What is your opinion on miracles?

[Mopsus]

Right in the opening you can further disclaim any such event if science does not back up the lack of evidence. A more combating question would ask how people believe in miracles when there is lack of burden proof or any rational explanation that has not gained traction within the mainstream science community? Where could somebody write up an apologetic case for such happenings?

Miracles are defined by a violation of scientific laws, yet there are still users on this site who try to scientifically "prove" their existence.

No, that's not really correct. There's no "scientific law" that says "The blind shall never spontaneously regain their eyesight" or "The lame shall never spontaneously regain their ability to walk". Yet if such things were to happen they would be considered miracles.

I think you'll find that medicine is a science, and the spontaneous curing of serious ailments without explanation indeed violates the laws of that science.

Do you have any examples of these laws of medicine?

Uh... how about "humans cannot spontaneously regrow limbs?"

Now can you express that as a mathematical formula?

[John Dule]

Right in the opening you can further disclaim any such event if science does not back up the lack of evidence. A more combating question would ask how people believe in miracles when there is lack of burden proof or any rational explanation that has not gained traction within the mainstream science community? Where could somebody write up an apologetic case for such happenings?

Miracles are defined by a violation of scientific laws, yet there are still users on this site who try to scientifically "prove" their existence.

No, that's not really correct. There's no "scientific law" that says "The blind shall never spontaneously regain their eyesight" or "The lame shall never spontaneously regain their ability to walk". Yet if such things were to happen they would be considered miracles.

I think you'll find that medicine is a science, and the spontaneous curing of serious ailments without explanation indeed violates the laws of that science.

Do you have any examples of these laws of medicine?

Uh... how about "humans cannot spontaneously regrow limbs?"

Now can you express that as a mathematical formula?

What point do you imagine you're making here?

[Mopsus]

Right in the opening you can further disclaim any such event if science does not back up the lack of evidence. A more combating question would ask how people believe in miracles when there is lack of burden proof or any rational explanation that has not gained traction within the mainstream science community? Where could somebody write up an apologetic case for such happenings?

Miracles are defined by a violation of scientific laws, yet there are still users on this site who try to scientifically "prove" their existence.

No, that's not really correct. There's no "scientific law" that says "The blind shall never spontaneously regain their eyesight" or "The lame shall never spontaneously regain their ability to walk". Yet if such things were to happen they would be considered miracles.

I think you'll find that medicine is a science, and the spontaneous curing of serious ailments without explanation indeed violates the laws of that science.

Do you have any examples of these laws of medicine?

Uh... how about "humans cannot spontaneously regrow limbs?"

Now can you express that as a mathematical formula?

What point do you imagine you're making here?

An omnipotent creator deity wouldn’t exactly have to violate the laws of thermodynamics to cause an animal to regrow a lost limb.

[John Dule]

Right in the opening you can further disclaim any such event if science does not back up the lack of evidence. A more combating question would ask how people believe in miracles when there is lack of burden proof or any rational explanation that has not gained traction within the mainstream science community? Where could somebody write up an apologetic case for such happenings?

Miracles are defined by a violation of scientific laws, yet there are still users on this site who try to scientifically "prove" their existence.

No, that's not really correct. There's no "scientific law" that says "The blind shall never spontaneously regain their eyesight" or "The lame shall never spontaneously regain their ability to walk". Yet if such things were to happen they would be considered miracles.

I think you'll find that medicine is a science, and the spontaneous curing of serious ailments without explanation indeed violates the laws of that science.

Do you have any examples of these laws of medicine?

Uh... how about "humans cannot spontaneously regrow limbs?"

Now can you express that as a mathematical formula?

What point do you imagine you're making here?

An omnipotent creator deity wouldn’t exactly have to violate the laws of thermodynamics to cause an animal to regrow a lost limb.

That didn't make things any clearer.

[Georg Ebner]

As a scepticist i do not believe in anything "supranatural".
Because i do not believe in anything "natural".
Because "In my life i have seen many facts; but never any 'natural laws'." (HUME).
Thus i ended as a devout Catholic...

[Dr. MB]

I'd go with D. I'm not sure the origin source for a lot of these are necessarily religious but instead more Fortean in nature but I don't rule out religious miracles either. But I think pretty much all supernatural phenomena originates from the same place and it should definitely be investigated. Like aliens? Could be. Whatever is on the same plane of existence as aliens? Could also be that. On the same plane as the divine. Whatever that means. Idk i'm too high for this

I think it's foolish to expect healing especially relying on it instead of medicine and I'd say that's the case for miracles in general.

Position D-Seemingly supernatural events are possible and do occur, but they are not the result of a divine entity as opposed to some other phenomena largely or totally unexplained by modern science such as extraterrestrial or extradimensional beings. They should be investigated seriously to see what exactly is occurring.

Yeah this pretty much sums it up.

[Mopsus]

Right in the opening you can further disclaim any such event if science does not back up the lack of evidence. A more combating question would ask how people believe in miracles when there is lack of burden proof or any rational explanation that has not gained traction within the mainstream science community? Where could somebody write up an apologetic case for such happenings?

Miracles are defined by a violation of scientific laws, yet there are still users on this site who try to scientifically "prove" their existence.

No, that's not really correct. There's no "scientific law" that says "The blind shall never spontaneously regain their eyesight" or "The lame shall never spontaneously regain their ability to walk". Yet if such things were to happen they would be considered miracles.

I think you'll find that medicine is a science, and the spontaneous curing of serious ailments without explanation indeed violates the laws of that science.

Do you have any examples of these laws of medicine?

Uh... how about "humans cannot spontaneously regrow limbs?"

Now can you express that as a mathematical formula?

What point do you imagine you're making here?

An omnipotent creator deity wouldn’t exactly have to violate the laws of thermodynamics to cause an animal to regrow a lost limb.

That didn't make things any clearer.

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

[John Dule]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

[Mopsus]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

[John Dule]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

[Mopsus]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

[John Dule]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

Occam is one of many great philosophers whose most brilliant theories accidentally disproved other elements of their beliefs.

[Mopsus]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

Occam is one of many great philosophers whose most brilliant theories accidentally disproved other elements of their beliefs.

If he was unable to see the contradictions in his own thinking, wouldn’t that discredit him as an authority?

[John Dule]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

Occam is one of many great philosophers whose most brilliant theories accidentally disproved other elements of their beliefs.

If he was unable to see the contradictions in his own thinking, wouldn’t that discredit him as an authority?

I cited the logic of the reasoning, not the authority of the thinker.

[Mopsus]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

Occam is one of many great philosophers whose most brilliant theories accidentally disproved other elements of their beliefs.

If he was unable to see the contradictions in his own thinking, wouldn’t that discredit him as an authority?

I cited the logic of the reasoning, not the authority of the thinker.

So what is the evidence on which you accept his thinking as an axiom of your epistemology?

[John Dule]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

Occam is one of many great philosophers whose most brilliant theories accidentally disproved other elements of their beliefs.

If he was unable to see the contradictions in his own thinking, wouldn’t that discredit him as an authority?

I cited the logic of the reasoning, not the authority of the thinker.

So what is the evidence on which you accept his thinking as an axiom of your epistemology?

I don't accept it as inherently true. It's just clearly applicable here.

[Mopsus]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

Occam is one of many great philosophers whose most brilliant theories accidentally disproved other elements of their beliefs.

If he was unable to see the contradictions in his own thinking, wouldn’t that discredit him as an authority?

I cited the logic of the reasoning, not the authority of the thinker.

So what is the evidence on which you accept his thinking as an axiom of your epistemology?

I don't accept it as inherently true. It's just clearly applicable here.

According to what criteria of applicability?

[John Dule]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

Occam is one of many great philosophers whose most brilliant theories accidentally disproved other elements of their beliefs.

If he was unable to see the contradictions in his own thinking, wouldn’t that discredit him as an authority?

I cited the logic of the reasoning, not the authority of the thinker.

So what is the evidence on which you accept his thinking as an axiom of your epistemology?

I don't accept it as inherently true. It's just clearly applicable here.

According to what criteria of applicability?

The fact that if an occurrence happens that is perfectly explicable by already-established laws, there is no logical justification for presuming that it was caused by unknown, unseen, or paranormal laws.

[Mopsus]

You repeated the common misconception that God would have to violate the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle. God would not have to do this, but would rather employ the laws of nature to their ends. I hope this clears things up.

But if an event occurs within the confines of natural laws, then Occam's Razor would suggest that we explain the occurrence as a result of those natural laws instead of inventing an additional entity to cause it. Hence why, for a miracle to be provable, it would have to be reliably recorded to have violated the laws of nature.

There’s some confusion about what a law of nature is, which is what I was getting at in my earlier posts. “Blind people are not generally observed to spontaneously regain their sight” does not rise to the same level of clarity and certainty as the Pythagorean Theorem. Setting that aside, if it is true that blind people do not generally spontaneously regain their sight, and then a blind person does so after fervent prayer or being visited by a holy person, Occam’s Razor would hold that the prayer or the holy person did have something to do with it.

This is not how Occam's Razor works.

Well it’s going to have to allow for miracles somehow, considering that William of Occam was a Franciscan friar.

Occam is one of many great philosophers whose most brilliant theories accidentally disproved other elements of their beliefs.

If he was unable to see the contradictions in his own thinking, wouldn’t that discredit him as an authority?

I cited the logic of the reasoning, not the authority of the thinker.

So what is the evidence on which you accept his thinking as an axiom of your epistemology?

I don't accept it as inherently true. It's just clearly applicable here.

According to what criteria of applicability?

The fact that if an occurrence happens that is perfectly explicable by already-established laws, there is no logical justification for presuming that it was caused by unknown, unseen, or paranormal laws.

This seems akin to saying that if something happens uncommonly enough, one should assume that it never happens at all.

[John Dule]

This seems akin to saying that if something happens uncommonly enough, one should assume that it never happens at all.

I see no relationship whatsoever between those two statements.

[Tired Old Fossil '24]

I believe in them and I keep praying for one with COVID.

[_.]

Between Position A and Position B. Miracles do happen regularly, but one should never rely on them to save them from whatever pickle they happen to be in.

[Ferguson97]

Position E is the only logical choice.

[Dr. MB]

Position E is the only logical choice.

Actually the mental gymnastics to justify skepticism of all supernatural phenomena make that position the more illogical one.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

E seems like the obvious answer to me. On Firefly, River Tam would argue  that the Bible is “broken”  because the Flood was impossible.

I actually found that episode a bit odd because Joss Whedon is a fervent atheist and actually kind of a "New Atheist", which actually fits well with the unsavory aspects of his personality we now know about. I suppose though it's possible he didn't write it. I also found it kind of interesting how Buffy and Angel had all the characters having "Brian Griffin Syndrome", despite the known existence of demons, magic, alternate dimensions, supernatural godlike beings, an afterlife, etc. almost none of the characters seem to actually definitely believe in God. IIRC the only recurring character on either show who was shown to be a Christian was that female LAPD detective on Angel.

Anyway I voted for B.