Friday, June 06, 2008

Keith Parsons' analysis of miracles

From his doctoral dissertation.


Anonymous said...

So in sum, naturalists can always reasonably reply that any perceived event is rooted in natural causes. Meanwhile, theists don't have to prove that miracles are physically impossible, and so can get by on a kind of theistic naturalism of their own.

No surprises there. I figured out awhile ago that what is apparently possible in nature is so extraordinary that 'naturalism' ends up being no threat to the theist, or defense for the atheist.

Mike Darus said...

I am troubled by Parson's criterion of "inexplicable." One of the characteristics of biblical miracles is their close proximity to a natural event but the timing and circumstances of the event are convincingly unatural. When Jesus fed the multitudes, there was no obvious miracle until the available food was compared to the leftovers. A cloud pillar in the desert is not unusual. Mini dust tornados are a common occurance in the desert. But when it shows you the way to go, it is something to think about. Even the resurrection of Jesus invited an instant naturalistic explanation that the body was stolen or that Mary went to the wrong tomb (apparently Peter and John's first thought). Miracles seem to attract naturalistic explanations rather than exclude them.

IlĂ­on said...

Google this: "Velma Thomas" "brain dead"

Here is the link to a post I've written about the implications of Mrs Thomas' "un-death:" Your Brain Is Not You