sullster

If any of you have ever taken a course on logic, then you will know that logic is very good at being logical but that doesn't mean it always tells anything true or real.

Logic is a very structured sytem and catholic theologians of the middle ages used Aristotelean logic to "prove" all sorts of demented delusions.

The best arguments against the existence of miracles are not logical ones since one could find a logical argument that a miracle happened. As stated by another poster, the best argument against a miracle are the emperically proven laws of nature, found in the sciences of physics, chemistry or biology.

Reason and science are debunkers of miracle stories, not logic.

Amie will have to say reason-schmeason or science-schmience. That makes more logical sense.

long winded fool

How long has this been the case? The "empirically proven laws of nature" known in Jesus' time allowed for miracles. The empirically proven laws of nature allow for miracles nowadays too. I've seen video of a shaman of an African tribe balancing his entire body weight on a razor sharp sword, the point in his abdomen, without so much as leaving a mark. The tip of the sword was demonstrated to be sharp enough to easily draw blood from another man's thumb. The man claimed that his faith kept the sword from penetrating him. Is this physically possible? If not, do we automatically assume it is a hoax and forget about it? That wouldn't be very reasonable or scientific. If it isn't a hoax and it does defy the proven laws of physics, must we assume divine manipulation? Or is it more likely that our empirically proven laws of physics aren't as empirically proven as we think? There is video of unidentified objects that appear to defy the laws of physics. Just search a couple UFO sites. Are these miraculous? Should they automatically be labeled as hoaxes since nothing can defy empirically proven laws? I believe in absolute laws, however I don't believe humans have discovered all physical laws nor even fully understand the ones we have, therefore even "empirically proven laws" are not sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility of miracles. (Miracles being anything that defies empirically proven laws.)

Philosoft

I see two ways of thinking critically about this, though there are doubtlessly more:

First, if miracles are considered to be violations of natural causation, then I think there is a logical problem. If we consider a particular miracle, perhaps a Lourdes cancer-healing, the theological explanation is that God "caused" the healing. But what does it mean to say God "causes" something? Presumably, God does not manipulate matter with other matter, nor does he use any of the universal forces. So, in effect, it appears that God "causes" some state-of-affairs without causing said SOA. Now, I realize definitions are often imprecise, but this looks like both A and ~A are said to obtain.

I also realize that a common defense is that God "causes" an SOA to obtain by an unknown or supernatural method. But then, my noncognitivism kicks in and I wonder if, by claiming to talk about a "cause" that has no intelligible concept, we are talking about anything at all.

Second, if we allow the possibility of a mechanism, beyond human comprehension, that causes SOAs to obtain without natural causation, it follows that the mechanism could be nearly anything. To claim that a possible supernatural "cause" is necessarily God manipulating matter through the "force" of his benevolent will begs the question.

wade-w

In one sense, the question asked in the OP is nonsensical. Logic is the process of reasoning. A person's thoughts about the supposed miracle could be either logical or illogical, but the event is neither; it simply is.

SmartBlonde57

Virtually all alleged miracles can be attributed to natural explanations.

Recommended reading:

"Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures", by my pal Joe Nickell

"Asimov's Guide to the Bible", by Uncle Isaac

Duck!

Weird, huh?

I've seen video footage of David Blaine levitating six inches above the ground in front of witnesses.


Duck!

beyelzu

Thats cuz David Blaine is the antichrist.

Everyone knows that.

SmartBlonde57

Very common magician's trick.

Here ya go:

http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/St...ucci.html#Note

http://www.magictricks.com/videos/selflev.htm

The Naked Mage

I'm reasonably certain Duck of Death was just being sarcastic.

SmartBlonde57

I suspected as much; but not being a frequent poster here, I still don't know all the personalities, and I do run into a lot of credulous people even in my various atheist communities on the Web. So, as an ambassador of reason (and for the benefit of any lurkers who might not be aware of all sides of such issues), I prefer to err on the side of education.