MIRACLES ARE MADE ABSURD IF IT IS THE MESSAGE THEY GIVE THAT MATTERS

In pagan and superstitious circles, a sign is sought.  It may be that if say a bird flies by early in the morning it is a hint that the universe thinks it is the right time to start the war.  Dark clouds can be seen as omens, or warnings of doom and death.  Many an army took that seriously and failed to defend itself as well as it could.

Religion throws miracle stories at you of beings bringing actual verbal messages from Heaven but that is a red herring.  Most of the time an event is treated like an omen and messages are read into it that are not there.  For example, somebody recovers remarkably at Lourdes and it is assumed to be a message from God that he blesses the place and the Catholic faith that supports it.  A miracle dark cloud is as much an omen as an ordinary dark cloud.  An omen is an omen.  When the Church says that reading omens is a sin, it only means the omens it does not like.  Even Jesus did more alleged wonders than giving direct revelations from Heaven.

If a miracle happens and some higher power is responsible then why is it doing it? Also why is it trying to get people to bear witness to the miracle?

You could get to basics and say a miracle is just a miracle.

But many say while that could be true they suggest that perhaps a sub-set of miracle is the evidence miracle. Some say all miracles are evidence.

Anyway the evidence-miracle is obviously done as a sign or proof or evidence. This is the miracle type that religion bases itself on. Jesus supposedly rose as a sign that he overcame evil and death.

What of these religious miracles?

If a miracle is just a miracle and religion need not and should not come into it then is it about any message it gives or does it just happen to give the message?

 You will only assume it is about the miracle it gives but you should assume it just happens to give it.  It is different if it says it is about the message.  You only assume what you need.

Let us look at this question in relation to the religious miracle.

# Is this miracle that which is supernatural but just happens to carry a message? Is it like a crow that is just looking for food but which just happens to have your letter from your friend stuck to it?

Then the miracle is not about the message. Thus a priori it cannot be an act of a God who is sending us a message. Religion and reason are clear that a God of love and wisdom will not be doing useless miracles or miracles just for show. And that would be obscene when suffering children need a miracle.

But if a miracle is a message the children are still not getting their miracle. Religion answers that a miracle for a purpose in a world of injustice does not mean God should help the children if it does not fit the loving plan he has part of which is about us learning to take responsibility if people near us suffer. So a miracle must have a reason or reasons. The children still suffering would then in the religionist’s view, prove that God only does miracles for a serious reason and that he is evil if he does them just for the sake of it.

# Or is it a message that just happens to be delivered via a miracle? Here it is not about the crow. The miracle does not matter. God does not care what we think of the miracle only the message. That makes the miracle about the message and the truth.

We conclude that putting faith in God because of miracles or creating religions that make the miracles the message or a big part of it is nonsensical. An evidence-miracle is a priori false.

NOTE: Religion uses the work of philosophers who say miracles are not a priori nonsense. But their findings only apply to miracle not evidence-miracle. Religion of course knows exactly what it is doing and keeps that from you.