Miracle - the testimony of logic has more weight than the testimony
of evidence
A miracle is what is not naturally possible. It is a supernatural occurrence. It
is paranormal. Miracles are events that seem to be against nature or the way
natural law usually runs. In other words, they cannot be explained by nature.
Examples are the Blessed Virgin Mary appearing to children, the unexplained cure
of incurable illness, blood coming out of nowhere on Catholic communion wafers,
the sun spinning at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 and most importantly Jesus Christ
coming back to life after being dead nearly three days. It is thought that only
God can do these things.
The bigger the claim then the bigger the evidence that is needed. Miracles are
so rare and seem to be exceptions to nature so you need exceptionally good
evidence that they take place.
People testify as to what logic says. People testify to what experience says.
If twelve men testify to a miracle say of a man rising from the dead they are
testifying to an experience they allegedly had. They claim they saw the man,
they perhaps touched him and perhaps they heard him.
If twelve men more educated than they testify that logic says this miracle
though it may have happened is not believable then that is a testimony about
logic.
The latter testimony has the most weight. There is less bias in one who
reasons than in one who is using sense-data. We can see what we want to see. We
can twist our reasoning too to believe what we want to believe. But that is not
an refutation of the point that one who reasons is more objective and fair. We
are not saying he is perfectly fair.
You have people testifying to what they believe and saying it is down to reason
or logic or thinking coherently. You have people testifying to what they have
sensed as in seen or heard etc. The testimony of most of the world's best
philosophers that it is unreasonable to believe in miracles outweighs the
testimony of twelve men that Jesus rose. (We do not have that amount of
testimony - for example, only Paul gave a direct testimony about Jesus appearing
after his death - but Christians say we do so we are just going along with
that.) I can test and prove or disprove what the philosophers say for I can
think for myself. But all the thinking in the world will not prove that the
apostles were right that Jesus rose. The evidence can only say they believed
Jesus rose but not that he did rise.
Logic must take priority over evidence when considering the truth of reported
miracles. If logic says miracles don't happen then evidence for them must be
ignored or explained otherwise. If logic does not tell us one way or the other,
then our acceptance of the evidence for miracles is conditional. "I only accept
the evidence for miracles because I am not sure if they are logical or not. If I
could be sure I would reject them." It is not like our unconditional acceptance
for the evidence for non-supernatural things: "The evidence says John stole my
wallet. No ifs and no buts." Clearly natural explanations for alleged miracles
take priority over supernatural.
There is no logical reason why most things are the way they are - that we know of. Logic is about how man thinks and man needs it so it is no concern of ours if God has the logic.
LOGIC APPLIED TO MIRACLES
Religion says there is no logical objection to belief in miracles. It argues
that logic gives not arguments that are necessarily true but arguments that are
valid. So it says that belief in miracles could be wrong but it could be valid
logically. Let us test that.
If God does a miracle and God inspires faith then it follows that you have to
sense that God is guiding you to assess the evidence. But that leads to bias and
thus if you think the miracle truly happened then you are too biased and your
investigation is suspect.
COMMENT: Logic says that an argument is not about what you want to think so a
biased argument is a sense is not an argument at all.
Big claims need big evidence. Big magic claims need bigger evidence. This is not
refusing to believe in miracles regardless of the strength of the evidence for
them. It is refusing to believe in miracles so as to be able to believe in
evidence. Honouring miracles without expert investigation and understanding
would be showing a bias. It shows you are letting yourself act as a fantasist.
You prefer what you want to be true to the truth.
COMMENT: If a miracle demands evidence then you need good evidence. Weak
evidence for a huge claim is not enough. Logic says the whole cannot be bigger
than the part so belief in a miracle cannot matter more than the evidence.
Miracles are such huge claims and so contrary to our natural experience of the
universe that we would expect the evidence for them to be exceptionally good and
straightforward. No properly supported miracles exist. No wonder all you see is
experts bickering over the evidence for and against any miracle you can mention.
Some claims have to be unbelievable and if miracles and magic are not in that
category then nothing is.
COMMENT: Logic says that human opinion cannot make a miracle believable or true.
The Christian accuses sceptics of miracles (those who simply see no reason to
believe they are supernatural) of not looking at the evidence for them or taking
it seriously. But they are the ones who do that for they do not care about the
evidence that the miracles are more likely to be based on errors or lies than
real magical events.
COMMENT: This is the logical error of attacking the person not their argument
while pretending that it is the argument you have refuted.
If a person says a miracle is so unlikely that it is more likely to be an error
or a lie or a freak of nature the Christians say, "She is just assuming the
evidence is not good enough. She has no right to do that - it is unfair." This
is the only objection they can have and the only one they do have. But in fact
she need not be assuming - she may be basing her view that miracles are too
improbable to be believed on the basis of evidence. Thus she is the one who
should be listened to and she also needs to answer the Christian slurs and
misrepresentation of her position. Miracles are hardly a good thing if belief in
them requires you to smear those who say they do not happen or are not
believable even if they do.
COMMENT: Again the person is attacked for saying something instead of attacking
what they said.
Evidence has to be assessed by human authority. It is not true that if God
reveals what we are to believe then we believe on his authority. No it is those
who assess the evidence and stamp it with their authority whom we believe.
Miracles by definition are unbelievable because they dismiss divine authority
while claiming that they don't. They do not solve the problem that it is man who
interprets God and that is what people worship not God even if God exists.
COMMENT: If man says something on his authority then you cannot claim that you
are following God by believing what that man says about God. It is illogical.
Those who hold that a magical or miraculous event has really happened need to
base the belief on good evidence but not testimony. And they all fall back on
testimony and can be quite nasty if you question that testimony which shows they
know they are on shaky ground. We have and seek good and excellent evidence for
many things we believe and that sets the bar for what we need for something as
incredible as a miracle. Do not be fooled - belief in miracles is superstition.
COMMENT: Logic is about protecting you from being misled by testimony. It wants
all things tested.
The way miracles are checked for being miracles invokes evidence and logic has
something to say about evidence and about the evidence specifically for the
supernatural. Thus the claim that miracles do not defy logic is just a lie. They
do for it is more of a question of evidence being logically used than of
miracles directly.