No definition of a miracle is adequate Essay

Many philosophers have attempted to define what exactly constitutes a miracle in a number of ways outlining comments which contain the criteria for what phenomena can be counted as miraculous. Whether a translation is decent seems highly subjective but pull up stakes likely be one that is accommodateable by non-Christians as well as Christians who in completely probability will want a commentary that accepts many of the miracle in the Bible to indeed be miraculous.Mackies definition of miracles describing them as hithertots that occur when the cosmea is non left alone and is intruded by something that is not part of the natural order necessitates that miracles atomic number 18 ca utilise by a supernatural entity which may be considered to be God. This appears to suggest that his definition would indeed be adequate for some Christians given that it sets apart miracles from coincidences turning them into occurrences which could provide evidence for their faith. Moreover it a llows a more specific idea of what constitutes a miracles disallowing events with an entirely naturalistic interpretation maintaining them as unique events.However, agrestic likely would criticise Mackies arguments for not be adequate given the ambiguity of what the natural order and the laws that govern it are. Hick suggested that laws were generalisations that are formed after events have happened, suggesting that that the natural order couldnt be intruded upon. Also it may be that what is perceived to be an intrusion by something outside of the natural order is actually just a lack of arrest of the natural order on our part.This means that though an event such as the Moon Landing would have been defined as inadequate centuries ago, today it would not. This undermines the adequacy of the definition given that what it encompasses will change with time. A just issue with the adequacy of Mackies definition is that it could be argued to not be sufficiently specific given that it makes no attempt to define what exactly constitutes something unmistakable from the natural order, and it may in fact not be God.This would undermine its adequacy for Christians who believe that God is responsible for causing miracles and may not accept they are caused by other beings. Swinburnes definition of a miracle appears to resolve this issue defining miracles as a violation of a law of nature by a god (a very powerful rational being who is not a material object). That said, the requirement for God to intervene in the world poses a number of challenges to Swinburnes definition especially given that Gods need to intervene in his creation contradicts the idea that he is an all powerful being if the world requires changes.Additionally philosophers like Wiles would argue that if God has the ability to intervene in the world in order to perform miracles in certain instances then his failure to prevent evil and suffering in the world undermines his characteristic of omni-benevole nce. For this reason a definition that requires Gods encumbrance to cause miracles may be inadequate given the contradictions that would occur if such an event happened.On the other hand, many Christians do accept that God intervenes in the world and if so this definition of miracles may indeed be adequate also determining whether God is responsible for an event may be unacceptable as it may just be due to limited understanding of events. Additionally, Swinburnes definition is undermined by Hicks challenge arguably even more so than Mackies given his explicit use of the term natural laws and also would likely be subject to change as understanding changes.Hollands definition of miracles appears to avoid the contractions associated with Swinburne and Mackies explanations not requiring the physical intervention of God suggesting from the outset that it may be more adequate. This is because Holland only requires miracles to be an wonderworking coincidence of a beneficial nature inter preted religiously. The emphasis on interpretation also removes the difficulties associated with determining the cause of the miracle while still encompassing scriptural miracles.However it would likely be criticised for being too subjective given that different people would differ on whether the same event is miraculous. Additionally the Catholic church which usually requires a person to have performed at least two miracles in order to be Canonized as a nonpareil would likely not accept miracles as defined by Holland as they only accept events without naturalistic explanation suggesting the definition is inadequate for how the term miracle is used by some Christian denominations.In conclusion, it seems probable that no definition of miracles is adequate given that although Swinburne and Mackies definition of miracles may encompass many of the instances of how miracles are used, they are undermined by the difficulty in determining natural laws and also whether God physically interv ened. Likewise while Holland goes some way to avoiding these contradictions in his definition it remains highly subjective and also doesnt reflect how miracles are used in Christianity.Additionally it will likely also lead to noteworthy differences between what people consider miracles. Moreover, the existence of so many contrasting definitions of miracles suggests that in that location isnt a single definition that is adequate given that there is no consensus on what makes an event miraculous so any definition will be subject to significant disagreement. For this reason the statement that no definition of miracle is adequate can be considered to be true.