akin to sorcery when Christianity was in its formative years then maybe that was needed to seed the basis of Christianity.... as was Christs .It took his seems words were not enough to persuade people that Jesus was not just a wise man..it took his ' magic' to persuade the masses that he was above' ordinary' men....why do these tricks otherwise?

A lot of maybes. I'm going by Jesus' definition of miracles, i.e., what the bible describes as a miracle. Dying from an accident and then coming back to life is a miracle. Surviving an accident is not.

Thats the problem with dieties, they dont always do what you deem to be the thing that they should to satisfy your criteria.

Deities should do what they say they do, or what their definition dictates that they do. Otherwise they don't deserve the label of deity.