According to Paul Gomberg, miracles are defined as "a supernatural (or divine) intervention in the natural order" [I] There are many arguments as to why one should not believe in miracles. [re] With miracles you rely on the testimony of the experience. Not being able to replicate a miracle allows oneself to question miracles authenticity. Therefore, miracles cannot be proven. [s] Science is a perfect example as to why miracles should not be believed. [s] In science , experiments are tested multiple times to further support the results of the data collected. [q] "As scientists we must exclude the supernatural cases from our database because they go against the course of nature, and science only studies nature." Miracles are unable to b reproduced and do not provide efficient evidence to be considered support, therefore are not believable and go against nature.
[ri] To say that man should not believe in miracles puts a lot of onus on the individual. [s] In stating that a miracle is not real and therefore should not be believed, because it has no evidence, suggests that no beliefs should be held without sufficient evidence. [q] To take the time necessary for one to sufficiently investigate every belief that he holds would inhibit him from progressing in his life. [ri] That being said, there is no harm in believing in miracles. [s] "The risk goes to the believer, likewise the profits and losses." [s] As Williams James explains, "The option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later prove unwise. Such trivial options abound in the scientific life." [ri] For a scientist to progress in his studies he must first have faith in his own theories. [s] If his theory proves false there will have been no harm done. If his theory proves true, he would not have obtained this knowledge had he not believed in the first place.
Believing in miracles only gives one hope, sufficient evidence provides one with physical proof. You don't need faith to have a theory or believe in a theory . A theory provides scientists with an option. When the experiment is carried out with the theory it only further provides sufficient evidence. Anything that one believes is a miracle which doesn't provide sufficient evidence is just testimony. Telling of ones miracle can only provide questions and said questions will be answered with proper evidence. If the question cannot be answered with evidence it becomes bullsh*t and cannot be believed. Being bullsh*t concludes that the miracle can only be false.
[q] You claim that an event that cannot be explained becomes a false event. [ec] However, our debate stands on accepting the fact that the event did indeed occurr. [q] The implicit question is "how do we explain this event?" [re] You have created a red herring; the question of whether or not the event occurred is not relvant to the issue at hand. [ri] As far as miracles solely providing the believer with hope, it does much more. [q] It provides the believer with a sense of confidence, which inturn improves his quality of life. [q] If one only acts based on sufficient evidence he will never entertain new experiences. [s] This is true of any event which the subject has not yet encountered. [s] His chances of being successful improve exponentially if he believes that is the case.
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know what the random signs were that were propagated by both sides throughout the debate. After seeing Con's R1 I was ready to give S/G to Pro but then he up and did the same thing. Weird. On arguments, it basically just came down to the competing epistemologies of pragmatism and "science". I would normally side with the latter but the resolution ended giving Pro a chance in this debate. The resolution asks if people "should" believe in miracles. Therefore Con's arguments presupposed a commitment to rationality/truth. However, that's not a universal attitude and Con never supported this onus. Pro on the other hand successfully exploited this by offering his own competing "onus". Unfortunately, neither side expanded on/defended their respective positions satisfactorily. Therefore, arguments default to Pro since Con failed to uphold his BoP.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.