The problem with miracles is that it cannot be properly defined which means there is no absolute meaning for a meaning, instead my philosophers have attempted to define miracles in their own way. In these definition they are usually for or against the existence of miracles, for example take two contrasting definitions Ward and Hume. Ward says miracles are events which god intervenes because he only knows the consequences of the action. On the other hand, Hume is a philosopher who is totally against the idea of miracles, he says miracles do not exist because they violate the laws of nature.
Knowing this, god cannot intervene because he would violate the laws of nature, humans have faith in experience and trust the laws this would be lost if miracles were deemed true. Another philosopher would had a problem with miracles was a man called Wiles. He basically said, to say god carries out these miraculous events is to say god is guilty of obituary and partisan. Any event where the natural flow is violated for a certain people raises the issue of fairness and consistency.
Wiles also said the two idea of having an all loving god and the existence of miracles are two incompatible ideas so its easier to believe that god is all loving and reject the idea of miracles. If this was in reverse and miracles existed and god could intervene then why didn’t he intervene is horrific events such as Auschwitz or Hiroshima instead he saves one persons life, this seems unfair and a contradiction of an all loving god. As for biblical miracles Wiles said we must take them in a symbolic sense rather than a literal sense.
The Essay on Existence Of Miracle Miracles God Hume
When bringing the existence of miracles into question it is necessary to firstly establish a definition of a miracle and exactly what purpose they serve. As with many issues, theologians are divided on an actual definition of what a miracle really is. Paul Tillich (1886-1965) claimed that: "A genuine miracle is first of all an event which is astonishing, unusual, Shaking without contradicting the ...
A strength of Wiles it that allows educated believers to keep faith with god and uphold their faith in natural laws. Many people agreed with what Wiles was saying for example a man called Bultman agreed that the miracles explained in the bible are not there to take literal, he says we get the true message behind the miracle if we demythologize them. For example he turned water into wine to prevent the embarrassment of the hosts which shows his care and wisdom. To believe that god favors some more than others through the existence of miracles is wrong, who says its god that these events originates?
We have no evidence to suggest this, just because we cannot find this would doesn’t mean we have to point it to god. Holland was another philosopher who didn’t believe in the concept of miracles, well the name miracle he thought that they were more of a coincidence. He used the analogy of the train, what is some one was stuck on the track and the train had stopped right in front of the person, some people may call this a miracle but when we know the full picture someone in the train may have accidentally pressed the emergency stop or the driver could have passed out.
So the concept of the whole miracles thing may just be one big coincidence. Looking at Holland’s view it would make god innocent of being arbitrary and partisan, this is because these events are just coincidences it has nothing to do with god. As mentioned earlier, Hume was a man who rejected the idea of miracles due to being a violation of the laws of nature. Hume believes strongly in experiences and what we gain from them, as for this situation, the laws are something we have learnt about and follow.
So when something happens that goes against these we deem them coming from god because we cannot define or justify them. All in all, Hume says the alert of miracles comes from the ignorant and barbarous nations. Knowing this, God would also be innocent because it is not god who intervenes so its not him which favors some and not others. There are events that are unexplained so they must come from some where, lets say for arguments sake tat they come from god.
The Essay on Gilgamesh Thirds God And One Third Human
Gilgamesh The story of Gilgamesh seems to relate to stories of the bible in some instances, but in others it seems like some great writers were at work when they created this story. For instance when I read the book The line "Gilgamesh, two-thirds god and one-third human, is the great-est king on earth and the strongest super-human that ever existed", sound similar to Jesus Christ. It makes me ...
Us as humans are not on his level therefore we cannot say or he is this or that, he may have a reason and we would find out when we die. All the events that are unexplained may paint a bigger picture but humans are outside of god knowledge and experience so we cannot really judge god. Irenaous was a philosopher who looked at the problem of evil, he would say god is being cruel to be kind and making humans into the image of god, this because events like miracles change people.
To develop these emotions naturally have more significance than being drilled in at birth by god. Overall, I conclude that God does not favor some people over others. My reasons for this is because we cannot define miracle we can only speculate on what we think, for this reason how can we act upon such uncertainty? Also we cannot judge god because we have no knowledge of him or what he has planned, only him and him only knows the repercussions of his actions.
