Have Miracles Ever Occurred?”

It is quite rational to embrace and defend the existence of the “miraculous”. The very existence of God Himself is supernatural, i.e. ‘above’ or ‘outside’ the natural. This would limit the number of those who deny the existence of miracles to only the most staunch of atheists. Agnostics and liberal “Christians” would be forced to deny the existence of a ‘miraculous’ God in order to deny the existence of miracles themselves. It is quite reasonable to assume that a God who is himself a miracle and a “wonder” would by His very manner and nature, engage in miraculous or “supernatural” behavior. This is rational when the examination of miracles really involves a proper definition whereby one law supersedes another, namely the law of God-like behaviour outranks the law of natural behaviour. An example of this would be enabling the buoyancy of a human and the supporting buoyancy of water to permit that human to balance upright and engage in motion atop the water level . i.e. to “walk” on water.

Atheists like to use the phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. This phrase seems to suit the atheist well when he is the one defining what “extraordinary” is. But if a theist was to assert that the atheist’s proposition that in all the universe on all the planets among all things and beings seen and unseen that there was nothing among all of them that was or could be categorized as “god” – was an even more extraordinary claim than the theist claiming that God did exist, then the burden of proof could be placed on the atheist to provide “extraordinary evidence” that a God does not exist. This flawed argument of claim vs evidence is used to discount the existence of miracles and the ‘super’ natural altogether when in reality it is just a matter of defining “extraordinary” which in the case of miracles is as ordinary as many of the claims of the skeptic.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Have Miracles Ever Occurred?”

  1. Pingback: Fine. Let’s Talk About Burden of Proof. | Life After Doubt

    • I thought I would return the favor of a response to your post…this is essentially a reply to the one-line ad hominem post you left for me:

      You atheists are sometimes quite hilarious in your attempt to belittle someone in obvious possession of the logical high ground…like a theist. I like how “rationalwiki” is your apparent “go to” source reference for “dependable” definitions. So be it – the very first line of your internets webpage site states the following,

      “Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant).

      So…using just the opening line of your internets webpage site definition and your apparent vast superior grasp of the “burden of proof” workings, let me beg of your lordship one single question, which idea is newer, “There is a God”? or “There is no God”? I submit to you that the atheist idea of “There is no God” came along much later than theism. But don’t take my words for it, there are a plethora of atheist public speakers who like to assert that “religion belongs to primitive man” whereas “atheism is for the newly enlightened man” which seeks to convince other atheists that atheism is the “newer” of the two ideas and so, according to your internets webpage site “rationalwiki” (which I’m sure is fully acceptable to cite for any and all Masters and Doctoral thesis bibliographies) this means, the “new” claim therefore requires the ‘burden of proof’. Which, according to you, I have absolutely, positively, complete and utter zero understanding of how it works. Which I had to chuckle at considering you simply pointed me to a definition provided by someone OTHER than yourself. neat.

      All ad hominem attacks aside, the truth is, this is a RIDICULOUS argument raised by your Dawkinites who insist that we all run around telling the other guy that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

      I say, YOUR claims are FAR more extraordinary and the theist claims are clearly more logical etc etc etc. so YOU must provide the extraordinary evidence that nowhere, no how, no way, no one exists that could be categorized as “God”. This is the point that I was making with my post. Apparently it really aggravated a hair in your derriere and you had no words of your own on the subject and therefore just posted a rationalwiki page for me to read which, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, you never read yourself.

      Now, what was that you were saying about “remotely understanding”? This time, your own words…not just a link to a webpage that you haven’t read.

    • You atheists are sometimes quite hilarious in your attempt to belittle someone in obvious possession of the logical high ground…like a theist. I like how “rationalwiki” is your apparent “go to” source reference for “dependable” definitions. So be it – the very first line of your internets webpage site states the following,

      “Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant).

      So…using just the opening line of your internets webpage site definition and your apparent vast superior grasp of the “burden of proof” workings, let me beg of your lordship one single question, which idea is newer, “There is a God”? or “There is no God”? I submit to you that the atheist idea of “There is no God” came along much later than theism. But don’t take my words for it, there are a plethora of atheist public speakers who like to assert that “religion belongs to primitive man” whereas “atheism is for the newly enlightened man” which seeks to convince other atheists that atheism is the “newer” of the two ideas and so, according to your internets webpage site “rationalwiki” (which I’m sure is fully acceptable to cite for any and all Masters and Doctoral thesis bibliographies) this means, the “new” claim therefore requires the ‘burden of proof’. Which, according to you, I have absolutely, positively, complete and utter zero understanding of how it works. Which I had to chuckle at considering you simply pointed me to a definition provided by someone OTHER than yourself. neat.

      All ad hominem attacks aside, the truth is, this is a RIDICULOUS argument raised by your Dawkinites who insist that we all run around telling the other guy that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

      I say, YOUR claims are FAR more extraordinary and the theist claims are clearly more logical etc etc etc. so YOU must provide the extraordinary evidence that nowhere, no how, no way, no one exists that could be categorized as “God”. This is the point that I was making with my post. Apparently it really aggravated a hair in your derriere and you had no words of your own on the subject and therefore just posted a rationalwiki page for me to read which, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, you never read yourself.

      Now, what was that you were saying about “remotely understanding”? This time, your own words…not just a link to a webpage that you haven’t read.

      • And speaking of not reading the source:
        “If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it.
        The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis.
        If they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s