Are Miracles

Metaphysically
Impossible? what must be true in this world. That is
August 25, 2016 to say, you cannot derive deep modal
conclusions (what is possible or
By Tim Stratton impossible in any world) from empirical
laws because empirical laws are too
I spend much of my time arguing thin of a basis to support this kind of
against naturalism; specifically against overreaching generalization.
the idea that only the physical universe
exists. This is accomplished by utilizing Knowledge &
logical arguments reaching deductive
conclusions that demonstrate the Conceivability
existence of both God and the human The second problem with this objection
soul. Many times the best discoveries is that modal judgments are known a
in modern science support premises in priori (from the earlier) as opposed to a
these deductive arguments reaching posteriori (from the latter). We know
supernatural conclusions. about necessity and possibility a priori.
We know about physics from
One of the most common objections I experience via the scientific method.
receive on the internet is known as the This is a posterioriknowledge.
interaction objection. I previously wrote Newton’s 3rd law might be physically
an article regarding this specific kind of n e c e s s a r y, b u t t h i s i s n o t
objection in regards to the human soul metaphysically necessary. There is
[1]. The objection above is quite simply no evidence for that because
similar, but specifically against the idea those kinds of statements are known a
of God not only being able to create priori.
the universe, but especially to act in it
(miracles). The best epistemic test for a priori
knowledge is conceivability. Moreland
One of my lecturing professors at Biola said that one “might not like this, but
University was the eminent it’s about all we’ve got!” If something is
philosopher, JP Moreland. I chose to conceivable, then it is possible; if
attend Biola University basically for two something is inconceivable, then it is
reasons: William Lane Craig and JP impossible. This is a defeasible
Moreland. Not long ago my wife and I criterion of knowledge. This is not with
had the privilege of having dinner with Cartesian certainty by any means, but
JP Moreland. I learned more that night nevertheless, it is defeasible.
than from any class lecture. We
discussed many things that evening Moreland offered a great example:
and this topic of God interacting in the
world was included. Based on that The reason I think it is metaphysically
conversation, I believe that the possible for little green men to exist on
objection above fails for at least three the surface of Mars is not because I’ve
reasons. been there to check it out, but because
Empirical Observations & I can conceive of little green men on
the surface of Mars. With that said,
Metaphysical Principles however, I cannot conceive of married
bachelors in Montana. Therefore, I
First of all, Newton’s 3rd law is not a don’t even need to make the trip to
metaphysical principle; rather, it is an check it out because I know this is
empirical one. The problem here is that impossible.
one cannot logically derive
metaphysical principles from mere
empirical observations. Moreland said, The Problem of
“Any freshman philosophy student Proving Too Much
should know that you cannot derive Finally, the third problem with this
deep modal or metaphysical objection is that if this objection is right,
conclusions from empirical laws.” then it proves too much as it also rules
out human libertarian free will. If an
Empirical laws or observations merely immaterial substance cannot interact in
tell us what is true in this world — the material world, then the same
nothing more. You might grant that problem God supposedly has is also a
empirical laws tell us what is true in all major problem for human beings. That
relevantly similar worlds that are is to say, if God cannot act on matter,
physical worlds, but they do not tell you then neither can a human soul.
Every time a human makes a free for this justified belief for the three
choice (which include both moral or reasons listed above. Therefore, given
rational decisions) we are performing the three reasons to believe in miracles
(for lack of a better term) “mini and the three reasons to reject the
miracles.” Because humans are objection to miracles, it is perfectly
immaterial souls with material bodies, rational to state, “I believe in miracles!”
we have the ability to intervene in and
override the laws of nature. This ability Stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5),
gives us a respons-ABILITY to not
behave as mere animals. Tim Stratton, article from:
http://crossexamined.org/miracles-
Libertarianism (libertarian free will) is metaphysically-impossible/
the opposite of compatibilism
(compatibilism is a form of
determinism). Libertarianism states
that when one acts freely, then nothing
else causally determined that thought
or action. It was “up to you” completely. NOTES
This is not to say that we have
libertarian freedom in all things, or that [1] In a previous article I demonstrated
we cannot be influenced by other that it is impossible to doubt the
things, but influence and causal existence of your mind, but there is
determinism are two different kinds of some scientific reason to doubt the
things. When humans freely think, then existence of your brain. It follows that if
we can make rational choices and one really thinks that it is impossible for
decisions. When humans act freely, we an immaterial mind (God or the human
generate motion in the universe from soul) to interact with the physical
the available energy to use, or not to universe, then they ought to become a
use. theistic idealist and reject matter before
rejecting mind. One way or the other,
Consider when I choose to raise my naturalism/physicalism is false. Mind is
arm, nothing causally determined my fundamental and ultimate reality.
arm to rise but me; not the prior states
of my brain. If my arm is caused to
move by the state of the brain, then
there is a causal link between the brain
state and what determined my brain to
exist in the specific state (which is not
up to me if naturalism is true). This can
go on and on back to the initial
conditions of the big bang (which is
another example of a physical thing
being caused by a non-physical or
immaterial substance).
Moreland said,
Behind each chain of events, if there is
libertarian freedom, is a first mover —
me! I might choose to exercise my
power and that might cause a nervous
system event to go down and raise my
arm — I don’t have any problem with
that — but at the back of that sucker is
me interacting with matter!
This means that the objector proves
too much! If this objection is right, then
libertarian free will is impossible, and if
there is no libertarian free will, then
rationality is not just false, but
impossible. That is to say, if there is no
free will, then there is no freethinking!
However, isn’t the objector claiming to
make a rational objection? If so, then
his argument is self-defeating!
Bottom line: We have scientific,
philosophical, and historical justification
to believe in miracles. Moreover, the
interaction objection fails as a defeater