Miracles †Philosophy Essay

The occupation with miracles is that it cannot be properly defined which means there is no domineering meaning for a meaning, instead my philosophers fill attempted to define miracles in their own way. In these definition they ar usu whollyy for or against the reality of miracles, for standard come upon two contrasting definitions Ward and Hume. Ward says miracles are events which paragon intervenes because he completely knows the consequences of the action. On the other hand, Hume is a philosopher who is wholly against the idea of miracles, he says miracles do not exist because they violate the laws of nature. wise to(p) this, beau ideal cannot intervene because he would violate the laws of nature, hu domains deplete credit in visit 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 ob ituary and partisan. whatever event where the inwrought flow is violated for a certain concourse 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 didnt 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 exemplary sense rather than a literal sense.A strength of Wiles it that allows better believers to keep faith with god and uphold their faith in natural laws. Many masses agreed with what Wiles was saying for example a man called Bultman agreed that the miracles explained in the bible are not there to take literal, he says we get the true message behin d the miracle if we demythologize them. For example he turned water into wine to prevent the embarrassment of the hosts which shows his attending and wisdom. To believe that god favors rough more than others through the existence of miracles is wrong, who says its god that these events originates?We have no evidence to suggest this, just because we cannot find this would doesnt mean we have to point it to god. Holland was another philosopher who didnt believe in the plan of miracles, well the name miracle he thought that they were more of a coincidence. He used the analogy of the train, what is some one was stuck on the leading and the train had stopped right in front of the person, some people may call this a miracle but when we know the full externalize someone in the train may have accidentally press the emergency stop or the driver could have passed out.So the concept of the whole miracles thing may just be one giving coincidence. Looking at Hollands view it would make god acquitted of being arbitrary and partisan, this is because these events are just coincidences it has nothing to do with god. As mentioned earlier, Hume was a man who rejected the idea of miracles due to being a violation of the laws of nature. Hume believes strongly in experiences and what we gain from them, as for this situation, the laws are something we have learnt about and follow.So when something happens that goes against these we deem them coming from god because we cannot define or justify them. either in all, Hume says the alert of miracles comes from the ignorant and barbarous nations. penetrating this, God would also be innocent because it is not god who intervenes so its not him which favors some and not others. There are events that are undetermined so they must come from some where, lets say for arguments sake glueyness they come from god.Us as humans are not on his level therefore we cannot say or he is this or that, he may have a reason and we would find out wh en we die. All the events that are unexplained may paint a bigger persona but humans are outside of god knowledge and experience so we cannot really approximate god. Irenaous was a philosopher who looked at the problem of evil, he would say god is being cruel to be kind and reservation humans into the image of god, this because events like miracles change people.To develop these emotions naturally have more significance than being drilled in at get by god. Overall, I conclude that God does not favor some people over others. My reasons for this is because we cannot define miracle we can only speculate on what we think, for this reason how can we act upon such uncertainty? Also we cannot judge god because we have no knowledge of him or what he has planned, only him and him only knows the repercussions of his actions.