• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can you tell if an event is a miracle.

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm thinking the only way we could know is if, not only some deity does it, but that we can prove that some deity broke the natural laws to achieve it.

But, good luck to anyone trying to prove that.
Do you mean something different from "natural laws" than I do? Because what I mean by "natural laws" is "the way the universe works, inferred by observations of what happens."

We build a paradigm of how things work based on observations. If something happens that's inconsistent with the paradigm, the paradigm gets adjusted based on the new observations. That's how "natural laws" have always worked.

This is why people's descriptions of "miracles" make no sense to me. "What if we observe something that doesn't fit at all in our current paradigm?!" Then we adjust the paradigm... as has been done countless times before.

If God were to exist, then he would be just one more thing within nature.

If we were to observe God breaking a "natural law," then we would infer from our observation that the "law" in question isn't universally true, so it would cease to be a law.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I guess if the incident defied the laws of physics. Like levitation where there’s gravity, and no other reason to explain it?

Then science look at the conditions where it happens, looks for regularities, and uses those regularities *as* the explanation.

Levitation might be because of another force we hadn't notice before.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
There are many things science can't explain (yet) that we do not consider to be miracles.
Yes, but that is not because anyone is claiming the unexplained is a miracle.
Usually the 'modern' miracle is a statue of the Madonna starting to cry, someone recovering from an illness when they were given 6-months to live, etc.
Most are quickly debunked with a perfectly good scientific explanation.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How can someone tell the difference between a miracle and something that is not or that looks like a miracle and is not.

You can't.

As others have already alluded, how could one ever know if the behavior one was observing was a suspension of the laws of physics, and not either a hitherto unknown or unexplained aspect of reality such as spontaneous remission in advanced cancers, or a magician's illusion? If you've ever seen a magic trick that you couldn't explain, then you've seen how it can be made to appear that these laws have been suspended when they were not.

This is the same problem that arises when somebody asks what evidence would convince a skeptic of the existence of a god, by which I mean a conscious agent that did not arise in this universe, but rather, designed and created it. What observation establishes the existence of such an entity? None, in my opinion, even if you can show me some superhuman force and intelligence creating universes. How do you rule out that this is not a creature or race of creatures that arose naturalistically and evolved into what we see. As Clarke famously observed, " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You can't.

As others have already alluded, how could one ever know if the behavior one was observing was a suspension of the laws of physics, and not either a hitherto unknown or unexplained aspect of reality such as spontaneous remission in advanced cancers, or a magician's illusion?
And how would any of these possibilities negate the event as being a 'miracle'? Do miracles require the suspension of the laws of physics? If we know HOW it happened does that make it not a miracle anymore? I'm inclined to say no. I don't think it would.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I believe in miracles.

I just do not know the criteria for determining if something is a miracle or just an ordinary event that happens for some ordinary, if not necessarily understood, reason.

How can someone tell the difference between a miracle and something that is not or that looks like a miracle and is not.

If you see some thing emerge from something that did not have the substance of the outcome, that simply has to be a miracle. No other alternative.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I believe in miracles.

I just do not know the criteria for determining if something is a miracle or just an ordinary event that happens for some ordinary, if not necessarily understood, reason.

How can someone tell the difference between a miracle and something that is not or that looks like a miracle and is not.
I think the first step is clarifying what you mean by "miracle." That's going to point to what the justification for one could be.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe in miracles.

I just do not know the criteria for determining if something is a miracle or just an ordinary event that happens for some ordinary, if not necessarily understood, reason.

How can someone tell the difference between a miracle and something that is not or that looks like a miracle and is not.

Hey Dan,

I'm curious about your perspective here: what led you to you believe that miracles happen, if you don't know how to tell what is a miracle or not?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And how would any of these possibilities negate the event as being a 'miracle'? Do miracles require the suspension of the laws of physics? If we know HOW it happened does that make it not a miracle anymore? I'm inclined to say no. I don't think it would.

Somebody already posted a link to a Wiki page on miracles. That article identified two meanings for the word, one literal, the other metaphorical. Literally, "A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many writers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) or impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out)."

Metaphorically, "the word miracle is often used to characterize any beneficial event that is statistically unlikely but not contrary to the laws of nature, such as surviving a natural disaster, or simply a "wonderful" occurrence, regardless of likelihood (e.g. "the miracle of childbirth"). Some coincidences may be seen as miracles."

And as always, two similar but distinctly different definitions lead to equivocation errors and ambiguity as posters slip from one meaning to the other. I answered the OP assuming that he meant the first definition, a violation of the laws of nature. My answer was that one could not tell if this had happened even if it did.

If we know how it happened, the answer involves natural processes, and if one chooses to call it a miracle, he has slipped into definition 2.

Most of these kinds of problems in discussion simply disappear once terms are defined clearly and succinctly, and we are careful not to commit equivocation errors. How often do we see people disagree using terms whose definitions they haven't articulated or can't agree on? Vague and ambiguous language impairs communication. It adds noise (unintended meaning) to the signal (intended meaning).

And it's a favorite technique in apologetics. Take terms like design, God, faith, or miracle, and use the word in two different but distinctly different ways, first to slip the notion in without the supernatural baggage, then suddenly go to the supernatural meaning. The apologist who understands that the skeptic will accept the word according to a naturalistic definition then starts implying the other one.

For example, the apologist calls the laws of nature God. OK, if that's what he means, when he uses the word God, I can't argue that such a thing exists. Then, suddenly, these laws wake up and gain the power of intent. The apologist hopes to sneak his God in through the back door using equivocation.

In this case, it's miracles. By calling naturalistic processes miracles, nobody argues that miracles thusly defined occur. The hope is that this will influence the mind that accepts this idea in the form of the individual now agreeing that miracles occur, and maybe forgetting that he never agreed to supernaturalism, the hope being that the idea will evolve in that direction in the head into which it has been planted.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
I believe in miracles.

I just do not know the criteria for determining if something is a miracle or just an ordinary event that happens for some ordinary, if not necessarily understood, reason.

How can someone tell the difference between a miracle and something that is not or that looks like a miracle and is not.
How do you define miracles?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
If you see some thing emerge from something that did not have the substance of the outcome, that simply has to be a miracle. No other alternative.
Maybe it had the substance of the outcome, but it appears it did not have or simply we are unaware of that substance. After all science is not complete. There is a lot the scientists have still to learn and discover.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Maybe it had the substance of the outcome, but it appears it did not have or simply we are unaware of that substance. After all science is not complete. There is a lot the scientists have still to learn and discover.

Scientism is not what I referred to. It was simple philosophy.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It demonstrates a power that God would not trust except to a good human being or Angel who would remain good (God trusts them enough not to misuse that power).
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Do you want to elaborate how philosophy can determine if the substance of outcome existed or not? For example Birth of Jesus without having an earthly father.

Thats two different questions. About Jesus and that affair, I cannot say anything.

Philosophically, any thing that exists can exist in another way. Thats the definition of a contingent being. This being can change its state or exist in another way. But it will always contain what it needs to come to exist in another way or the same way. Thats it.

If this law is broken, then there is no other explanation but magic or miracle or what ever we may use to explain it away.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Probably not possible. I don't think I've seen anything that even goes close to being a miracle.
I don't really know if I have seen one or not. Do they have to be tremendous and spectacular events to qualify? I have not seen even a short list of criteria to determine if something is a miracle. Could the miracle just be being in the right place at the right time?

What I do know is that some people claim an event, condition or situation is a miracle. So obviously, some people have a definition and criteria to make that determination that I do not have. I am just curious to know what the defining characteristics are that set one event above all others that are similar, but ordinary.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Look to science
Look to logic
Look to historically similar event
Look to illusion
If no answer then you can say either "i don't understand how that happened" or "wow, it's a miracle" depending on how your mind works

The choice is up to the observer
Some people see coincidence and some people see signs. I am sort of in the middle on that and not certain at all.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I don't really know if I have seen one or not. Do they have to be tremendous and spectacular events to qualify? I have not seen even a short list of criteria to determine if something is a miracle. Could the miracle just be being in the right place at the right time?

What I do know is that some people claim an event, condition or situation is a miracle. So obviously, some people have a definition and criteria to make that determination that I do not have. I am just curious to know what the defining characteristics are that set one event above all others that are similar, but ordinary.

I don't know either. If you think about it it's a miracle we are chatting, or is it just random chance. Too early in the morning for my brain to be thinking about these things but I don't believe I've had anything happen to me, near me or around me that couldn't be logically explained.
 
Top