I myself think miracles are phenomena that cannot be explained by extant accepted theories.

Now, science and scientific method claims to reject miracles and propose a reason and logic for every phenomena. But, I think the very premise is fallacious. For, a miracle is a phenomena that is not yet explained based on the current theory, and if a logical way is found to explain the phenomena, then it becomes a scientific fact. Thus, the very thing that we call a miracle will become a scientific fact. Take, for example the cell phone. In days of yore before the advent of cell phones, speaking to far off people would be classified under the banner of clairaudience and claimed as false. But, now, the cell phone has given the power to do the same. So, I think that things that are called impossible, or miracles, are the things that can actually be performed, but not currently, owing to lack of a suitable instrument. Thus, belief in the occurence of miracles, seems to me, not a superstition, but a goad to extend the existing repertoire of knowledge.

Can this view be justified. Any light on this view? Thanks beforehand.

  • Does this answer your question? What should a rational person accept as a miracle? Here is another one: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/15286/…
    – Mr. White
    Jul 14 '20 at 5:11
  • See Spinoza's Theological Political Treatise (TTP) and the section on miracles. Beside that, unless you personally witness or participate in some 'miraculous' occurence, then anything you know about it is hearsay. So the accepted view is that miracles are part of the superimposed belief system imposed on the superstitious believer to keep them enthralled and controlled.
    – user37981
    Jul 14 '20 at 16:20

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.