Expectations of a possible miracle based on the context of it's occurrence within an expected/acceptable context highly suggests confirmation bias...
The number of miracles that have been put to rest is staggering which our ignorance had been addressed. The miracle claim of Jesus being resurrected needs to be reviewed in the context of people presumed to be dead actually being alive.
Research: Accidental burials of live persons, Reliability of eyewitnesses
I try not to go beyond "textual criticism". So, when some forms of theories are being discussed, in some instances, I'm really not qualified to respond.
I have just come on to this having watched part three and I am not quite sure how they sit together, maybe I am misunderstanding you.
It seemed in part three you went to great lengths to list three theories of natural law and demonstrate how miracles would not class as contraventions and now when I watch this video it seems that you are talking about such contraventions are a defining characteristic of miracles.
Now ok, I realise in ep 3 it seems the suggestion is that miracles are things....
@noelplum99 ...that may subsequently require subsuming into our understanding of natural law (and therefore this video is dealing with our current understanding of natural law when talking about natural law) but it just seems a bit sloppy given that these videos sit side by side as part of a series.
So, as I say, maybe I misunderstand totally instead but it seems as if you use the term natural law in two different ways to make what ends up sounding like contradictory points.
@noelplum99 Good question, allow me to clarify. My contention is that miracles do not break the laws of nature, but that does not mean that they have no supernatural explanation. To say miracles don't break the laws of nature is not to say that they are naturalistic events, but rather that they have a supernatural impetus as it where that then are taken over by natural law. Does that make sense? The impetus doesn't break the descriptive laws, but the source can't be explained naturalistically.
"but rather that they have a supernatural impetus as it where that then are taken over by natural law. Does that make sense?"
It might do, but not to me. For my money at some point there has to be some point of interface between what natural law encompasses (either before the event or in an enlarged form after the event) and this thing, that you say, it does not and this interface will always include something not encompassed by the natural law.....
...personally though this is disagreement I can happily live with. We are clearly not disagreeing on events but simply on classifications. When it comes to miracle claims I am interested in what the claim is and its validity, i am not going to fret too much on how it subsequently becomes classified.
That said, i was a bit surprised you felt miracles do not require extraordinary evidence. If my wife claimed she got to the shops via flying saucer for my money the ordinary .....
...standard of evidence i would require if she had claimed travel via car (her testimony would suffice) would not be sufficient and my definition of sufficient would certainlyextend to the extraordinary level.
A prerequisite for any religion is that it must contain miracles and a miracle maker (much like a magician who preforms magic). The more surprisingly unbelievable the miracle is, the more success it will have over the believers of the invisible, the unseen, and the imaginary.
@manlioman This is a gross exaggeration: where are there miracles in pantheism or panentheism? Where is the miracles in Buddhism? Where are the miracles in Deism? There are not any, it is simply false that, "A prerequisite for any religion is that it must contain miracles and a miracle maker prerequisite."
@telemantros Quite so, let me re-phrase "A prerequisite for many religions (such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, alike many mythological deities & stories) is that they must contain miracles and/or a miracle maker" Considering that Gautama Buddha presumably walked on water by levitation and other "supernatural" feats, I'd consider Buddhism on the same list as the above.
Gautama Buddha NEVER claimed to hold any sort of divinity whatsoever. He only claimed to be the individual who reached the highest level of ignorance-free knowledge, or the "final rebirth". He actually disavowed the traditional notion of divinity altogether.
Your statement of the prerequisite of "many religions" still does not contradict Telemantros' point at all. Miracles are not even a prerequisite at all, but a PRECEDING entailment from theistic and some pagan religions.
@BassP86 If you'ld like to delve into some miracles within Buddhism, a good place to start is by googling "Episode 2: The Birth and Early Life of Buddha (panels 16-45)". "PRECEDING entailment" sounds nice I guess, perhaps it has a more pleasant ring to ones ear.
I made an error in my response: "If we apply your logic of how miracles only apply to MANY religions, and not all, then it logically stands to reason that miracles are not even a prerequisite at all, but are a PROCEEDING entailment from paganistic and theistic religions only, nothing more."
The problem with miracles is that they need supernatural explanations. Just because we cannot come up with a natural explanation to an occurrence or event we are not used to, doesn't mean there was a supernatural force guiding it. There are many things that have happened -both past and present- that we still cannot figure out, but this doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions and deem it a miracle.
If you follow my criteria, it's not all inexplicable events that need be investigated as miracle possibilities, but rather those that are charged with religious significance, have strong evidential backing and are inexplicable. This inexplicability of naturalistic explanations should not be waved away by stating that we 'will' find a naturalistic explanation if it is ad hoc or forced. For example, I provided the reversal of biological death as an example. It simply does not do to insist natur.
A strong religious context makes any low probability event a "miracle". This is called confirmation bias.
The legal presumption of innocence is like a presumption of natrual event. We Are testing the exception to the norm, and the norm is innocent / natural.
Claiming resurrection is the prosecution's case to make.
@jcrebel18 Details of various legal systems are not the point, although it applies throughout the EU.
The example given is presumed innocent. The comparison must be "presumed natural", unless you want to presume every event to be a miracle, which would make the word meaningless.
Actually it wouldn't, unless your assuming a definition of a word that you haven't yet given your definition of, or you want to assume metaphysical naturalism, which in that case, you're pretty much arguing in a circle.
If your example above is an argument by analogy, then I think it's an error of fact. There's no evidence from what is recorded in the docs (i.e. the gospels) that report the event, and for another, if a person's messiah died, they would just find a new one.
@jcrebel18 "or you want to assume metaphysical naturalism"
Of course we all assume naturalism as *default*. If we didn't everything is a miracle == nothing is a miracle == every event a wilful act of god. The very word miracle makes a distinction between normal natural events and divine miraculous ones. That is not the same as committing to naturalism & not circular.
"Of course we all assume naturalism as *default*. If we didn't everything is a miracle == nothing is a miracle == every event a wilful act of god."
Um no, that's pretty much a non sequitur, not to mention you haven't defined "miracle" with a lot of clarity. But if you're restricting it to the above definition, then there's also no reason to assume that a god, or even God, couldn't work through something like the scientific laws of nature, or some other natural event.
@pknvdw I fail to see how treating events that are charged with religious significance as possible miracles is confirmation bias; the asumption of methodological naturalism on the other hand would be a better example of confirmation bias. Remember, I'm not suggesting that miracles have occured, merely that they are possible in this series. You are correct, it is the one claiming miracles (ressurection) that need to establish the event, but only if miracles are possible, hence the series.
@pknvdw I fail to see how treating events that are charged with religious significance as possible miracles is confirmation bias; the asumption of methodological naturalism on the other hand would be a better example of confirmation bias. Remember, I'm not suggesting that miracles have occured, merely that they are possible in this series. You are correct, it is the one claiming miracles (ressurection) that need to establish the event, but only if miracles are possible, hence the series.
@telemantros "I fail to see how treating events that are charged with religious significance as possible miracles is confirmation bias"
It is, because any context that would suit a "miraculous event" is likely to lead to people seeking "a sign".
c.f. Context: Jackson Fans really don't want their hero to be dead. One sees someone who resembles MJ. Result - "Michael is still alive!" Basically the context means people are looking for anything they can fit what they want to be true.
@pknvdw: Maybe so, but naturalism also provides just as much of a confirmational bias. We do not learn from experience but from the philosophy that colors our experience.
#unibrow
sky30394 1 month ago
Expectations of a possible miracle based on the context of it's occurrence within an expected/acceptable context highly suggests confirmation bias...
The number of miracles that have been put to rest is staggering which our ignorance had been addressed. The miracle claim of Jesus being resurrected needs to be reviewed in the context of people presumed to be dead actually being alive.
Research: Accidental burials of live persons, Reliability of eyewitnesses
MyContext 4 months ago
Maybe I am misunderstanding. Oh well.
I try not to go beyond "textual criticism". So, when some forms of theories are being discussed, in some instances, I'm really not qualified to respond.
PrinceWalter 5 months ago
Oops. Wrong post.
i suppose the common error is assuming that, contrary to what the Bible teaches, Christ came to manifest Himself to "the world", and that therefore:
* the miracles were "significant" for everybody
* there would be a secular history of Jesus
Joh 1:10 He was in the KOSMOS, ...and the KOSMOS knew Him NOT. cp. Joh 14:22
Joh 1:11 He came unto HIS OWN (ISRAEL), and HIS OWN received him not.
Joh 1:31 but that he should be made MANIFEST TO ISRAEL
So paying attention helps
PrinceWalter 5 months ago
Denying the Consequent (valid)
If P, then Q.
Not p.
Therefore, not Q.
Mat 12:28. But IF I cast out devils by the Spirit of God (P), THEN the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Q)
Mat 21:43A The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, (Not Q)
Therefore, not P, i.e. Christ is not casting out devils by the Spirit of God.
From any text of the Bible, LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that we should see miracles today...
PrinceWalter 5 months ago
I have just come on to this having watched part three and I am not quite sure how they sit together, maybe I am misunderstanding you.
It seemed in part three you went to great lengths to list three theories of natural law and demonstrate how miracles would not class as contraventions and now when I watch this video it seems that you are talking about such contraventions are a defining characteristic of miracles.
Now ok, I realise in ep 3 it seems the suggestion is that miracles are things....
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 ...that may subsequently require subsuming into our understanding of natural law (and therefore this video is dealing with our current understanding of natural law when talking about natural law) but it just seems a bit sloppy given that these videos sit side by side as part of a series.
So, as I say, maybe I misunderstand totally instead but it seems as if you use the term natural law in two different ways to make what ends up sounding like contradictory points.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Good question, allow me to clarify. My contention is that miracles do not break the laws of nature, but that does not mean that they have no supernatural explanation. To say miracles don't break the laws of nature is not to say that they are naturalistic events, but rather that they have a supernatural impetus as it where that then are taken over by natural law. Does that make sense? The impetus doesn't break the descriptive laws, but the source can't be explained naturalistically.
telemantros 1 year ago
@telemantros
"but rather that they have a supernatural impetus as it where that then are taken over by natural law. Does that make sense?"
It might do, but not to me. For my money at some point there has to be some point of interface between what natural law encompasses (either before the event or in an enlarged form after the event) and this thing, that you say, it does not and this interface will always include something not encompassed by the natural law.....
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...personally though this is disagreement I can happily live with. We are clearly not disagreeing on events but simply on classifications. When it comes to miracle claims I am interested in what the claim is and its validity, i am not going to fret too much on how it subsequently becomes classified.
That said, i was a bit surprised you felt miracles do not require extraordinary evidence. If my wife claimed she got to the shops via flying saucer for my money the ordinary .....
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...standard of evidence i would require if she had claimed travel via car (her testimony would suffice) would not be sufficient and my definition of sufficient would certainlyextend to the extraordinary level.
noelplum99 1 year ago
A prerequisite for any religion is that it must contain miracles and a miracle maker (much like a magician who preforms magic). The more surprisingly unbelievable the miracle is, the more success it will have over the believers of the invisible, the unseen, and the imaginary.
manlioman 1 year ago 3
@manlioman This is a gross exaggeration: where are there miracles in pantheism or panentheism? Where is the miracles in Buddhism? Where are the miracles in Deism? There are not any, it is simply false that, "A prerequisite for any religion is that it must contain miracles and a miracle maker prerequisite."
telemantros 1 year ago 3
@telemantros Quite so, let me re-phrase "A prerequisite for many religions (such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, alike many mythological deities & stories) is that they must contain miracles and/or a miracle maker" Considering that Gautama Buddha presumably walked on water by levitation and other "supernatural" feats, I'd consider Buddhism on the same list as the above.
manlioman 1 year ago
@manlioman
Gautama Buddha NEVER claimed to hold any sort of divinity whatsoever. He only claimed to be the individual who reached the highest level of ignorance-free knowledge, or the "final rebirth". He actually disavowed the traditional notion of divinity altogether.
Your statement of the prerequisite of "many religions" still does not contradict Telemantros' point at all. Miracles are not even a prerequisite at all, but a PRECEDING entailment from theistic and some pagan religions.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 If you'ld like to delve into some miracles within Buddhism, a good place to start is by googling "Episode 2: The Birth and Early Life of Buddha (panels 16-45)". "PRECEDING entailment" sounds nice I guess, perhaps it has a more pleasant ring to ones ear.
manlioman 1 year ago
@manlioman
I made an error in my response: "If we apply your logic of how miracles only apply to MANY religions, and not all, then it logically stands to reason that miracles are not even a prerequisite at all, but are a PROCEEDING entailment from paganistic and theistic religions only, nothing more."
BassP86 1 year ago
The problem with miracles is that they need supernatural explanations. Just because we cannot come up with a natural explanation to an occurrence or event we are not used to, doesn't mean there was a supernatural force guiding it. There are many things that have happened -both past and present- that we still cannot figure out, but this doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions and deem it a miracle.
MegaAnitoon 1 year ago
If you follow my criteria, it's not all inexplicable events that need be investigated as miracle possibilities, but rather those that are charged with religious significance, have strong evidential backing and are inexplicable. This inexplicability of naturalistic explanations should not be waved away by stating that we 'will' find a naturalistic explanation if it is ad hoc or forced. For example, I provided the reversal of biological death as an example. It simply does not do to insist natur.
telemantros 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your going to hell
hindu is correct
christians will all go to hell
mikesomething 1 year ago
A strong religious context makes any low probability event a "miracle". This is called confirmation bias.
The legal presumption of innocence is like a presumption of natrual event. We Are testing the exception to the norm, and the norm is innocent / natural.
Claiming resurrection is the prosecution's case to make.
pknvdw 1 year ago
@pknvdw
Innocence is only the norm in the US, and possibly certain other countries. In France, however, people are "guilty" and have to be proven "innocent."
jcrebel18 1 year ago
@jcrebel18 Details of various legal systems are not the point, although it applies throughout the EU.
The example given is presumed innocent. The comparison must be "presumed natural", unless you want to presume every event to be a miracle, which would make the word meaningless.
pknvdw 1 year ago
Actually it wouldn't, unless your assuming a definition of a word that you haven't yet given your definition of, or you want to assume metaphysical naturalism, which in that case, you're pretty much arguing in a circle.
If your example above is an argument by analogy, then I think it's an error of fact. There's no evidence from what is recorded in the docs (i.e. the gospels) that report the event, and for another, if a person's messiah died, they would just find a new one.
jcrebel18 1 year ago
@jcrebel18 "or you want to assume metaphysical naturalism"
Of course we all assume naturalism as *default*. If we didn't everything is a miracle == nothing is a miracle == every event a wilful act of god. The very word miracle makes a distinction between normal natural events and divine miraculous ones. That is not the same as committing to naturalism & not circular.
pknvdw 1 year ago
@pknvdw
"Of course we all assume naturalism as *default*. If we didn't everything is a miracle == nothing is a miracle == every event a wilful act of god."
Um no, that's pretty much a non sequitur, not to mention you haven't defined "miracle" with a lot of clarity. But if you're restricting it to the above definition, then there's also no reason to assume that a god, or even God, couldn't work through something like the scientific laws of nature, or some other natural event.
jcrebel18 1 year ago
@pknvdw I fail to see how treating events that are charged with religious significance as possible miracles is confirmation bias; the asumption of methodological naturalism on the other hand would be a better example of confirmation bias. Remember, I'm not suggesting that miracles have occured, merely that they are possible in this series. You are correct, it is the one claiming miracles (ressurection) that need to establish the event, but only if miracles are possible, hence the series.
telemantros 1 year ago
@pknvdw I fail to see how treating events that are charged with religious significance as possible miracles is confirmation bias; the asumption of methodological naturalism on the other hand would be a better example of confirmation bias. Remember, I'm not suggesting that miracles have occured, merely that they are possible in this series. You are correct, it is the one claiming miracles (ressurection) that need to establish the event, but only if miracles are possible, hence the series.
telemantros 1 year ago
@telemantros "I fail to see how treating events that are charged with religious significance as possible miracles is confirmation bias"
It is, because any context that would suit a "miraculous event" is likely to lead to people seeking "a sign".
c.f. Context: Jackson Fans really don't want their hero to be dead. One sees someone who resembles MJ. Result - "Michael is still alive!" Basically the context means people are looking for anything they can fit what they want to be true.
pknvdw 1 year ago
@pknvdw: Maybe so, but naturalism also provides just as much of a confirmational bias. We do not learn from experience but from the philosophy that colors our experience.
damianGray 1 year ago
A strong religious context makes any low probability event a "miracle". This is called confirmation bias.
pknvdw 1 year ago
@pknvdw
Then by your definiton, Bart Ehrman has "confirmation bias."
jcrebel18 1 year ago