For this reason, people who agree with Calvin in believing in predestination often find it difficult to understand why miracles aren’t common occurrences. However, as Swinburne suggests, if miracles were a frequent occurrence, people would live in confusion, not knowing whether to trust that laws such as gravity would remain constant. Swinburne also observes that if God were to interact frequently, humans would become expectant and perhaps take less active roles in society and would, for example, be less likely to find the cure for cancer. Another possible reason for miracles appearing to be sparse and selective is hinted at in Irenaean theodicy, which suggests that people suffer on earth and in life in
You could say it might be God but you can’t say it was for certain. To prove that the miracle was beyond reasonable doubt by God you would use a scientific method. If one miracle happens and people prayed for that exact thing to happen the sceptics could put it down to coincidence. However, if another miracle happens by the exact prayer that was prayed then this proves that God exists. If this keeps on happening these consecutive miracles can prove the existence of God.
Christian Worldview Paper I Abstract It is true, knowledge and truth can in fact be sought out in different ways. The ways in which one may seek knowledge has a lot to do with their background or worldview. We all have opinions and biases based on what we have been taught or experienced A scientist will seek knowledge and base truth only on things that can be proven, by use of the scientific method. On the other hand Christians see truth as being what is God's word. There are people that feel the two can be integrated, but there are others that feel Christianity and science are not at all compatible.
I myself am an Atheist, and therefore in my opinion believe miracles are impossible as all miracles are by, definition impossible if they claim to be the action of a deity. There are four different definitions of miracles, A ‘radical change for the better’ in a person, an ordinary event which has Religious significance for the believer, A remarkable or unusual event which has been directly caused by God but does not go against or break the laws of nature and The ‘laws of nature’ are being broken by God, which is the definition David Hume (18th Century) uses. This more traditional understanding of a miracle is the understanding of classical Theism, namely that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and therefore he does intervene on occasion to perform miracles. As an atheist, David Hume refutes miracles, he does not believe that they can happen, although he has one of the most famous definitions of the traditional understanding of a miracle. Hume
Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening. Hume’s argument on miracles was written in his essay ‘Of Miracles’, he rated his argument very highly, claiming that it was an argument that “which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” To understand Hume’s argument against miracles we have to understand his definition as his argument is based on his understand of ‘miracles’ and his understanding of ‘the laws of nature’. He defines a miracle “as a transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s argument against the likelihood of miracles rests on his use of induction. This is explained in ‘The Question of God’ by Micheal Palmer, he explains that “It is…a fundamental principle of inductive reasoning that the more I see A followed but B, the greater is my expectation that A will be followed by B in the future. That I expect a rubber ball to bounce is dependent on my having seen the rubber ball bounce not once but many times.
Via negative features often in Buddhism’s religious language. Though they do not actually have a God, and therefore do not describe one, but they use it to put across the idea of a human reality in efforts to make the difficult concept of a God or divine power easier to describe. The theory of via negative has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that it helps us to comprehend God and understand that he cannot be limited to the physical world, and to experience him, we must go one step further. It also allows human beings to get their minds around the fact that Gods knowledge and being is beyond anything our human minds can comprehend, let alone try to describe with ‘positive’ words.
However, in the New Testament God heals and individual who is blind and lets others die. A strength of Maurice Wiles argument is that it appeals to educated believers of God and scientific laws. This I because Wiles says that the concept of miracles can exist as it is "logically impossible" to prove miracle wrong scientifically. By saying this, Wiles is allowing religious people to also uphold their beliefs in scientific laws. A second strength of Maurice Wile's argument against miracles is that it allows a re-interpretation of miracle.
Many that hold the view that God can do anything run into problems; if God can do everything, could he create a five sided triangle? If holding the view that God can do anything it would seem this is logical as God could change the definition of a triangle. But it seems illogical that God would have this sort of power to change the past, as it is contradictory. It could be argued that God’s omnipotence is not a logically coherent concept; humans have two arms and two legs to enable us to run but the other attributes of God contradict each other because if he is all powerful yes he can do anything but also saying that God has always existed suggests a God like Aristotle’s, a prime mover. Taking Aristotle’s prime mover that exists outside of space and time and therefore cannot have any matter and so can’t run does this mean that we are better than God by being able to do something he cannot.
It is not a reliable way. This includes reasoning and making predictions without further testing. Faith is another way that a lot of Christian believers us to seek the truth. The faith based way of seeking the truth is different from the scientific method in that it can answer a lot of questions about the most important truths. (Religious-Science.com 2008) The truths about the purpose of life and that our creator, God wants us to be happy and that he has a plan for each one of us.
Another possibility is that if the person were open to the idea of there being a divine then they could of just imagined some of it happened such as they could of just of been experiencing an unnatural vison caused by gases in the air but as they were open to the idea of it being caused by a divine source they automatically assume that is the case although this argument can be quickly disproved by the fact that atheists and other none believers have had visons that have converted them to a religion. The philosopher Swinburne would argue that as the idea of god is real to the person who has experienced the vision then he must be real and according to his principle of credulity it is reasonable to believe that the world is probably as we experience it meaning as we have had an experience involving god he is probably real. Although this argument can be used against Swinburne by saying that if an atheist has experienced a world without god then therefore according to the principle of credulity god probably doesn’t exist based on that