Wedding Thank You Genic

alleged miracles

p {margin-bottom: 0.21cm;} What miracles is perhaps the hottest topic among believers in them, acquire the power of empirical evidence of the existence of God, and are regarded with respect by mystic who call themselves agnostics. But what is really a miracle? It really test the existence of a divine being?
vital source on the subject is Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677), who in his masterpiece, the Treaty theological-political, devotes the entire sixth chapter to the demystification of the miracle (remarkable in this respect is also the thought of Pomponazzi , 1462 - 1525, but with some approximation, here we can assimilate at the thought of Spinoza).

Following the Dutch philosopher, the term "miracle" generally refer to a fact, God's work, of unknown cause and which is manifested in the form of something unusual and contrary to the opinion that there is ordinarily the nature. The common opinion is the belief that through the miracle can be proven the existence of God even to the layman (not a mystery that the facts are often seemingly inexplicable reason, conversion). The miracle then becomes the concrete fact, empirical and universally valid (as can be observed by outsiders). All this amounts to saying that, if one takes into account the Spinoza's definition set out above, the existence of God would be proven to be a fact of which we know the source and which would therefore be beyond the laws of nature (or against, or above, if you prefer, the meaning is the same ), and as such, may not have happened for God's direct action demonstration can be reconstructed as:

1. (premise 1) There are facts that go against our expectations and we are unable to understand the natural causes;

2. (premise 2) If we fail to understand the natural causes of an event, then they must be non-natural

3. (Premise 3)

   If a fact has no cause in nature, then God must have them in; ( premise 4) If an event has a non-natural causes, then it is contrary to (or above the ) laws of nature; There are facts that non-natural causes, (by premise 1 and premise 2)

4. some facts against nature (from a and premise 4) The facts are unnatural origin (and therefore desired) by God (from a and premise 3)

5. In conclusion, for the supporters of miracles, there are facts that can not be explained in terms of nature and that are the result of God's time.

6. But this support means to run into at least three serious hindrance.

   first argument against the miracle - It 's common knowledge among the faithful a belief that God created all things, therefore, also the nature with its laws. Following Spinoza, we can also provide a demonstration of this point, assuming that God exists and is immutable and eternal. Natural laws are (writes philosopher) necessary and eternal, and since nothing can ever be necessary and if not by divine decree (under of its attributes), it follows that the natural laws have been established by God himself. In reality, the eternal laws of nature is in doubt, suffice it to say that in the very distant future, changing the configuration of the universe such as next to the big crunch, also will change the laws of physics. Faced with this criticism, it can take two attitudes: to refuse the demonstration (although unnecessary) and process to its conclusion as a religious dogma; groped to defend the proof as responding to the changing laws of nature really depends on the laws of more general nature to which man has not arrived yet (the limit would then be human, not the lex naturalis). Which of the two ways you try, it does not matter in this place, but in any case, the believer who supports the idea of \u200b\u200bthe miracle must come to terms with a God who acts against their will:

7. (premise 5) God created (by an act of will, not for adoption) all things;

   by inference from P1, (q) God has created, and therefore wanted to, natural laws;

8. (premise 6) If natural laws are willed by God, then His will represent; (r) Natural laws represent the will of God (premise for q 6)

(s) made against the [laws of] nature are contrary to the will of God (premise 2, 4 er)

c, s and it follows that r (t) God wants and does not want the same thing.

In summary, God establishes a law of nature that represents its will, but at the same time performs miracles, that breaks the very law he wanted to accomplish his will. To eliminate the contradiction in t, we must believe that or (u) God is mad or (v) a law of nature God has created imperfect and must continually take action to restore their will or (z) God during the creation of Nature may not have provided some facts, and is forced to intervene by performing miracles to restore his will. All three solutions show a God imperfect, changing, in the Chain of time, the majesty of God is shattered. second argument against the miracle - Observing the argument overexposed, immediately jumps to the eye that the second premise (premise 2) If we fail to understand the natural causes of an event, then must be non-natural E 'immediate grasp its falsity, and if something happens that seems impossible, does not mean that it is the impossible happened, but that what seemed impossible in reality it is not. In antiquity, they were divine interventions such as thunder, famine, epidemics. Over time, scientific thinking has demystified them revealing the natural causes, why do not suppose that even today seem miraculous events that actually have their roots in nature, particularly in that part of nature that is still unknown? In addition to continuity with the past, speculate, faced with a seemingly unexplainable event, whether it's still not a scientifically recognized phenomenon also meets the criterion of Occam's razor, the solution of a problem, we must avoid postulating entities redundant and unnecessary to its resolution, since it must be as simple as possible. In the face of an extraordinary event, turn to God to explain it is the most irrational attitude that you might have. An empirical verification of the above accompanied by a few numbers can finally get the truth of this thesis. Take the case of Lourdes as a model. In about 150 years by the appearance of Our Lady, have passed 200 million in Lourdes pilgrims, and were officially recognized 66 miracles. Assuming that everyone wanted to get a miracle, this is indeed the case in the 0.00003% of cases. It can be argued that not all pilgrims wanted to be miraculously healed (many companions may be simple), but you can argue that the 66 recognized miracles, some that occurred in the second half of today would no longer be considered as such thanks to the advancement of medical science. As a percentage is rather poor, and comparable to rates of spontaneous regression of certain diseases (invasive breast cancer regresses spontaneously in 20% of cases, 1 in 5).

The authoritative and competent physiologist Rodolfo Margaria's words put an end to the question: p {margin-bottom: 0.21cm;} " From the cases I see that miracles are attributed only to alterations or diseases in which the diagnosis is often difficult and doubtful, of which little is known about the causal factors, and which also physiological or biochemical mechanisms that lead to healing are not yet known. It happens very frequently, in medical practice, be amazed at such events as opposed to any reasoned and expert estimates. Have been reported cases of spontaneous healing of cancer, and certainly superior in number to those granted at Lourdes. In recent years we have found several chemicals that have proved very useful in controlling the growth of neoplastic tissue, some of these substances are of natural hormones, ie substances that humans can manufacture. Hypothesis is not unreasonable to think that under the action of certain stimuli, are still unknown, a body may react by increasing or decreasing the production of these hormones to an extent that solve or improve a medical condition. The same is done today hormonal treatment of certain cancers that originated mainly in the sexual sphere, such as cancers of the breast or uterus, led to such improvements that would have been considered miraculous even ten or twenty years ago. The incidence of miracle cures is also extremely low: one in a million, to be optimistic. There is a statistic of extraordinary cures taking place in profane places, because it lacks the relevant organization. It is my opinion that their incidence is not less than that of Lourdes. I will have the claims, but I would like the miraculous healings were not confined to a field still obscure disease from a cultural point of view, and which often presents enormous difficulties of professional: diagnosis, relief, and so on. I would like the miracle manifested itself in a very simple, obvious to all, and that gave absolute security: an amputee that comes out of the pool of Lourdes with the return leg, a blind man who takes the view from his glass eye, so to examples. Only then, as a man of science, I could not discuss " third argument against the miracle - It is said that for the faithful, the miracle is God's action in the time it crosses the natural law. So the miracle, an event from unknown causes, is explained by the divine will. But in turn the will of God is absolutely unknown, which are the projects and designs of God we are not allowed to know. It follows that as far as we finite beings, the divine will is a big question mark, a mystery, which should explain the miracles, which are themselves unknown events. Ultimately, explain an extraordinary event with God is to explain the unknown with the unknown. The rebuttal above demolish the miracle at the theoretical level, but because it survives as a superstition in the souls of the populace devoid of theoretical arguments, we must also say something in practice. Some men believe that God (often by the Saints) wanted to fulfill their wish of a prayer ("I've been healed by Padre Pio" or "Mary has cured my son," and so on). This implies that God is always listening to every prayer of every person, which answers them in his will and that its actions depend on the will of man: a kind of servant Galactic, a super genius of the lamp. What can be said about these poor people? I think the appropriate course is this quote from Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed: " every ignorant imagine that existence is a function of their individuality, as if there were nothing more than him."

That is to say: God, if it existed, would certainly not be unhappy and to take care of their demands. His project is unique and includes everything, the individual existence is not important in itself, but only on the basis of the totality of a unit that includes radical.

Moreover, the belief that a certain event has occurred thanks to a prayer falls into the logical fallacy that "does not cause pro causa" reason to believe that b is a fact just because a and b are consequential. As just one example:

Gianni fixed a balloon to try to move it with the mind, and soon after the balloon moves.

Probably few in the world would be willing to believe that the motion of the balloon was impressed by the mind of John rather than fall back on natural causes, like a gust of wind. And the absurdity of the conduct of John, which attempts an impossible thing, is due to the absurdity of those who turn to God, being perfect, immutable, omnipotent, to have a personal return. Obviously I do not speak to those who live terrible and desperate situations, where you can easily lose his mind and even groped on the streets impossible to change your luck. But the action of prayer itself, stripped of its causes which are frivolous or understood, is a completely meaningless gesture.

now propose a thought experiment paradigm that attempts to explain the mechanism of the fallacy "does not cause per Case" and believing in them as if they can noticed. Needed: 20 coins equal with the two different faces with each other (say, an x \u200b\u200band a circle), 20 people devoted to the same God

Each person, separate from the others, is given a coin. Each one should pray to God in common bait oxo circle. According to statistics, we can imagine that 10 people actually come out that they had prayed for (let's call set P), while it did not happen for the other 10 (let's call set N).

Now, a brief digression: please contact the Statistical Office to assume the results of the launch means imply the irrelevance of God (ie God in reality does not listen to the prayers and they can not cause events, which is exactly what we want to prove: begging the question). It should then more properly defined as a paradigmatic situation, a general pattern that is repeated every time you put into practice a practical experiment that inspired it fulfills all the conditions. It is enough to put prayer into practice with the coin toss to realize the veracity of statistics assumed. But since the experiment allows to use empirical facts established, and since the identity of the series of coin toss with a coin toss, preceded by prayers can be found by anyone, we can continue to call it "thought experiment". The mere fact that the two cases present the same results is significant and perhaps decisive for what we want to prove, but you need a process of clarification to make the matter clear and limpid as possible, try below. Returning to the experiment, people will think that the cause of all P's success lies in prayer, making public all the results of 20 subjects each, some are convinced that prayer actually had no role In fact an equal number of dedicated people, having prayed, did not get the miracle. But others think that the God did not want to speak for those who are less worthy.

Now, everyone will be told to renew our prayers for a new launch, which should be much closer in time than the first. There will be, say, 10 people will come to pass his prayer (set M) and 10 no (set O), and the elements of M and O do not coincide with sets of N and P. Therefore, since the time interval between launch and another was too short to make someone fall from grace in the face of God (there is no time material to commit sin), the second launch shows that the supposed miracle is not in fact due to increased devotion (otherwise the elements of M were identical to those of the whole P). But some might still argue that the motives are inscrutable God to intervene.

play meridian is now devoted to 20 coins, you do make a prediction on the outcome of each launch, but without prayer, and to conduct two launches. You'll get that, ideally, we will once again split into four sets of 10 elements, those who have guessed the first pitch and those not, those who guessed the second is not. Since the result of a coin is random, the formation of bodies of those who guessed it and who will not be random. You may also notice a profound analogy with the first two releases (the ones preceded by a prayer), the formation process of the sets are purely coincidental, since the same training sets in the last two launches (probability of the face desired number of items, non-coincidence of elements of the sets of the first with the launch of the second).

1. So if you really want to admit the intervention of God, you have to say that it is the same as, or better, that God is another name for the event.

2. The facts of the experiment are paradigms of other situations more likely. Take for example the case of those devoted to saints because convinced that their prayers have healed themselves or a loved one. In fact, the recovery is due to the type of evil and his advancement to the treatment received, and the body's resistance to fighting, and so on, just like the output of the circle in the x or toss of a coin depends on the force exerted on the coin , the angle, wind, and so on.

In conclusion: do not give facts that are in reality beyond the natural laws, whether or not the subject of prayer, the prayer itself is meaningless action.