Some God Talk for a Change: Part 2

My buddy Jackie R. :

The problem with most arguments contra miracles is that they beg the question of the rationality of reality. Existence itself is irrational. That we exist can't be explained rationally. Yet, our existence is such an empirical certainty, that we can order our lives based on this assumption. Apparently one of the attributes of miracles is that they are spontaneous -- they are not amenable to controlled experiment, which is how we test rational hypotheses.

For example, "SU(5)" (5 dimension symmetry breaking) elegantly and rationally predicts proton decay, but after over 20 years of observation (in huge water-filled underground tanks), scientist haven't observed a proton decay, which statistically they should have by now, so they have concluded that SU(5) is not true. Particle physics predicts the Higgs boson, and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was supposed to test the prediction until it broke. Of course, the Higgs boson isn't waiting for them to fix the LHC before it comes into existence.

The point is that existence is independent of rationality. An event is only rational after the fact. Like the author of the article says, an event has to be rational in theory but doesn't have to be in fact.Hume preferred to conclude that we can't know anything, so we might as well have a good time. I'm not sure what Dawkins is trying to prove, other than God doesn't exist, in which case he's gratuitously robbing people of faith who need it.

If miracles happen, then whether they can be explained rationally or scientifically is irrelevant. The problem is the credibility of witnesses. The way I look at a miracle is as myth, which isn't a lie but a metaphor. This enables me to read scripture as if it were true.