It is difficult to say whether miracles that were depicted in religious texts is good evidence to prove that God exist due to the fact that there is a split on opinions of this. To some they may believe in the reports of miracles but there are those who need to use logical reasoning for the supposed “miracle”. The definition of miracle is an extraordinary and welcoming event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine being. Now during the time that these religious texts such as the Bible were written the people were lacking a considerable amount of scientific knowledge there is today. Which can cause a miracle event during that time to be misinterpreted as a miracle as it is something that they …show more content…
There are two types of opinions regarding whether miracles as good evidence: those who believe in that particular faith believe it was the intervention of divine being or beings and what is said by the people who witness it have no reason to lie as they also believe in the same faith, and those who believe it was misinterpreted as a miracle based on lack of scientific knowledge in that period of time, especially in cases when it was a local single event. Another reason reports of miracles are not good evidence would be that cause those reports could be blown out proportion and what was thought to occur was changed, even unintentionally, based on how the people who witnessed those events written what had occurred. Just how we don’t accept second-hand testimonies in a court of law, as it is called hearsay, it is equally unreliable to deem it to be an accurate recount of events. One last question that is raised when regarding god’s existence would be how if in the monotheistic religions they believe there is their only one god but then what can explain the miracles that occurred in the other religions that were supposedly were done by those
One of the most important aspects of Hume's argument is his understanding of probability. Hume states that belief is often a result of probability in that we believe an event that has occurred most often as being most likely. In relation to miracles this suggests that miraculous events should be labelled as a miracle only where it would be even more unbelievable for it not to be. This is Hume's argument in Part 1 Of Miracles, he states that if somebody tells you that a miracle has occurred you do not have to physically go out and look at the evidence to determine it, all you really need to do is consider the concept of the miracle and if it is a violation of the laws of nature, we have to reason in acco...
The movie Glory is the story of the first African American military unit which fought during the Civil War. This powerful story is told through the eyes of the unit’s leader, Colonel Robert Shaw. The director, Edward Zwick, uses a number of important scenes expressing growth, patriotism and leadership. Whenever there was an obstacle that the 54th regiment needed to overcome faith seemed to be the answer. Faith in their fellow man, faith in their country and faith in God.
How does one find the miraculous in the common? Associated with spontaneous wonders, miraculous is far from the ordinary. This is a sound comparison, although Transcendentalist poet Ralph Waldo Emerson would call the previous statement a fallacy. This is due to his belief of finding the miraculous in the common as “the invariable mark of wisdom”. Emerson along with Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard all answered in regards to finding such miracles. These three authors have displayed their reasoning in their popular works.
Just because there is not evidence does not mean that is evidence he does not exist. I do not believe that people believe in god, just because they do believe that god exist, but because it gives them something that others cannot. It brings people together and gives people hope in the worst of times, and it can fill voids in peoples lives that are rather impossible to fill. It also gives them a reason to live, and live moral ones at that. However, this is also a problem in the discussion of th...
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
Of course, it is hard for such a man to believe in extraordinary claims without being there to witness them. Especially when such events require a lot of faith. In order for an event to be deemed a miracle, it must disobey the laws of nature. However, it is these same laws that disprove almost any miracle that has ever been reported. He writes that some events that people report as miracles truly are not. For example, it is not a miracle that fire burns wood, or that a healthy man dies, because both of these are within the laws of nature. If a person does seemingly commit a miracle, they must do something that obviously defies the laws of nature and be able to do it repeatedly, as to prove that it is not a fluke.
So why does the existence of miracles have any meaning at all? Belief in miracles helps to bring a sense of the divine existence of God to those who believe in a material way. Miracles are a way for signs from God to be transferred to mankind, in a way that we are able to understand. These miracles or signs from God can help to show divine favour, and to support our moral beliefs and ideology, to let us know that we are on the path of righteousness for those who believe. But what then, constitutes a miracle? A miracle, according to Hume, is a violation of the laws of nature, something that cannot happen, but does. (Hume, 1777,E10.12) I believe that Hume believes that the the laws of nature, cannot ever be violated, for if one believes that this is possible, then the laws of nature are fallible and belief in the laws of nature which should be unalterable, would no longer apply. It is therefore, far more reasonable to believe that the laws of nature, which have proven themselves over and over again, are in fact to be believed and accepted over any possiblity for the existence of a miracle.
Miracles are fore-facts of the future done on a small scale. There had been no appearance of God to anyone for more than four hundred years, so people probably thought the age of miracles was long gone. The people would not have accepted Moses as God’s spokesperson without some kind of proof. The miracle-plagues were just that. They are significant because of the number of them that were brought forth. There were ten. The number ten is significant to completeness. God said that he would execute judgment against all of the false gods of Egypt, and each plague was said to be directed toward a particular heavenly deity. So the ten plagues reveal the full wrath of God’s judgment on Egypt. The first nine Plagues were just God proving that he was more powerful than the Egyptian gods. They were simply tricks in comparison to the final one. The tenth plague, the death of the firstborn, was the most powerful of all. This final plague brought death to all Egyptian homes, even the home of the beloved pharaoh, and ensured Israel’s release from slavery. After this calamity, pharaoh had no choice but grant Israel their demands and he even pleaded for blessings from them. This plague destroyed idolatry and showed that life and death are in the hands of God.
Mythology has been present throughout human civilization to provide a sense of awe, wonder, and fear. According to Joseph Campbell’s The Need for New Myths, a myth offers gratitude or rapture to reveal a comprehensive image of man’s universe and his place within the world. In the novel Fifth Business by Robertson Davies, magic and religion reassemble human struggles into a relatable, yet awe inducing myth. The sensation of wonder, surprise, or fear induces a feeling of self-insignificance at the vastness of the universe. To accommodate for this overwhelming experience, a person undergoes catharsis where their mental schemata is reset. In this release of emotions, one accepts their place in the universe and becomes a better self. Dunstan and Paul rely on religion and magic for the mending of a traumatized childhood. The reenactment of the Christian Faust legend in the magic act portrays the eternal struggle of good versus evil in humanity. Eisengrim, as an allusion to Jesus, provides wonder and release to his audience. In Fifth Business, Magic and religion both reconstruct everyday experiences to provide catharsis in wonder.
"Miracles are violations of natural laws. Natural laws are immutable. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated. Therefore, miracles are impossible." (Spinoza, Benedict) Benedict Spinoza was a jewish philosopher, who insisted that "a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity." He said that nothing came to pass in nature in contrast to her universal law. Several others such as David Hume, and Alistair McKinnon agreed with Spinoza's theories.
Of course, this doesn’t truly disprove the biblical God, but it certainly puts it into perspective. According to Christian doctrine, God raised His Son, Jesus, from the dead. This seemingly impossible feat proves, in the minds of believers, that their god is capable of anything. But as indicated by Epicurus, the monumental roadblock of suffering hinders this leap of faith. For example, if God raised Jesus from the dead – and thus intervened in the ...
The only point that I thought completely supported their existence is that they were mentioned by non-Christian texts. The trouble is that they were not eyewitnesses; miracles could be rumors that could be messed up through retelling. I understand that eyewitnesses wrote the gospels and so if they said they saw miracles, they probably happened. Is there any other evidence though? Miracles to not be very well historically supported compared to other elements backed in this book. Why was indirect evidence not mentioned? The resurrection of Jesus is more credible because of the indirect evidence, such as the empty
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
Faith healing is predicated on the belief that certain places or individuals have the power to cure and heal. Meaning, something or someone can cure a disease or heal an injury by means of his / its connection to a Higher Power. Faith healing may involve prayer, a visit to a house of prayer or shrine, or just a strong belief in a Supreme Being.
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.