# Can Miracles Prove God Exists? | Bede Rundle

## Метаданные

- **Канал:** Closer To Truth
- **YouTube:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjWzOsaM3dE
- **Источник:** https://ekstraktznaniy.ru/video/40336

## Транскрипт

### Segment 1 (00:00 - 05:00) []

bead. One of the arguments that many people use to defend the theistic hypothesis is the argument from miracles or revelation. Uh I have to tell you miracles are not something that really appeal to me personally all that much, but I can understand that if they occur that this is an important argument. Uh, but I I'd like to try to get underneath it and see how you analyze miracles philosophically to justify an existence of God. — Right? Well, there are two senses of miracle. I suppose in one popular use, something unexpected, extraordinary could be called a miracle. So it'll be a miracle if my team doesn't drop a division this winter. That sort of thing which we're not interested in. We want an episode which is not only extraordinary but which can't be explained by any natural means. And then the question is how could you ever be in a position to say an extraordinary event that had that standing? Well, you can query the reliability of people who report on a supposed miracle, but that's something that you could overcome. If you had sufficiently many witnesses, if you had photographic records and so on, it might be absolutely clear that such and such took place and also clear that we cannot explain it. The difficulty is in knowing when you can justifiably say there is no natural explanation because think of people who claim that they can bend spoons just by rubbing them gently. Now they do, but you'd good reason to think that it's a natural power that they're harnessing. It's interesting that um Houdini issued a challenge uh inviting [clears throat] people who believed in the supernatural to [snorts] give an example of some mysterious inexplicable event which he could not duplicate and nobody collected their $1,000 or whatever it was. He was able by trickery to reproduce the sorts of things that uh they said were due only to supernatural influences. And it's difficult how you could progress beyond that. Think for example of those terribly clever people who have these shows where let's say they can tell somebody what is in an envelope. you get somebody to draw something in another room and they can tell you what that drawing was and so on. Well, usually these people are able to explain just what they're doing. It's a trick. Yeah. — And in cases where they can't, it would be very interesting because you might say, well, perhaps there's such a thing as telepathy, [snorts] — but again, that is keeping you in the physical world. It's just it would seem to show that human beings had paths that they hadn't recognized and there's something to investigate. But to take the step of postulating divine intervention or uh intervention on the part of an angel or indeed the devil, then that is something which you would, as far as I can see, never have sufficient evidence to do. — Well, so so you're looking at really three levels here. one for any miracle. Is it just a trick, a a an illusion or something that is deliberately misleading either e either for entertainment or for some other reason? — Yes. — The second level, even if it's real, is that there maybe there's a higher explanation resonant within the physical world for this extraordinary event that we just don't know. — Yeah. And let's go to the third step. What you're saying is it's impossible. It's impossible to go no matter how miraculous a situation is, you can't go from that to an inference to a god or a supernatural being. — The question would be, could you regard supernatural intervention as a genuine ex explanation even if one that could be appealed to only in the last resort? That's what people may say. It's only rational to leave room for that explanation when all else fails us. Now, my query would be, can you really speak of this as an explanation when you don't have the faintest idea of how this being acts, how it's able to do what it does? You really are just saying something no better than I'm afraid it's inexplicable as far as we can tell. And maybe that's the case. Maybe there are certain things that happen from time to time for which there is no explanation. — Well, that doesn't make sense. Everything needs an explanation, doesn't

### Segment 2 (05:00 - 08:00) [5:00]

it? — Well, yes, but you don't necessarily have nature doing what you want it to do. Uh, I mean, can you say there always is an explanation? Well, it's got a pretty good track record all the time. We keep finding explanations. But then of course this comes uh [clears throat] this counts in favor of the anti-miracle person and that he could say we just haven't reached the time when our knowledge is sufficiently advanced to explain. — But as an explanation of last resort, what you're saying is you'd rather have some brute fact that there is no explanation rather than to be able to infer that there is a God who did that miracle. — Yes. Because I don't think that is an explanation. Not everything will count will earn the title of explanation and I think the theistic hypothesis doesn't meet the demands. — What about revelation? — Traditionally Christian thinkers have thought there were two ways of learning about God. One through revelation, the other through purely philosophical means. And the two are very different in the problems that they pose. The revelation aspect [clears throat] is something that forces us to get to grips with certain questions about the natural world and the reliability of testimony and so on. Whereas the purely philosophical side is to be addressed by looking at the cogency in terms of logic if you like of what's being advanced. — Very different. — Very different indeed. And once more, it's not difficult to be a bit skeptical about revelation because just as people can perform wondrous tricks that we can't explain. So all sorts of things might be said that purport to be revelation but uh we would not feel confident that is their source. So interesting cases would be say prophets like Nostradamus gives you something to explain possibly. uh but uh we don't seem to make much headway if we say that he's in touch with a higher being. — Well, a lot of religions claim all sorts of revelation and um what do you do with that? — Well, it's difficult in some cases because it pertains to episodes in the past. So, they're not there for you to uh probe any further. Indeed, perhaps one of the things about revelations, it has to be in the past for it to have any persuasive value. Otherwise, it might be seen for what it is in a way that's not to the credit of the believer. Uh, but I think you you've simply got to look at particular cases, ask yourself, could they have any probative value? And here you have to be generous. I mean by that, suppose the witnesses are telling the truth and that they weren't under an illusion. Let's imagine the best possible case. Well, would this count as telling us through revelation something about God? — And what do you think? — I'm afraid I don't think that's a possibility.