What is a miracle?

[Hobbs]

Wow. So much closed-mindness and hostility against the Church. You don't like it/us, so therefore, we can never be good in your eyes. Nothing you say can make me think you'd ever have anything but hatred for us. I'm no longer going to entertain you're ethnocentric views.

[Rapscallion]

Where did I say I had any hate for your church? I certainly disapprove of several of the more prominent actions taken by it, but I also recognise that it's done a huge amount of what I would refer to as good in the world.

A friend of mine has a half-sister who received some significant mental counselling free from a church group. I think I even mentioned it on here.

However, I'm not prepared to gloss over their errors - several of them deliberate - in order to feel good about myself.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

...the Church has a right to choose who they want as a priest. In no way does that infringe on a woman's equal rights under the law.

No, but it *does* mean they do not treat men and women equally.

[Andara Bledin]

I am late to the party, but feel I have some things to add.

First off, let me say that my personal beliefs (unlike the vast majority here, it would seem) do not call for the absolute mutual exclusivity of science and religion. To be honest, I've never understood why people are so vehement that anything scientific could not possibly have religious connotations and vice versa.

Now, then, on to my replies:

IF God exists and he wants me to believe in him, he needs to prove that he exists. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe he exists.

There is a difference in belief and knowledge. If you have proof, you don't have to believe because you know.

I'm of the opinion that the only notable difference between Jesus and the rest of us is that he knew and we have to rely on belief. I do not have a theory behind the why of this that I can put into words, unfortunately.

god is life in abundance where ever life is found. All the life of a place makes up the god of that place.

God is supposed to be omnipresent, so that would be pretty much the case.

This being is all around us, but it is not like us. It would be the same as a scientist looking at ants.

My take on it is that God is to us as we are to the atoms that make up our bodies.

If he has some effect on the natural world, there should be some evidence of his existence. Since none has been presented, it remains unlikely that he exists.

A hundred years ago, we had not even a conception of quarks, and yet they were present and science has proven that they had an effect on the natural world.

Our inability to detect something only proves the lack of our ability, not the lack of something to be detected.

Ah, thank you, Hobbs, for asking for clarification. If you look back, you will see that I said the Catholic Church was evil, not its members.

Don't forget the continued suppression of religious texts that don't support the system of beliefs that the Catholic Church espouses.

Teaching people not to use condoms, something actively pursued by the church, causes sexually transmitted diseases to be spread further, so it's only decent to clean up after yourself, right?

This statement disappoints me in it's misdirection.

Yes, they do preach against the use of condoms. However, they also preach against extramarital sex and sex for purposes other than procreation. To whit, if one follows both of these rules, then the sprad of STDs would be impossible.

Now, as to the original question of what makes a miracle, that is something that can only be answered by the person witnessing said miracle.

Absolutely everything is possible. Everything. So, then, the question becomes, at what point on the scale of probability do we cross from "reasonably likely" and into the teritory of "miracle."

One final thing to consider, however, is that even by this guideline, what you would accept as a miracle today you will not tomorrow as science progresses and we come to understand even more about the universe we live in and what once was inexplicable becomes the realm of proven knowledge.

But just because we know why something happened does not make its happening any more or less amazing.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

This statement disappoints me in it's misdirection.

Yes, they do preach against the use of condoms. However, they also preach against extramarital sex and sex for purposes other than procreation. To whit, if one follows both of these rules, then the sprad of STDs would be impossible.

Your disappointment makes me tingle.

See, they know people won't follow the rules, and thus they have a nice little system saying, "If you don't follow the rules from time to time, tell us about it and you can not only allow us a moral hold over you, but we'll be nice and forgive you, but the spread of STDs won't abate, because people who go over the line will know that all they have to do is say a ritual, mean it (at least for a while), and they'll not have any comeback."

It doesn't actually stop it happening again. They know people will fail. They know it will happen. They have systems - as above - to deal with infallibility. The systems don't prevent the spread of STDs and the destruction of a generation in Africa. Condoms - whether inside or outside of a marriage - would help cut down the spread. They preach against condoms without doing anything effective in its place.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

On CS, the rallying cry is for people to be responsible for their own actions, and not fob off their responsibilities on some other entity.

And yet, we add religious doctrine into the mix and suddenly the fault lies with the Church and not the individual? So if the Church is involved, it's suddenly ok to blame someone other than the individual actual responsible for the actions being condemned?

I am no fan of the Church, but this particular attack is unfair. There is more than enough that they are actually guilty of that we don't need to dilute the impact by trying to hold them accountable for something that is not fairly laid at their door.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

One thing that bothers me is the belief that a religion or lack thereof is inherently evil. This subject has come up many times in a forum I moderate, and the amount of vile it causes is on an epic scale. Hate (or dislike, call it what you will) just begets more of the same.

People LOVE to make and have excuses for the things they do. After all, they can't possibly be to blame. One person there even went as far to say that atheism was to blame for millions of deaths because some leader who happened to be atheist kill millions.

I can not be more clearer then this. Belief in any philosophy, Catholic, Muslim, Atheism, etc does not cause people to kill. People cause people to kill. They take their own interpretation of what something says and for their OWN agenda, convince people to kill. Also, most religious texts are meant as guidelines, a moral code more then absolute laws. Bah rambling, let me try to get back on point (which is why I hate Shiny things Syndrome)

Let us take the Crusades. If you think it was about religion I am afraid you are quite mistaken. It was about power for the ones in charge, pure and simple. At the time the average person was illiterate, so they only knew what they leaders of the church WANTED them to know. They convinced people that god wanted them to kill, so they believed god wanted them to kill. Simple as that.

Again, people will use ANY excuse they can get to push their own agenda. Sex, nationality, politics, heck if they could get away with it they would try to convince you that the type of toothpaste you use should be a reason to do what they want you to.

Most religions have two sides. I've actually read and understand more then one. One side is the nice side. "Love thy neighbor" things. The other is the 'Wrath' side. Both are meant to be taken TOGETHER, meaning that everything in the 'Wrath' side is meant to be tempered by the "Love thy neighbor" side. Balance. However, people will take things out or put their own thoughts into religion. They will focus on either all the positive, or all of the negative.

"Oh LOOK, it says you should cut the heads off of all infidels!"

"No <insert religion here> member would do X, because that automatically makes them not a member."

Both are taken out of context. Yes, bad things are in the Bible. How can you know the good without knowing the bad? Yes bad things are in the Koran. The religion, however, does not magically force anybody to do bad things. That part is ALL human.

Now as for why God "Allows" or "Causes" misery. I could use the "How can you experience the good without the bad" bit..but I will try to make it a little more logical. I use "God" because that is a well known name..I don't believe in the Christian God.

God set the universe in motion and then once there was intelligent life gave said life free will. If he didn't want free will, he would have just built robots. Now he basically has a whole universe to run, so he isn't exactly watching us like a hawk. Sort of like the ant farm you might have had as a kid, you were not watching it 24/7.

Now true, he is a bit more aware of things, and sometimes does interfere, but for the most part he is in a catch 22.

He can protect us from everything, but to do that would have to make us mindless automatons, which pretty much defeats the purpose. Or he can let things go, and innocents get hurt. Not exactly the best position to be in.

Lets look at the things he supposedly allows or causes, and see what exactly the options are.

Accidents. How exactly is he supposed to stop these? Again, I guess he could make us invincible and/or robots..but wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

Wars. Free will. Either we have it or we don't. He tries to save us from ourselves, might as well do the invincible or robot thing.

Disease. Now see this is a tricky one, depending on how you look at it. Yeah we might have been better designed so that things like that didn't happen, but ever consider this? Every disease has survivors. For all we know, eventually these survivors develop immunity/etc and become stronger, faster, smarter..etc .. you know.. evolution? Yeah yeah, for some reason people have this problem with evolution and religion in the same sentence So though tragic NOW, we might just not be able to see the bigger picture.

Famine. Well see this is mostly a man caused problem. Let me explain. There is enough food in the world to feed everybody. Greed and gluttony causes people to starve. Which goes back to the whole free will thing.

God does not allow or cause any suffering. Man (for the most part) brings it to themselves and others. We now have the knowledge and ability to take care of everybody IF we wanted to..but we won't. We can't even agree on anything, so how in the heck are we going to actually get together to solve these problems? We are too stubborn and pig headed, and think we know everything. Besides..it is all about "ME" isn't it? What I can get/have/take/etc?

Hehe the above poster and me crossed posts, but *applauds* as usual somebody said it much better then me.

[Ghel]

To be honest, I've never understood why people are so vehement that anything scientific could not possibly have religious connotations and vice versa.

The problem comes when religion tries to claim that science is wrong, or when the claims of religion are demonstrably incorrect. Then there IS a conflict between science and religion.

There is a difference in belief and knowledge. If you have proof, you don't have to believe because you know.

True, but the definition of "believe" is "to accept as true." Now this doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have evidence for what you believe, but for me, it does. I need to have a reason, such as evidence or sound argument, before I'll accept something as true. That doesn't always mean I'm right, but I rarely claim certainty about anything.

My take on it is that God is to us as we are to the atoms that make up our bodies.

But atoms aren't self-aware. Nor do we expect them to worship us. Nor did we create them. This analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

A hundred years ago, we had not even a conception of quarks, and yet they were present and science has proven that they had an effect on the natural world.

Our inability to detect something only proves the lack of our ability, not the lack of something to be detected.

Before the discovery of quarks, was it justified for anyone to believe they existed? How is anyone justified in believing in a god without evidence?

Yes, they do preach against the use of condoms. However, they also preach against extramarital sex and sex for purposes other than procreation. To whit, if one follows both of these rules, then the sprad of STDs would be impossible.

This statement is incorrect. STDs can be spread by sharing needles, transmission from mother to child, blood transfusions, etc. Proper education about how diseases are spread is a much better way of battling them than expecting people to overcome millions of years of evolution telling them to have as much sex as possible.

Now, as to the original question of what makes a miracle, that is something that can only be answered by the person witnessing said miracle.

Well, then why are we having this discussion, if the only way to know that something is a miracle is to experience it first hand? Anybody who claims a miracle occurred but didn't witness it themselves is obviously lying.

Absolutely everything is possible. Everything.

No. In the universe in which we live, some things are impossible. Logically inconsistent things, for example. Like "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" Or "if everything happens according to God's plan, how can we have free will?"

One final thing to consider, however, is that even by this guideline, what you would accept as a miracle today you will not tomorrow as science progresses and we come to understand even more about the universe we live in and what once was inexplicable becomes the realm of proven knowledge.

If something happened in the past that couldn't be explained then, and people called it a miracle, but it can be explained now, is it still a miracle? Looking back at the event with our current knowledge, can we call that event a miracle? If we can't call that event a miracle now, how are we justified in saying that it was a miracle then?

I can not be more clearer then this. Belief in any philosophy, Catholic, Muslim, Atheism, etc does not cause people to kill.
<snip>
"Oh LOOK, it says you should cut the heads off of all infidels!"

As you've just demonstrated, you can show a direct, causal connection between holy books (both the Bible and the Koran) directing followers to kill the non-believers and millions of deaths caused by those followers.

Lets look at the things he supposedly allows or causes, and see what exactly the options are.

How about child rape? Why would any good god turn his back while children are raped? Does he value the free will of the rapist more than the free will of the child?

[Ghel]

I almost feel like this is beating a dead horse, so to speak. I had written a response to a few things that Hobbs said before I realized he wouldn't be posting any more. I'm cutting nearly all of that out, but there's still two points I want to follow up on, for the benefit of anybody on the sidelines (lurkers, etc.)

[Regarding the church's stance on homosexuality] Like Ghel, you have old misconceptions concerning the Catholic Church.

"People tempted by homosexual desires ... are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."

How is that evil? You say it is, but saying it doesn't make it so. For example, the people you hate (Catholics) think that killing a fetus is evil and that life begins at conception. Therefore, in their world view, you're the evil one.

People can believe what they wish, but when they try to force other people to act as if they believed the same things (as in the examples I gave on abortion), that is wrong. If you thing abortion is wrong, don't have one. But don't lobby to get laws passed preventing abortions. Don't tell people that they're going to Hell for having one or performing one. And for pity's sake, don't prevent a child from having an abortion after she has been raped.

[Rapscallion]

On CS, the rallying cry is for people to be responsible for their own actions, and not fob off their responsibilities on some other entity.

Psst - this isn't CS.com!

And yet, we add religious doctrine into the mix and suddenly the fault lies with the Church and not the individual? So if the Church is involved, it's suddenly ok to blame someone other than the individual actual responsible for the actions being condemned?

That depends on the doctrine involved. I've got no problem with 'love thy neighbour', as long as the love enforced is agape rather than eros. I do have a problem with, "Love thy neighbour, but not too much, and if you do then don't wear this device that will prevent infection spreading."

We're talking about different things here.

Hmm, we've drifted wildly off the main topic. Ho hum. Such is life.

Rapscallion

[Mytical]

Ghel. As I said, it is a catch 22. Either we have free will or we don't. If not 'he' or 'she' might as well have created robots. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we would all think and do the same mindlessly. God does not rape children, MAN (and by that I mean the general word meaning both male and female) rapes children. OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. Seems pretty cut and dry. HE (or SHE) gave their word that people would have free will. Again, doesn't allow it or cause it. No more then you 'allow' or 'cause' the animals in the wild to rape, kill, etc.

I mean you COULD stop it, at least in the nearest area to you. Just go out trap them, put them in cages/etc or sedate them. So I guess you 'allow' or 'cause' what happens? Exactly...no you don't.

[Andara Bledin]

Before the discovery of quarks, was it justified for anyone to believe they existed? How is anyone justified in believing in a god without evidence?

Absent any form of proof to the positive or negative, the only unjustified stance is to have made a decision as regards the results.

While scientific method suggests that it's likely that your position on the issue has a higher probability of being proven correct, it also declares that absent any form of proof, neither can be taken as true.

This statement is incorrect. STDs can be spread by sharing needles, transmission from mother to child, blood transfusions, etc.

While true, it's also not particularly relevant to the discussion. The greatest factor in the spread of STDs, as the name implies, is indiscriminate unprotected sex. If you remove the indiscrimination, then you remove the vast majority of the need for protection.

Well, then why are we having this discussion, if the only way to know that something is a miracle is to experience it first hand?

I never made any statement that you had to witness it firsthand. I only said that the determination of whether something truly is a miracle is only valid to the determiner unless said person chooses to rely on some other group, such as the Church, to make that determination for them.

Although, in the demand for scientific documentation of any event that could possibly be recounted as a miracle, it could be said that you are relying on the scientific community to make the determination for you.

As you've just demonstrated, you can show a direct, causal connection between holy books (both the Bible and the Koran) directing followers to kill the non-believers and millions of deaths caused by those followers.

But those books were written, translated, and interpreted by people. And, as we all well know, people can and do make mistakes, sometimes quite grievous ones.

And, if you go back and take the rest of the statement that precedes the snippet you quoted, he was actually pointing out that people have a tendency to only take the bits that support their agendas, which is a human failing, and not necessarily a failing of the belief system itself.

If something happened in the past that couldn't be explained then, and people called it a miracle, but it can be explained now, is it still a miracle? Looking back at the event with our current knowledge, can we call that event a miracle? If we can't call that event a miracle now, how are we justified in saying that it was a miracle then?

This is going to take a bit for me to get through, and I'm not certain I'll be able to explain myself in such a way that my meaning will be apparent, but I'll do my best.

It is my take that a miracle is a type of event or happening that, on its face, is so unlikely or unusual to those who witness it that it is seen as uplifting and/or strengthens their resolve or beliefs.

As such, I would think that I would never be visited by one as I have no need for such. The foundations of my belief are essentially unassailable and need no reinforcement.

That said, there are events that happen that I would consider miraculous despite science's ability to explain them. Not so much that they are inexplicable but in that they help others to be stronger and to persevere in the face of adversity.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

God does not rape children, MAN (and by that I mean the general word meaning both male and female) rapes children. OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

So either you don't think that God is very powerful (much less omnipotent) or you don't think God is good. Because if I knew that a child was being raped, or about to be raped, I would do anything in my power to stop it. To stand aside while you know a child (or anyone else, for that matter) is being raped is evil.

Absent any form of proof to the positive or negative, the only unjustified stance is to have made a decision as regards the results.

While scientific method suggests that it's likely that your position on the issue has a higher probability of being proven correct, it also declares that absent any form of proof, neither can be taken as true.

First, scientists rarely talk about proof; they talk about evidence. They rarely talk about certainties; they talk about likelihood. They prefer simpler answers, as long as they properly explain the evidence.

Given all that, then absent any evidence for a claim, the only justified position is to reject the claim.

While true, it's also not particularly relevant to the discussion. The greatest factor in the spread of STDs, as the name implies, is indiscriminate unprotected sex. If you remove the indiscrimination, then you remove the vast majority of the need for protection.

You said "To whit, if one follows both of these rules, then the sprad[sic] of STDs would be impossible." Don't make absolute statements if you don't intend to back them up.

I never made any statement that you had to witness it firsthand.

You said "Now, as to the original question of what makes a miracle, that is something that can only be answered by the person witnessing said miracle." If you're changing your position, please say so.

But those books were written, translated, and interpreted by people. And, as we all well know, people can and do make mistakes, sometimes quite grievous ones.

If holy books are written by people, and there is no actual god involved, then I agree: all the failings in holy books are a result of human failing or human agendas. The Bible and Koran, however, claim to be either inspired by God or a direct translation of what was told by God via an angel.

Suppose, for the moment, there is a God, and he inspired these holy books. After seeing what Muhammad or Moses or whoever else wrote down, why didn't God correct those things that he saw as wrong? Why don't later passages say, "You can ignore those things written down earlier, because they were mis-transcribed"? There's no correction in either book saying, no, you shouldn't kill the non-believers.

It is my take that a miracle is a type of event or happening that, on its face, is so unlikely or unusual to those who witness it that it is seen as uplifting and/or strengthens their resolve or beliefs.

Do you think the same event could strengthen two separate (even conflicting) sets of beliefs? Could a Christian and a Hindu see the same unlikely thing and each attribute it to their god? How would you resolve the conflict?

That said, there are events that happen that I would consider miraculous despite science's ability to explain them.

Do you have any examples?

[Andara Bledin]

You said "Now, as to the original question of what makes a miracle, that is something that can only be answered by the person witnessing said miracle." If you're changing your position, please say so.

I should have double-checked my original post before replying. In this case, I did misspeak in the original post. My intent was that it would be up to the person judging the miracle and not specifically witnessing it.

I should probably save my replies for times when I'm a bit more awake and less likely to use the wrong word.

Do you think the same event could strengthen two separate (even conflicting) sets of beliefs? Could a Christian and a Hindu see the same unlikely thing and each attribute it to their god? How would you resolve the conflict?

I do believe that to be the case, and I don't believe it to be quite the conflict that others would.

In this particular area, my beliefs fall a bit outside the usual Christian consensus.

I'd like to explain this further, but I can't manage to put it down in a way that makes sense to me, and they're my beliefs, so I'm at a loss as to how I can explain it to someone else without it sounding like total gibberish.

I'd really like to do better with this all, but I so rarely actually share most of this that I am finding my vocabulary lacking. I fear I'm not really making a very good showing of it.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Andara, please be as specific as possible when explaining what you believe. It's hard to understand what people mean when they use vague words like "spiritual." Also, please be prepared to answer why you believe what you believe.