Definitions of miracles

Forums: Philosophy, David Hume, Miracles
Email this Topic • Print this Page

as i understand it, the most popular definition of a miracle is ''a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition ofthe Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.''

anybody care to agree, disagree or make a comment?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,738 • Replies: 48

No top replies

Well, that's David Hume's definition of "miracle," which is as good as any other, I suppose.

0 Replies

yes it is Mr. Hume's. wasn't he atheist? interesting definition for somebody who didn't believe in a ''Deity'' don't you think?

0 Replies

David Hume lived in the 18th century. It probably could be said that many things that Hume considered a "miracle" at that time is fully explainable today. I would also suggest that today, so-called miracles will be understandable in the future.

Just because humanity has not evolved suffciently to understand completely about the workings of the universe, does not mean there is any "invisible" force.

0 Replies

so your saying that in the future we may need to change the laws of nature so that we are able to explain things that are currently unexplainable?

0 Replies

rockpie wrote:

so your saying that in the future we may need to change the laws of nature so that we are able to explain things that are currently unexplainable?

No, but we might have to change our understanding of the laws of nature.

0 Replies

ok. what if things are not explainable though? for example take the resurrection of Jesus. would it not be foolish to say that people remain dead when they die unless your is Jesus and it's a sunday and you've just been executed for your claims of being God, simply to explain that event?

0 Replies

What about the resurrection of Jesus? All we know is what we have read from some ancient books, written well after the supposed "event".

It is a lovely story, and bound to astound early peoples, but real history? I rather doubt that!

0 Replies

it has been historically proven. he lived, he died and he rose again. its all been documented. there is a book of historical facts called ''Evidence for Truth - Historical Proof'' or something along those lines that is full of evidence. eat your heart out.

0 Replies

Quote:

''Evidence for Truth - Historical Proof'' or something along those lines that is full of evidence. eat your heart out.

rockpie- That is some scholarly footnote that you offer as proof.
You are not even sure of the name of the book, or what the credentials of the authors are. Is that they way that you normally search for the truth???

0 Replies

i don't have the book here with me and i haven't read it so i don't know the exact title no, but i don't see how that devalues it's credentials. it contains historically accurate proof that what the Bible states is true. if you don't believe me google it.

0 Replies

YOU HAVEN'T READ IT, yet you offer it as PROOF? I think that our discussions end here, right now!

0 Replies

rockpie wrote:

yes it is Mr. Hume's. wasn't he atheist? interesting definition for somebody who didn't believe in a ''Deity'' don't you think?

No, that's not really very interesting at all. Hume famously opined that we should believe a report of a miracle only if not believing it would be even more improbable than the miracle itself. As he stated in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. [b]And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior[/b].(Emphasis added)

0 Replies

Hume demonstrates in that paragraph that he not only did not understand the laws of nature, but that he actually did not believe there were any laws of nature. He considers the "laws of nature" to be the "generalities of nature that are usually true," and did not seem to have any concept of a physical law that would be abolished if a single counterexample were found, such as we define laws in today's world. Therefore, the usage of the words "physical laws" in his definition of "miracle" must be updated to reflect his true meaning. In modern terms, his meaning is then "a miracle is something that happens which is very unexpected."

0 Replies

phoenix wrote:

Just because humanity has not evolved suffciently to understand completely about the workings of the universe, does not mean there is any "invisible" force.

Actually, it does. Invisible simply means that we cannot see it, not that this force is supernatural in any way. Before gravity was understood it was an invisible force.

But when it comes to miracles, I tend to think that they fall under two main categories. Events that were inexplicable natural phenomena at the time they occured, and events that were percieved and remembered so differently from what actually happened that they seem miraculous.

0 Replies

Try this: A miracle is an event that occurs in violation of the physical laws appropriate to that particular scale.

I know of no miracles.

0 Replies

but to say that a miracle is a violation of physical laws would suggest that in Biblical times when the word miracle was used to describe things like resurrection from death and walking on water the people using the word did know the laws of nature. as i understand it nobody back then could comprehend what the laws of nature were so to say that a miracle violates laws of nature cannot be applicable because miracles occured when natural laws weren't considered. but then i realise that on the same basis that is why they were explained by the actions of God because there was no other explanation right? and the circle continues...

0 Replies

cyracuz wrote:

phoenix wrote:
Just because humanity has not evolved suffciently to understand completely about the workings of the universe, does not mean there is any "invisible" force.

Actually, it does. Invisible simply means that we cannot see it, not that this force is supernatural in any way. Before gravity was understood it was an invisible force.

I stand corrected. Your explanation was better than mine!

0 Replies

rockpie

They knew some version of the laws of nature, and not neccesarily a correct one. So Asherman's definition of a miracle is good, because it is dynamic. It was true in the time when miracles did happen, and it explains why they were thought of as miracles.

Phoenix

I knew very well the intent of your statement, and I agree on that. I just couldn't help myself. My objection to your post is one of semantics.

0 Replies

i suppose, but i did some research on Hume, and he proves his own definition wrong by saying that laws of nature cannot actually be broken so miracles are impossible as laws of nature being broken is only our understanding of them being previously unsound. but what about miracles that don't actually break a law of nature... if they work through the laws of nature like Holland suggests? Hume hasn't proved that wrong, plus he says that past experience would show us that when people die they stay dead, however in 1960, we could say past experience shows us that man cannot walk on the moon, but they did. just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't happen. besides if it was an everyday occurance it wouldn't be classed as miraculous.

0 Replies

Definitions of miracles

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know