How can you tell if an event is a miracle.

Dan From Smithville said:

Based on information provided by others, miracles fall into one of two large categories. Those that defy the laws of nature and those that defy probability.

Since people declare things are miracles, I am assuming some of them know the difference between ordinary events and events that are miracles. What I am hoping to see are the details that they use to make that determination. What I am finding is that I am not alone in my ignorance of those details and characteristics. It seems that in most of those instances, the details are unknown and belief that of the event as a miracles is the defining character. I am also not sure that it matters, just so long as you don't start making claims that cannot be backed up. This, in my mind, takes it to some level of false witness that I am enjoined (as presumably they are too) from engaging in.

Click to expand...

I am an Atheist so if I was presented with what appeared to be a genuine miracle, as I believe that they are essentially impossible because I assume natural laws are universal, it would cause a major rupture in my own worldview and would cause a great deal of confusion and soul-searching.

If I were to approach the issue as if I were a Christian, my suggestion is that faith is based on recognising the limits of our knowledge and the scope of our ignorance. We're only human and we can only work with the limited knowledge and tools to understand the world around us. Our knowledge is not absolute and sometimes we have to work with the imperfect answers we have rather than the perfect answers we would wish to have.

I'm definitely not a fan of those who argue that somethings are inherently beyond our understanding, but sometimes we don't know and that isn't a personal failure on our part. Even if everything can be seen, observed and understood, the world is too big for us to understand it all. We might dedicate our entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge but we would will still die with the work of discovery left unfinished. We are allowed to be imperfect and to get things wrong. We have the right to forgive ourselves for not always understanding clearly. For the most part, we just have to do our best to get the little part we play right for however long we are here.

Left Coast said:

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?

Click to expand...

From what I have seen, I do not think that anyone claiming something to be a miracle really knows or can describe the difference between a miracle and an ordinary event. From a theological perspective, I can believe in something that I have no evidence for, though many would find that ignorant and without any explanatory value.

Simply it is that I believe in God and I want to believe in miracles. Perhaps it is not necessary to know the difference in order to ask or be thankful. What troubles me is that people make claims of miracles as evidence when all they are that I can determine is unverified claims. To me that is tantamount to false witness or sheer ignorance beyond even my own. I cannot conceive of God giving me the gifts of intellect and curiosity and then demanding that I worship Him with lies or ignorance. I am also against the idea of using something that is subjectively determined and perhaps not valid as evidence to deny what mankind has learned through reason and evidence.

What I am learning is that we do not know what a miracle is or where one is actually occurring. We make claims, but those claims do not seem to have the evidence to support them. They are faith-based statements. Going deeper, how do I determine the difference between something based on faith, mental illness or mendacity when it is all subjective? I just believe I do not fully understand miracles or the Bible and how they relate to the world we live in. While others seem to believe they understand all of it and can declare truth based on that understanding. I do not see wanting to know more as a problem or a denial. I do not see questioning the claims of others as a denial of God in favor of the knowledge of man. That is just the opinion of other men in the end.

Altfish said:

A miracle is defined thus:" an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."

Would you like to define a miracle in another way?

Click to expand...

You just did. Before it was defies scientific explanation. Now the goal posts are " an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." Those are two different explanations. The first includes the second, but also includes anything that is poorly understood, little studied or lacking evidence that would provide the scientific explanation.

I understand both definitions and do not see a need nor have I another to add except to include the definition based on probability. Based on my knowledge of science, I would consider an event that defies what we know of the natural world as an impossibility. However, only appears to defy nature falls into that gap of ignorance that gives it the appearance of defying nature.

I am not promoting religion over science or science over religion. I am trying to find out if people really have any idea of the characters of a miracle when they claim it. I am further interested in defusing the use of a believed miraculous event to deny valid explanation. I am not saying that such events are not praiseworthy or should not be seen as miraculous, just providing context on how they can be used in arguments. As it stands, miracles are only a claim as I see it.

Dan From Smithville said:

I would put myself in the "I do not know what a real miracle is compared to an ordinary and explainable event" category.

Click to expand...

The point of the quote is this, I think: No events in this miraculous universe should be considered ordinary, and the fact we can explain any of them is in itself extraordinary.

I was just walking the dog and we crossed the main street at the traffic lights (a left over from the days when the Pacific highway went through town), I had the green walk light but heard a motorbike coming over the bridge and waited, sure enough he went straight through the red light and might have skittled us if I hadn't waited. Miracle? Luck? Or probably the little voice inside my head that said wait was past experience because I've seen it happen several times before?

Dan From Smithville said:

You just did. Before it was defies scientific explanation. Now the goal posts are " an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." Those are two different explanations. The first includes the second, but also includes anything that is poorly understood, little studied or lacking evidence that would provide the scientific explanation.

I understand both definitions and do not see a need nor have I another to add except to include the definition based on probability. Based on my knowledge of science, I would consider an event that defies what we know of the natural world as an impossibility. However, only appears to defy nature falls into that gap of ignorance that gives it the appearance of defying nature.

I am not promoting religion over science or science over religion. I am trying to find out if people really have any idea of the characters of a miracle when they claim it. I am further interested in defusing the use of a believed miraculous event to deny valid explanation. I am not saying that such events are not praiseworthy or should not be seen as miraculous, just providing context on how they can be used in arguments. As it stands, miracles are only a claim as I see it.

Click to expand...

I looked an "official" definition up after I had put an off the cuff definition in my first post. I'm not moving the goal posts at all.
Just confirming and better explaining what a miracle is.

Laika said:

I am an Atheist so if I was presented with what appeared to be a genuine miracle, as I believe that they are essentially impossible because I assume natural laws are universal, it would cause a major rupture in my own worldview and would cause a great deal of confusion and soul-searching.

Click to expand...

I think that one can believe in miracles, while recognizing that the majority of incidences claimed as miracles may just be ordinary events. You can still be happy and thankful for those positive events and recognize that sometimes events that are beyond easy explanation are miraculous. I cannot tell you that Bertha walked away from metastatic cancer for a specific reason, even if I believe that is the reason. How do I know that a miracle did not occur following a Divine manipulation of the laws of nature that we do understand to one degree or another? How do I know that it was not a chance event? I don't. It does not make it any less miraculous or praiseworthy. Bertha may not care one way or the other, just so long as she has more days to walk.

Laika said:

If I were to approach the issue as if I were a Christian, my suggestion is that faith is based on recognising the limits of our knowledge and the scope of our ignorance. We're only human and we can only work with the limited knowledge and tools to understand the world around us. Our knowledge is not absolute and sometimes we have to work with the imperfect answers we have rather than the perfect answers we would wish to have.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to push any agenda. I really am curious. I suppose I am trying to minimize the use of believed views and ignorance to negate concrete knowledge and conclusions based on that knowledge, but I see that as Godly effort for a Christian.

Laika said:

I'm definitely not a fan of those who argue that somethings are inherently beyond our understanding, but sometimes we don't know and that isn't a personal failure on our part. Even if everything can be seen, observed and understood, the world is too big for us to understand it all. We might dedicate our entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge but we would will still die with the work of discovery left unfinished. We are allowed to be imperfect and to get things wrong. We have the right to forgive ourselves for not always understanding clearly. For the most part, we just have to do our best to get the little part we play right for however long we are here.

Click to expand...

I think you put this excellently. I am just nosy and interested to learn and understand things better.

I want to believe in miracles might be a more accurate claim for me. I have seen a few things that could be called miracles. But I do not know and I have never received revelation telling me something is a miracle. At least nothing I could recognize as revelation. Some would say that means I am not a true Christian. Of course that means they have knowledge of what a true Christian is and can provide those criteria and characteristics so that others can know too. Certainly, I will have questions for them on that too and they will be very similar to these questions.

Altfish said:

I looked an "official" definition up after I had put an off the cuff definition in my first post. I'm not moving the goal posts at all.
Just confirming and better explaining what a miracle is.

Click to expand...

We could waste time arguing that. They are two different definitions, one extending the first. But I also see that you were being more specific as well and adding body to your off the cuff definition. It is a trifle not worth going to battle over when the end result does not provide further insight to either of us on what others mean when they claim miracle.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

It can't.

The laws of nature are inferred from what happens. If we see observe something that doesn't make sense in our understanding of the laws of nature, we take this as a sign that our understanding is wrong and infer a new understanding that takes the new observation into account.

Click to expand...

I have a similar approach to my interpretation of the Bible. If I see something that doesn't make sense in light of my existing interpretation, it does not mean I try to bend reality to fit that interpretation, but rather recognize that I need a better interpretation or perhaps I am overthinking the meaning that is there.

John53 said:

I was just walking the dog and we crossed the main street at the traffic lights (a left over from the days when the Pacific highway went through town), I had the green walk light but heard a motorbike coming over the bridge and waited, sure enough he went straight through the red light and might have skittled us if I hadn't waited. Miracle? Luck? Or probably the little voice inside my head that said wait was past experience because I've seen it happen several times before?

Click to expand...

Either way, and I think your latter explanation is probably the best explanation, I am glad you did not end up as a motorcycle/human/dog hybrid.

RestlessSoul said:

The point of the quote is this, I think: No events in this miraculous universe should be considered ordinary, and the fact we can explain any of them is in itself extraordinary.

Click to expand...

I do not want to find fault with this notion, since I rather like it. But the real miracle may be that we manage to exist with all sorts bias, contradictions and irrational ideas as well as those reasoned and knowledgeable and can still manage to want to know more and find explanations at all.

I know these sorts of questions stir up trouble for all, but I am used to that. I recall being a young boy and the pains I raised in asking if Adam, Eve and Cain and Abel were the only people on earth, then who were the people in Nod where Cain found a wife. Where did they come from?

I am nosy and I want better information. I want to understand better. I am not looking to sell a worldview or run one down.

Is it that miracles are just explained by the laws of nature and probability and they are just unexpected and very positive so some of us just throw the blanket of our beliefs around them and call them our own? Or do they really exist and how can we know this?

I want to know how people that claim an event was a miracle know that it was compared to other possible outcomes. Does it matter if it is within the scope of the laws of nature? Does it matter if it isn't showy, rapid or obvious? Could miracles happen all the time, but we are looking too broadly to see them? Does praying for them do anything outside of myself? Perhaps it helps those being prayed for if they know you are thinking of them in dire times. Sometimes that may be the miracle that makes the difference.

I don't know answers. I just have lots of questions and am looking to you all to tell me what you know and think.

Dan From Smithville said:

Is it that miracles are just explained by the laws of nature and probability and they are just unexpected and very positive so some of us just throw the blanket of our beliefs around them and call them our own? Or do they really exist and how can we know this?

I want to know how people that claim an event was a miracle know that it was compared to other possible outcomes. Does it matter if it is within the scope of the laws of nature? Does it matter if it isn't showy, rapid or obvious? Could miracles happen all the time, but we are looking too broadly to see them? Does praying for them do anything outside of myself? Perhaps it helps those being prayed for if they know you are thinking of them in dire times. Sometimes that may be the miracle that makes the difference.

I don't know answers. I just have lots of questions and am looking to you all to tell me what you know and think.

Click to expand...

Each will read into it what they want is the only explanation I can think of.

Doesn't the Catholic Church have some kind of protocol for determining miracles when they hand out sainthoods? I remember reading about it when Mary MacKillop was declared a saint.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

... and the laws of physics are inferred from observations of what happens, so anything that actually happens - even if it's rare, unpredictable or incomprehensible - is within the scope of "the laws of physics."

Click to expand...

Tell this to the RF members here who have conversations with their spirit “guides”, or their gods. There are quite a few here. Do you think all of these incidents are due to drug use, delusions, or just plain faked? Granted, maybe some, or most.
But all?

Hockeycowboy said:

Tell this to the RF members here who have conversations with their spirit “guides”, or their gods. There are quite a few here. Do you think all of these incidents are due to drug use, delusions, or just plain faked? Granted, maybe some, or most.
But all?

Click to expand...

Wow - seems you completely missed my point.

Edit: here's how it works:

- our understanding of the physical laws of the universe suggests that X is impossible.
- we observe X.
- we immediately recognize that our understanding of the universe was wrong, and that the physical laws of the universe do in fact allow X to happen.
- science then gets to work trying to figure out how it is that X is possible.

At no point would we say that anything that actually happens "violates the laws of physics."

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Wow - seems you completely missed my point.

Edit: here's how it works:

- our understanding of the physical laws of the universe suggests that X is impossible.
- we observe X.
- we immediately recognize that our understanding of the universe was wrong, and that the physical laws of the universe do in fact allow X to happen.
- science then gets to work trying to figure out how it is that X is possible.

At no point would we say that anything that actually happens "violates the laws of physics."

Click to expand...

Got the point, thanks.

But you didn’t answer my question.
So you are saying that sane people ‘speaking with and receiving spirit entities’ follows the laws of physics?
That spirit entities, in the future when they become understood (i.e., can be explained), will then be natural? Simply because they exist?

How will that work? (That would require some serious overhauling!)

But if that’s not what you mean, then please I would ask that you answer my original question.

John53 said:

Each will read into it what they want is the only explanation I can think of.

Click to expand...

That may be the best that we can do.

John53 said:

Doesn't the Catholic Church have some kind of protocol for determining miracles when they hand out sainthoods? I remember reading about it when Mary MacKillop was declared a saint.

Click to expand...

I think so, but I am not up on my Catholicism or sainthoods.

I have always been curious about things like bleeding statues though. I think that is a thing that Catholics see as a miracle. They would be interesting to apply the methods of science to.

Dan From Smithville said:

I know these sorts of questions stir up trouble for all, but I am used to that. I recall being a young boy and the pains I raised in asking if Adam, Eve and Cain and Abel were the only people on earth, then who were the people in Nod where Cain found a wife. Where did they come from?

I am nosy and I want better information. I want to understand better. I am not looking to sell a worldview or run one down.

Click to expand...

They probably came from a story.

"Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel"

KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)
As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus. This book tells the story of Israel's long enslavement in Egypt and of it's eventual emancipation; it also narrates the first stages of Israel's migration from Egypt toward Palestine. The trouble with this story, historically speaking, is that the Egyptians seem to have known nothing of these great events in which thousands of Israelite slaves were released from Egypt because of a series of natural (or supernatural( catastrophes - supposedly including the death of every firstborn Egyptian man and beast.

joelr said:

It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

Click to expand...

When you say "at best" you no doubt mean "at best from the pov of someone who dismisses the stories as be in the truth."

joelr said:

As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus. This book tells the story of Israel's long enslavement in Egypt and of it's eventual emancipation; it also narrates the first stages of Israel's migration from Egypt toward Palestine. The trouble with this story, historically speaking, is that the Egyptians seem to have known nothing of these great events in which thousands of Israelite slaves were released from Egypt because of a series of natural (or supernatural( catastrophes - supposedly including the death of every firstborn Egyptian man and beast.

Click to expand...

Official history coming from Egypt would not include the defeat of their gods by the God of the slaves that they were forced to release.