Miracles - Philosophy
Philosophy- “A belief in miracles leads to the concept of a god who favors some but not all his creation”
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. 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
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. 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