THINKING ABOUT MIRACLES
We all see that people die and stay dead. For those who disagree to say that
Jesus didn’t stay dead, the burden of proof therefore is on them. It is up to
them to prove the resurrection. (Because of the burden of proof they have to
prove every miracle of Jesus and every other one they say happened
individually.) They answer that the burden of proof is on those who deny the
resurrection to disprove the resurrection! It is not. It can’t be on both sides.
If one and one is usually two and somebody says there is an exception then the
burden of proof is on that person. Not every miracle of Jesus can be proven
believable or proven taken on its own so clearly Jesus violated the rule that
each individual miracle has to be verified and didn’t understand it so we can
consider his miracles to be superstitious legendary nonsense. If you assert that
a miracle has happened then the burden of proof is on you no matter who else has
proved it to themselves. To say, “I saw the Blessed Virgin in an apparition,” is
just as serious as somebody saying, “My friend saw the Blessed Virgin in an
apparition.” One is just as outrageous as the other. So the burden of proof is
on the first to prove that he really sees the Virgin and separately on the
second to prove that he or she is right to hold that the friend saw the Virgin.
It is bigotry to believe in a miracle claim without proving it to yourself. It
is not enough for the Church to prove it – you have to see the complete evidence
and examine it for yourself. You stand alone in considering claims like that. If
God wants us to believe in miracles then he must want us to go through all this!
It is ridiculous to think that he does. A better belief is that miracles are
mistakes or frauds and God had nothing to do with them. To say that a reported
miracle by Jesus or anybody else may have happened or was possible is simply to
say we should be gullible. Nobody teaches that one must verify miracles to
oneself for it is such hard work and there are so many miracles reported.
If we say it is unlikely for a man to rise from the dead the believers are
forced to answer that we don’t know what is unlikely or not.
Suppose it's unlikely in principle for a miracle to happen. Not only is it too
unlikely to be what can happen but it is as unlikely to be that which did
happen. Can and did work together. You cannot say something did happen so that
it does not matter how unlikely it is.
It is immoral to declare miracles to have happened or
possible. Why? The believers do not really believe literally anything
magical can happen. They are selective about what they want to believe.
If we say that the dead are dead we have no right to say that if we believe that
people can come back from the dead for how do you in Sweden know that it isn’t
possible or unlikely for all the dead in Australia to rise this moment? How can
you say the dead are dead or that the dead don’t return? Because of the
consequences of miracles, they deny the uniformity of life never mind nature,
the burden of proof is on the believers. And the burden doesn’t get lighter with
“small” miracles. Why? Because if we can’t say the dead are dead because of our
respect for miracles then how can we say that people need to study if God
miraculously inspires a schoolboy or schoolgirl regarding the correct answer to
a small question in an examination paper?
The believers may say, "The winning lottery numbers are in fact no more or less likely than any other combination. So we do not know what is likely." But that is a natural and earthy matter. Experience proves it. It is not the same as a supernatural - non-natural - matter. Experience cannot prove that a man can rise supernaturally. We deny we can just assume we do not know what is likely in the natural world. We affirm we must know it not assume it. And we can know.
The person who says they got a revelation from God that the world is to end next
week and the person seeing the Blessed Virgin and getting a harmless message to
repent from her, demand the same level of evidence. Why? Doesn’t the first
person have a more important message than the second? Yes the content is more
serious but that is not the point. The method by which both messages came is
equal in that it is supernatural. The two messages equally need to be proved
reliable and supernatural because they claim to be supernatural. The point is
not the importance of the messages but the medium of the message – that is, how
the message was given. The content messages can have no importance at all unless
the supernatural nature of the message can be proven and the supernatural can be
proven reliable. Think of it this way, we can’t listen to the world end message
or the other one just because of what it says. The supernatural has to be proven
to exist and be reliable before we can heed such a message. Therefore small
miracles need to be treated as scientifically or sceptically as big ones.
If 1 plus 1 is 3 in a village in Spain that calls for as much attention and
examination as 1 plus 1 being 3 in the whole of Europe would be. A miracle
challenges the way things happen in the same way that that would challenge
mathematics. For example, if 1 + 1 = 3 is true anywhere it is true everywhere.
It’s a universal law. If somebody can instantly cure the incurable that means
the diseases cured are no longer incurable and this becomes a universal law too.
Imagine that when two natural laws are brought together they result in a
specific result that we will call result X. You could say that law 1 plus law 2
is equal to result X. If a miracle interferes with this then the two laws bring
about a different result. It’s the same scenario as 1 and 1 = 2 being changed to
1 and 1 = 3. Believers say that this is wrong. It is law 1 plus law 2 plus miracle
law 3 = a different result from X.
It’s a matter of worldwide concern when any miracle takes place – though the
world wouldn’t be concerned it ought to be. The view that the bigger the miracle
the greater the evidence is a mistake. True, you need almost unattainable
evidence for a big miracle for it's big but you are no better off with smaller
ones. Why? The manifestation may differ but the nature of the event is the same,
it defies what we know of nature. This evidence is so difficult and
time-consuming to verify that clearly all believers in miracles are inferring
that evidence isn’t so important and if so, then we should believe crackpots who
claim revelations about the end of the world!