The Instigator
britt-jolene
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Parietti03
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should you believe in miracles

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,371 times Debate No: 28059
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

britt-jolene

Con

I think that you should not believe in miracles [MP]. Miracles are defined as a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency [q]. An example of this would be if you throw an object up and it does not come down [q]. This would work against the law of gravity and against science [q]. Science is made up of facts and miracles are in opposition of those facts [s]. You should only hold beliefs if you have evidence to back them up [ri]. Therefore, if you cannot recreate or find evidence to support the miracle, you should not believe in them [ri].
Parietti03

Pro

Miracles are an important part of life and should be believed in [MP]. A miracle is not just something religious it"s seen as an event that cannot be explained [Q]. Science does prove many things, but what about all the stuff it cannot prove [S]? In Paul Gomberg"s essay Miracles and Religious Research he states that "why does the praying for a patient with a, b, and c by a person with x, y, and z lead to the patients cure? If asked in a scientific spirit, there is only one epistemically modest answer: we don"t know [S]." Miracles are all about the unknown [Q]. Everybody looks for a reason why something happened, but a lot of the time there is no explanation [S]. This happens all the time, not just once and never again [Q]. People look for reasons as to why something happened and the simple explanation could be that it was simply just a miracle [Ri].
Debate Round No. 1
britt-jolene

Con

As Clifford"s essay explains, it is our responsibility to base our beliefs on sufficient evidence. [MP] Specifically in the case stated, where patient with a, b, & c was prayed for, it is completely irresponsible to conclude the patient"s cure to be a miracle. [s] Clifford states, ""for either it can be honestly answered by means of the inquiry already made, or else it proves that the inquiry was not complete."[s]
When a patient"s symptoms discontinue, or a patient reacts differently than the typical case, it is the doctor"s responsibility to further investigate the situation, so that medical advancement continues. [s] Concluding something as a miracle, especially a medical cure, leads to no further investigating.[s] With this mindset, medical advancement as we know it would cease.[ri] Therefore, it is clearly absurd and irresponsible to our society.[ri] Clifford further states, ""the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a man for the performance of this necessary duty." [s] It is imperative for doctors and scientists to maintain Clifford's point of view of it being their duty to always consider further inquiry and never succumb to the irresponsible belief of miracles.[ri]
Parietti03

Pro

There is no explanation for a man coming back to life after 10 minutes of being dead, but it still happens [MP]. This has to do with medical investigating; they look for an answer and don't find one, so why shouldn't we assume that is a miracle [S]? In Miracles and Scientific Research by Paul Gomberg he states that "Hence it cannot include in science the idea of a miracle, which assumes the universe includes supernatural events, an assumption that is part of a religions tradition"[S]. A miracle is about having faith, there are times when we take chances with no evidence of yourself succeeding, but we have faith that we can, and just having faith isn't enough evidence for us to say that the reason we succeed [Q]. We see ourselves succeeding because we choose to believe in miracles [RE].
Debate Round No. 2
britt-jolene

Con

It is Gomberg who states that the most important consideration when evaluating testimony is that of modesty.[s] He explains that when we acknowledge our ignorance, we make it possible to know more in the future.[s] Labeling something as a miracle, especially in the medical field, stunts our progress and even jeopardizes the lives of future patients who might benefit from the findings of further investigation.[ri] As you"ve stated yourself in the quote from Gomberg, miracles are not a part of science, therefore, claiming a miracle is not scientific, but simply a credulous belief.[ri] Miracles should not be entertained because it is not a properly grounded belief.[MP] There is always harm from belief that is not properly grounded because there are actions that follow based on that belief.[s] When we say we believe, we are stating a conclusion.[q] Therefore, no further investigation would be taken in your example of a person "coming back to life" and beneficial information for future medicine will be unfounded.[ri]
Parietti03

Pro

When a person is modest then that person takes into consideration that he/she can be wrong or that they do not know everything[RI]. By you stating that there is no such things as miracles then you are not be modest at all[S]. We have made it clear that when something occurs without an evidence then it can be a miracle[Q]. We have never stated that everything that cannot be explained is a miracle, but that is an option[RE]. By you stating that there are no such things as miracles, after stating a modesty quote just makes your point contradict itself[S]. You are stating that we can never believe in miracles, yet you state that we need modesty[S]. Having modesty is being open to different views, opinions and beliefs[Q]. With the whole action following no evidence hurting someone is true, but a miracle doesn't lead to a person's action let alone one that will harm someone[EM]. I will not jump 60 feet over a volcano, hoping that a miracle will occur, but if I am being forced against my own will I would sure hope a miracle occurs in one way[RI]. Also, with the investigation of the person coming back to life, it is assumed that the doctors would do further investigation as to why he/she came back rather than right at that moment stating it is a miracle, otherwise that doctor would be ignorant[RE]. A miracle does not just come right away without any investigation, the conclusion of the miracle may occur after investigation has been done and there is no explanation as to why something has happened[Q].
Debate Round No. 3
britt-jolene

Con

When you state that you are modest, yet you succumb things that don"t have evidence for to a miracle, you are not being modest [s]. Modesty provokes inquiry and investigations in order to find evidence to support your beliefs [q]. By stating that something is a miracle, there is no further investigation [q]. Scientists and doctors have a duty to find out what exactly happened, it is unjust for them to write it off as a miracle [ri]. Miracles are supported by testimony alone [q]. Besides testimony, there is not much evidence that miracles do exist [s]. Since humans are fallible, their testimony can be wrong or exaggerated [s]. David Hume thinks no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle therefore there is no accurate evidence to support that there is such a thing as miracles [mp]. Hume states "Always I reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." [s] It is not reasonable to believe that there is such a thing as miracles solely on testimony [ri]. People are prone to accept the unusual and incredible is because of a miracle [q]. Since there is no other evidence and you cannot recreate a miracle, you cannot believe in them [s].
Parietti03

Pro

Your point stating why a miracle should not be believed in since it requires no investigation or further research is wrong bc we are not stating that no research is taken prior to the conclusion of a miracle[RI]. If a person just says a miracle occurred without any investigation than yes they are ignorant, but if they do research and cannot conclude a specific reason as to why something happened than yes, one option to believe is a miracle.[Q]the point is that a Miracle is not supposed to be recreated, otherwise it would not make it a miracle. [S]Also a miracle does not occur the same way twice. [S]To say we shouldn't believe in miracles is saying we shouldn't have faith at all. [EM] Faith is what allows people to have hope and get through a tough day. [RI] Paul Gomberg states, "C might say to D, "to say you don't know, when you are presented with a clear case of God's grace, Is is to fail to honor God. It is sin" [S], because taking away someone's faith and hope is one of the worst things a person can do[q].
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Chuz-Life
Great debate so far. In some respects, my wife 'died' of a cardiac arrest in 2008. It took 45 minutes of CPR and 9 shocks with the defib to bring her back. As a result of a lack of sufficient oxygen to her brain, she has a permanent and irreversible brain injury. She was in a coma for three weeks with not response to pain, smell, touch or sound. I was asked twice "how long I would be willing to keep her on life support?" (Vent, both catheters, feeding tube,.. the works.)

On her birthday with her mom visiting and while was standing in front of my boss's desk at work explaining why I needed time off to get with the family to 'make that decision' She came too.

I agree that it's difficult to see that alone as proof of a miracle. It's when I consider that she not only survived but has since recovered her ability to walk, talk, speak and understand, dress herself, shower, swim, etc... that I can appreciate some people seeing it as a miracle. Indeed some of the nurses called it that.

I prefer to call it 'miraculous' though not a miracle. (if that makes sense). A miracle to me would be a recovery with NO loss or significant permanent injury at all.
No votes have been placed for this debate.