Amazon.com Widgets
  • Miracles prove a supernatural element

    A miracle is something (an action, instance, occurrence) that cannot exist naturally. Therefore, it is supernatural. Considering miracles were used by Jesus (a historical, real person) and recorded, not only in the Bible, but in the works of ancient historians (Josephus for one), it can be affirmed that miracles prove supernatural presence. Jesus, since he performed miracles (and allowed apostles and disciples to perform miracles), can thus be classified as supernatural, which means he is above natural (like man). Meaning, he has the authority to issue a moral standard, which he has done. So yes, miracles, which are not "magic" but instead the actions of a supernatural imposing his will on the natural, provide the authority to whatever uses them, in this case Jesus, to issue a moral standard.

  • Miracles show moral authority

    Miracles are good things that happen to those that cannot "afford" them. No one can initiate a miracle whenever wished. Rather, miracles result from benevolence. Anything that happens toward the happiness of people is good and therefore also moral. Considering this, one can say that miracles do show the moral authority of God.

  • A failure of explanatory power does not render moral authority.

    The claim that miracles prove moral authority is nothing more than a claim that one person's inability to explain a matter elevates the views of a person who claims a miracle to moral authority. It's absurd. Furthermore, even if a "miracle" actually were in violation of natural laws, there is no reason to suppose that the thing rendering the miracle is worthy of dictating moral positions.

  • Magic isn't honesty, kindness or wisdom

    Moral authority is the authority to tell people what is good and bad, and what they owe one another -- as distinct from (say) legislative authority, which is the authority to pass laws, or judicial authority, which is the authority to interpret them. But like legislative and judicial authority, moral authority arises from the trust we place in others.

    Among those to whom we look for moral leadership, we often seek the wise, honest and kind. But do miracles justify belief in absolute moral leadership?

    If wisdom, honesty and kindness are what we're looking for, how are miracles relevant? Even if a miracle occurred (hard to prove), would that make the practitioner a moral authority? Should it overcome any reservations we might have about the wisdom, honesty or kindness of the practitioner?

    And if miracles have nothing to do with moral authority then shouldn't we be more critical of the prophets of the great religions, and the deities they claim to serve? Shouldn't we be examining their words critically for honesty, insight and kindness? And should any supposed miracles persuade us not to listen to anyone else?

    And if we believe in a deity, able to perform miracles at whim, how does that ability justify moral authority? Surely a deity is only worthy of worship if it shows it's a moral authority, rather than just a powerful despot?

    How is a claim of miracles anything but a distraction from the real issues underpinning moral authority?

  • Miracles don't happen

    Many people like to scream "MIRACLE" when their child survives cancer or they survive getting shot in the head or they succeed something against all odds. But say for example, a terminally ill child survives cancer. What about those other kids who didn't survive? Why is this child so damn important that he/she gets to live and the others don't? If a God were really behind this, he would be incredibly sadistic and quite frankly amoral for picking and choosing who lives and who dies based on a series of unknown guidelines. Miracles don't happen, instead of thanking God, you should be thanking the doctors for saving your child, or yourself for working so hard for your own success, or your friends for providing you constant support.

  • No, they prove miracles.

    Yeah, go ahead and fill in the blanks. Make an argument from ignorance, but brother, there's no reason to believe 'till there's reason to believe.

    Purely logically, evidence of miracles occurring is only evidence of miracles occurring. It is unscientific to claim that one piece of evidence for something is also evidence for something unrelated.

  • Miracles can't be proven

    Miracles cannot be proven. A miracle is a rare positive event worked by God. However, if these events are good for one and bad for another, is it a miracle? Did God play a part? If not, and it's a rare positive event, how are we to tell the difference? If God wants me to accept miracles as things that actually happens, he needs to come up with a way for me to tell the difference

  • Miracles can happen

    You can't depend on a God, because it takes away your freedom. Blame whatever miracle you get on the people who gave it to you, not on an invisible and non existent being. I need 15 more words... So yea. Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.

  • What miracles are we talking about?

    When has there ever been a substantiated miracle?

    The bar for what is a "miracle" seems to be set very low for many. Don't die while I am walking to the coffee shop, its a miracle!

    The entire idea of miracles is wishful thinking. Think hard about something, it happens, miracle!

    Posted by: TBR

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
debate_power says2015-02-09T22:09:31.443
I've an idea. I'm going to write a book on how unicorns created the world and will save us by coming in an enormous hamburger- shaped spaceship. I'll include the other confirming historical records, let's say about twelve, in the same book that I'm making the case for the unicorns' existence in. Then I'll travel forward in time two thousand years and see if anyone believes it. After all, I believe it, so why shouldn't they, right? Aren't I more credible than reproducible scientific results, because I lived a while ago and claimed to be a historian?
RuvDraba says2015-02-09T22:50:44.477
Yes, DP -- the criteria for proof seem to vary wildly based on how ancient the source is, and how closely the claims support one's own religious faith. :)

But perhaps more pertinently, in modern times we have the likes of Indian spiritual guru Sai Baba conjuring jewels for his followers (presumably a symbolic and inspirational gift.) Like the miracles of ancient times, these are not performed under clinical conditions, but unlike the miracles of ancient times, they're thoroughly documented on camera -- so they have more factual credence than rumours reported by ancient historians.

So if moral authority is established by miracle, then surely his miracles have more documentation and therefore more authority than any of those of ancient times? Or if we insist (as I'd like to) that he performs his miracles under clinical conditions (e.G. In the James Randi Centre), then surely we must impose a similar condition on ancient miracles, or relegate them to rumour rather than fact?
debate_power says2015-02-12T15:59:16.073
We ought to only consider things fact when the burdens of proof for them are fulfilled. If miracles can truly happen, let's do an experiment for them somehow.
RuvDraba says2015-02-12T18:58:21.467
I would agree, DP, that we couldn't call an event a miracle until it were tested clinically. And I think if we pressed them, that's how people of other faiths would want to test the alleged miracles of (say) the Indian guru Sai Baba. However, peoples of faith are renowned for applying different standards of evidence to miracles of their faith vs miracles of other faiths. The act of calling marvels of one's own faith 'miracles' while insisting on a higher standard of proof in other faiths is really a form of bigotry.