jjramsey

Considering that the way to determine how probable a kind of event is to look at the evidence for such events, this statement is false.

The problem is that when we speak of miracles as improbable, we do not simply mean that we don't expect them to happen too often, since there are plenty of things that don't happen that often but are not regarded as particularly improbable. Rather, what we mean is that we have estimated the likelihood of a miracle as being so small that we do not expect it to happen at all. My point has been that the likelihood that we have come to assign to a miracle has nothing to do with the inherent properties of a miracle, but rather with the problems regarding the evidence of alleged miracles.

dongiovanni1976x

You are correct. I am confusing theories with laws. My mistake is in my unconscious assumption that even laws are nothing more than glorified theories and I should have been more explicit with my definitions to avoid this confusion.

Another reason I overlooked this unclear definition was because I was trying to stress my main point: Therefore when I ask And you reply:
What I am really asking is “WHAT are the characteristics of a god?” I understand that the only difference between a god and an empirically verifiable god is that the latter can be confirmed by observation, but what is it that you are observing? Does this being take up space, have extension, motion etc…if we can observe this being doing something than presumably we can trace the effects this being has on its surrounding environment, if we can trace the effects it has on its environment then we can alter our laws according to ANYTHING we observe this being do. Thus what is supernatural anymore if we are rewriting nature to fit into this new phenomena we just observed?
I think my mistake with mixing up theories and laws ties into this point I just made. We need to clearly define what the supernatural is. I am arguing that it is above, beyond the natural realm. It is undetectable, non-empirical and follows no natural laws. It can do anything yada yada yada…
IF this is how you are viewing the supernatural then how could we ever allow the possibility of a supernatural miracle since whenever one may have occurred we will be busying ourselves trying to concoct a new Ptolemaic circle paradigm to fit the phenomena, never knowing its TRUE cause.
Does this make sense? I am trying to make spaghetti while typing this so forgive me if it doesn’t.

Amaleq13

I agree that your statement here is false.

I think we are talking past one another. You seem to me to be talking about the evidence that an event actually has happened and conflating that with the circumstances necessary for such an event to occur in the future (ie the probability of the event). The former is a subset of the latter but insufficient to establish it.

Absent a direct count of actual occurrence, the probability of an event is established by calculating the frequency of all the circumstances necessary for its occurrence. Establishing that an event actually has occurred does not require that evidence of all those necessary circumstances be obtained. Therefore, as I said, the evidence (or lack thereof) for a specific example of an event actually occurring cannot inform us how likely such events are to occur.

I would refer to those sorts of things as "unlikely" or "rare" so I guess I solved your problem.

Yes, just like everything else I would refer to as "improbable". I might even add an "extremely" to make the point even more clear.

What is the difference between the "inherent properties" of a miracle and "problems regarding the evidence of alleged miracles"?

Amaleq13

From what I hear, 1. straight, 2. white, 3. American and 4. male but I was born in the very same Heartland in which you currently reside so others may have heard differently.

All-powerfulness, I presume.

I think it is rendered non-existent or, at the very least, meaningless.

I think a miracle would be when the supernatural becomes evident in the natural world and I agree that, unless the cause itself became evidence in the natural world (thereby ceasing to be supernatural), it could not be reliably identified.

Never ever mix philosophy and cooking!!!


PS Sorry about bringing that blizzard to your vicinity this past March.

jjramsey

I am talking about the evidence that certain kinds of events (note the plural) purportedly happened in the past and using my assessment of the quality of that evidence as a gauge to see what the likelihood of one of those kind of events happening in the future would be. Since the evidence for miracles has a history of being shaky, I have reason to doubt the likelihood that a miracle will occur in the future.

For miracles to be miracles, they only have to be infrequent enough that they stand out as irregularities against the normal courses of nature. However, that would still allow them to be commonplace enough that calling them "improbable" would be a stretch. For example, miracles would not cease to be miracles if they consistently happened at a monthly church healing service. If miracles occur in the real world, then they occur at a frequency that is far below what is needed for miracles to be miracles. In other words, miracles need not be improbable in order to be miracles; their grossly low probability is a happenstance of this world, based on the poor evidence currently available for miracles. Furthermore, there is nothing about the concept of a miracle that forces the evidence for them to be elusive and unverifiable. That too is a happenstance of this world.

Merzbow42

Exactly. For a miracle to be a miracle, it need only be irreducibly unexplainable, not improbable. A miracle does not become a 'law of nature' just by occuring. Laws of nature are regular and useful as tools to both explain the workings of higher-level processes and are reducible to simpler laws in and of themselves (until you get to the quantum level, which we can't see 'below' currently). A miracle would be a large-scale complex event which fulfills neither property.

Amaleq13

With all due respect, I'll stick with the Oxford American Dictionary for the meaning of words:

miracle: a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences

:wave:

jjramsey

An event that isn't particularly infrequent but is nonetheless extraordinary could be a miracle as well. Real faith healings at a monthly church healing service would be a hypothetical example of something not particularly infrequent but still extraordinary.

dongiovanni1976x

Wow! That is exactly the description I heard too!
The etymology of Miracle comes from the Latin, “miraculum” from the verb “mirari,” which means, “to wonder at.” I think Hippocrates alluded to this when he was referring to the word, “divine”, he said, Thus, you are right to say supernatural is a meaningless term in this context and I think this is what Dr. Ehrman meant when he said it belongs in the realm of theology, not history.
In this sense the “word” miracle is rather meaningless as well. We can use it to describe an event that makes us wonder, but any phenomena that makes us wonder must be traced to something empirical, or we would never had cause to wonder about it. This even goes for non-existent things such as unicorns; E.g. A Roman animal trader makes note of the observation of a Rhino during his travels, this written description is then later interpreted to invoke an image of a unicorn in the middle ages.
Just because an event makes us “wonder” does not mean that that event was caused by a preceding supernatural event. And even if a supernatural event was the cause of the empirical phenomena we experience, we would NEVER have any way of determining this as supernatural via natural means.
This is something people take on FAITH because it is folly/foolishness/absurd.
P.S.
Amaleq13, unless you have supernatural powers I will not blame you for the blizzard this past March. ;-)

cognac

Skimming through that PDF, I'm struck by how quickly and easily Craig dismisses claims that other religions also experience miracles, whereas he adamantly defends the miraculous claims of his own religion and seeks to discredit Ehrman by personal attacks about "loss of faith," as if that means Erhrman is not to be trusted.

And Craig most definitely dodged the inerrancy question, which would have shown light on his bias. Why is he afraid to admit it, if he believes it? Is debate for him more about scoring points for his side rather than a search for truth?