What is a miracle?

[Sage Blackthorn]

All life on Earth has one thing in common: DNA. By comparing the DNA in our cells to that of other creatures, we can see how closely related we are. The most recent common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees was not too long ago, evolutionarily speaking. The most common ancestors between us and orangutans was a little farther back, and the most recent common ancestor between us and the fly amanita mushroom even farther. But make no mistake, we are related.

See, now I would've instead pointed more towards the interdependance of species as an argument for inter-connectedness. Anything we do that affects the world we live in has reprocussions that affect us in turn. We're in a closed system here. It's in our own best interests to protect the world, and the other species in it, that give us life.

If everyday events are miracles, then you're devaluing the meaning of the word "miracle." Rescuing a cat is a noble thing to do, but it's not incredibly unlikely nor a violation of the laws of physics. Why call it a miracle?

Why call anything a miracle? That's my entire point, whether something is a miracle or not is entirely upto a person's point of view and based on their beliefs about the reality of the universe. It's a personal assesment of a situation, based on one's own internal values and perceptions.

We all choose how to interpret the information gathered by our 5 senses, filtered through our beliefs and experiences. Something that happens even when our thoughts, our experiences, our knowledge tells us it can't happen? That's as suitable a definition for the term "miracle" as I've ever heard. Or you might consider how miracle is used in literary imagry to convey how the writer is feeling. As in "every birth is a miracle" even when we know that it's a rather mundane, everyday occurrance that happens all over the world......with alarming regularity I might add after looking at the recent global population estimates. Or it could be used to attribute a sense of awe and respect when describing any natural occurance.

I find it's advisable at all times to keep in mind that those around me do not necessarily share my thoughts, my beliefs, or experience reality the exact same way I do myself. I choose to see the world as a miraculous place, both because it contributes to my own happiness, and because I find it inspiring. It makes me want to learn as much as I can about the world, about the universe and how things work. Why call common, everyday occurrances miracles? Perhaps a better question is why not? I don't think it "devalues" the word miracle, at least it doesn't for me. I tend to think that it encourages a reverence for the little "miraculous" things that get overlooked and passed by in a culture far to full of itself, to over-confident in it's own infallability, to impressed with it's technological power. I remember that for thousands of years, human beings got along without cell phones, cars, and the internet and found value and beauty in the blooming of a flower, the flight of a bird. They looked at the world and thought it a miraculous place, and expressed reverence and respect for it, each in their own fashion. That sense of wonder at life, is perhaps something we modern humans have lost. Although I think it's very easy to get back with a simple change in perspective, a change in one's point of view.

I think this is less true than is was in the past. Before modern advances in travel and communications, a person was generally stuck with the community he or she was born into. Now, scattered individuals separated by vast distances can communicate quickly and easily, thus forming communities that wouldn't have been possible before the Internet Age.

It makes it more difficult in the sense of the amount of information you need to sift through to find a comfortable fit.

[Ghel]

I'm sorry it took so long to respond. It's been a busy week.

Just goes to prove that, no matter what, you'd never accept a miracle, so why do you bother trying to understand them?

I want to understand people. I don't get on well in social situations, and part of it is that I don't understand the religious/superstitious mindset. I want to understand, so I don't make too many faux pas.

Also, some people claim that they can convince me of supernatural beings or events. Maybe this isn't the best place to ask for it, but if I'm wrong about the existence of the supernatural, I want to know. If there is some evidence of the supernatural, or some reason to believe in miracles, I want to find it. OTOH, if there were such evidence, I would expect it to be front page news.

Kimmik's account certainly was beyond the possibilities of nature.

Obviously not, since she was able to get pregnant. See, once something comes into the real world, it becomes real. Natural, as opposed to supernatural.

That is attestable as she was tested by skilled, qualified doctors.

Doctors can be wrong. Something that doctors or scientists are wrong about doesn't automatically get defined as a miracle.

Additionally, I find myself reading between the lines of Kimmik's story and expecting to hear the doctors say to her, "Even if you can get pregnant, you shouldn't, because of the dangers to you and to the baby." I foresee her having a long and difficult road ahead.

See, now I would've instead pointed more towards the interdependance of species as an argument for inter-connectedness. <snip> It's in our own best interests to protect the world, and the other species in it, that give us life.

Well, I was trying to focus more on the family connection rather than the predator/prey connection. There's hardly a species on Earth that doesn't rely on the death or injury of another species in order to survive. It's gruesome, really.

Something that happens even when our thoughts, our experiences, our knowledge tells us it can't happen? That's as suitable a definition for the term "miracle" as I've ever heard.

If something happens that is outside of our knowledge base, that is an opportunity to learn more about the universe around us. I think it's lazy to explain anything away as a "miracle" and neglect to investigate it. How much quicker would we learn if we didn't write so many things off as "God did it" or "it's a miracle"?

Or it could be used to attribute a sense of awe and respect when describing any natural occurance.

We already have words for awe and respect. They're "awe" and "respect." Why use a wishy-washy word like "miracle" that doesn't fully explain what you mean?

I remember that for thousands of years, human beings got along without cell phones, cars, and the internet and found value and beauty in the blooming of a flower, the flight of a bird. They looked at the world and thought it a miraculous place, and expressed reverence and respect for it, each in their own fashion.

And fear. Would you really want to go back to a time when the average human life span was 40 years? When common causes of death were infection after a wound, influenza, and childbirth? When the average person spent 90% of their waking hours looking for food?

I'm quite glad I don't live in an earlier time. The advances in medicine and technology have allowed people in industrialized nations to have a much better standard of living than ever before. If nothing else, I wouldn't want to live in a time when tampons didn't exist.

[Hobbs]

I want to understand people. I don't get on well in social situations, and part of it is that I don't understand the religious/superstitious mindset. I want to understand, so I don't make too many faux pas.

Want to understand religion? Buy a book.

Obviously not, since she was able to get pregnant. See, once something comes into the real world, it becomes real. Natural, as opposed to supernatural.

You keep using that term; I do not think it means what you think it means. Being barren and suddenly getting pregnant...how is that natural, ever? The miracle is the conception, meaning that it's outstanding unlikely possibility was out of the realm of medical science.

Something that doctors or scientists are wrong about doesn't automatically get defined as a miracle.

Something doctors or scientists claim doesn't automatically make it the truth, either.

[Boozy]

Whether or not Kimmik's story is a "miracle" depends on what the specific issue was.

My husband and I have an issue that makes it highly unlikely we'll conceive naturally, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Doctors have told us it won't happen, but if it were to happen, it wouldn't be a miracle. We would just consider ourselves very, very lucky.

[Ghel]

We're in a closed system here.

I just realized what was bothering me about this statement. The Earth isn't a closed system. We receive energy from the Sun. Meteors collide with the Earth every day (most burn up in the atmosphere before they can strike the ground). The Earth is pulled by the gravity of the moon, Sun and the other planets.

Want to understand religion? Buy a book.

Good idea! I'm sure The God Delusion will be very enlightening.

Being barren and suddenly getting pregnant...how is that natural, ever?

In what way would it not be natural? There was no medical intervention involved. Nor was there anything that can be pointed to that could properly be called "supernatural."

Something doctors or scientists claim doesn't automatically make it the truth, either.

Of course not. The result of science isn't "truth," it's a working model of reality. How "good" the science is is determined by how well the model matches what is observed in the real world.

Doctors have told us it won't happen, but if it were to happen, it wouldn't be a miracle. We would just consider ourselves very, very lucky.

Exactly. I'm so tired of hearing people say that something that's somewhat unlikely is a miracle. Or that it's a miracle if a single person survives a horrible disaster when many (hundreds, thousands, or more) other people died.

I want to see evidence of a REAL miracle. A terrorist-controlled airplane flies through a building instead of into it. An earthquake levels a major city, but not a single life is lost. An amputee spontaneously regrows an entire limb with the same funcionality as before the amputation. But you never see solid, documented evidence of anthing like that. Yet for some reason that I can't fathom, many people still believe in miracles.

[Hobbs]

I just realized what was bothering me about this statement. The Earth isn't a closed system. We receive energy from the Sun. Meteors collide with the Earth every day (most burn up in the atmosphere before they can strike the ground). The Earth is pulled by the gravity of the moon, Sun and the other planets.

Are you saying meteors influenced our evolution, or life on earth for that matter (aside from extinction events).

Good idea! I'm sure The God Delusion will be very enlightening.

Yea, that's enlightening! Reading a book by someone who shares your ideas. Good to see you're not closed-minded like teh ebil Christians.

(I recommend Mere Christianity by CS Lewis or The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith by Peter Hitchens. That is, if you're not afraid of learning new things.)

In what way would it not be natural? There was no medical intervention involved. Nor was there anything that can be pointed to that could properly be called "supernatural."

From the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints: "quoad subiectum: the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum).

Yes, by nature Kimmik was able to concieve, but God is a natural force. His works are, by law, natural. That's why natural disasters are known as "acts of God."

Exactly. I'm so tired of hearing people say that something that's somewhat unlikely is a miracle. Or that it's a miracle if a single person survives a horrible disaster when many (hundreds, thousands, or more) other people died.

I want to see evidence of a REAL miracle. A terrorist-controlled airplane flies through a building instead of into it. An earthquake levels a major city, but not a single life is lost. An amputee spontaneously regrows an entire limb with the same funcionality as before the amputation. But you never see solid, documented evidence of anthing like that. Yet for some reason that I can't fathom, many people still believe in miracles.

Because miracles happen. How is it not a miracle that one person lived? How is it not a miracle that something extraordinary, outside of the explanation of science, happens?

Why does God need to prove anything to you? For solid evidence of a miracle, I point you to none other than Consiglia de Martino. If you can explain how her sickness was instantaneously healed, I might give you some credit.

[the_std]

Are you saying meteors influenced our evolution, or life on earth for that matter (aside from extinction events).

This is a crazy thing to say. That's like saying, "Are you saying water influenced our evolution, aside from being wet?" Extinction events massively changed the course of earth's evolution. Why would you possibly exclude that from affecting our world?

Because miracles happen. How is it not a miracle that one person lived? How is it not a miracle that something extraordinary, outside of the explanation of science, happens?

How can you say this in a debate? "It is because it is." is completely useless in a debate. And one single person surviving a natural disaster is hardly outside of the explanation of science. Air pockets, debris falling in such a way as to create a shelter, pre-existing structures providing hiding spaces... It can happen, does happen, in disasters all the time.

You are the one saying miracles exist. You are the one under the burden of proof. You are the one who has to show that what you're saying is the truth. You can't just say "How is it NOT true?" to win a debate.

[Hobbs]

This is a crazy thing to say. That's like saying, "Are you saying water influenced our evolution, aside from being wet?" Extinction events massively changed the course of earth's evolution. Why would you possibly exclude that from affecting our world?

As my psych-eval tells you, I am crazy. Ghel was speaking of daily meteor strikes, which do occur. I was asking whether she believed those were responsible for affecting our evolution.

You are the one saying miracles exist. You are the one under the burden of proof. You are the one who has to show that what you're saying is the truth. You can't just say "How is it NOT true?" to win a debate.

If you'd read my post, you would know that I asked her to discount the miracle of Consiglia de Martino. If she can't do that, and there is no way to explain her sudden cure, then it is a miracle in the eyes of the Church.

[Rebel]

This is a nice story that goes well with the argument.

Baby Falls 7 Stories

Long story short.
Toddler falls from the balcony on the 7th floor to the pavement below.
When people find him, he has remnants of his plastic diaper surrounding his body.
Everyone expects him to be dead, even the mom.
He wakes up in the ambulance.
After a Cat-Scan they find there is absolutely nothing wrong with him.

I just like how at the end it gives both views on what happened.
A - It was God or Angels that protected him.
B - As he fell, his diaper filled with air which acted as a cushion when he hit the ground, thus the remnants of diaper around his body.

Belief A helped the parents to understand how they still have their little boy. Story B helped one of the rescuers to see how it was possible for the boy to survive in a logical way.

What some people believe to be a miracle, others see as just plain luck.

[Hobbs]

What some people believe to be a miracle, others see as just plain luck.

Exactly. What's the problem with belief?

[HYHYBT]

I want to see evidence of a REAL miracle. A terrorist-controlled airplane flies through a building instead of into it. An earthquake levels a major city, but not a single life is lost. An amputee spontaneously regrows an entire limb with the same funcionality as before the amputation. But you never see solid, documented evidence of anthing like that. Yet for some reason that I can't fathom, many people still believe in miracles.

this again. From what you've stated before, if such evidence were to turn up you would simply declare either that the evidence was faked, or else that the event wasn't miraculous after all. And of course even at that your definition of a "real" miracle is not simply something that is, by the ordinary rules of physics, impossible happening anyway, but that such an event must also be one of your choosing.

[Ghel]

Are you saying meteors influenced our evolution, or life on earth for that matter ...

Yes. In addition to STD's response, the dust from meteors that burn up in our atmosphere modifies the environment, forcing species to adapt or die off.

Yea, that's enlightening! Reading a book by someone who shares your ideas.

I won't know if Dawkins shares my ideas until I've finished the book.

I recommend Mere Christianity by CS Lewis or The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith by Peter Hitchens.

Hmmm. According to the Wikipedia articles on these two books, Mere Christianity is one big argument from morality and The Rage Against God is one big argument from personal experience. Neither type of argument is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of anything. You might as well say "we should all believe in Cthulu because his law keeps us in line" or "I've seen pink elephants, so I know they exist!"

From the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints: "quoad subiectum: the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum).

How does this apply to the discussion of Kimmik's story? In Kimmik's case, "complete recovery" was not noticed before her first pregnancy, as evidenced by the description of the baby being born brain dead, unable to survive without a ventilator.

... God is a natural force. His works are, by law, natural.

You're giving God credit for naturally occurring events? If you give God credit for the good, you've got to give him credit for the bad. So if God gets credit for the healthy child, he's also got to get credit for the stillborn child. If God gets credit for the lone survivor of the airplane crash, he's got to get credit for the 100 or more deaths in the same airplane crash.

What makes the recipient of a "miracle" so special in comparison to those who didn't receive a miracle? Why does God choose that one person to survive, or to be healed, or what have you, and then allow everyone else to die, or worse, to suffer?

How is it not a miracle that something extraordinary, outside of the explanation of science, happens?

Are you saying that there are things that occur that cannot possibly ever be explained by science, now or in the future? How do you know?

Why does God need to prove anything to you?

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.

[Ghel]

From what you've stated before, if such evidence were to turn up you would simply declare either that the evidence was faked, or else that the event wasn't miraculous after all.

If such evidence were to turn up, I would want to see it independently investigated. And repeated, if possible. I would want to see if there was an explanation for it that was possible within the known laws of physics.

And of course even at that your definition of a "real" miracle is not simply something that is, by the ordinary rules of physics, impossible happening anyway, but that such an event must also be one of your choosing.

Are you saying that I would decide what is or isn't a miracle? Well, I suppose that's correct, after a fashion. I wouldn't be satisfied if somebody declared something was a miracle if it was merely unlikely. I would also be unlikely to agree that something was a miracle simply because it couldn't be explained by my understanding of science. I would wait for experts in that particular field to examine the evidence and weigh in with their conclusions. And at the last, even if it seems unexplainable by modern science, there still remains the possibility that sometime in the future science may be able to explain it. The "miracle" may be a starting point for new research that could open up whole new areas of human knowledge.

So you're right. I would be very unlikely to call anything a miracle. But as I explained in previous posts, most of the things that people call miracles are unworthy of the term "miracle."

[Hobbs]

So you're right. I would be very unlikely to call anything a miracle. But as I explained in previous posts, most of the things that people call miracles are unworthy of the term "miracle."

You pretty much supported his(?) argument. There would never be any way, even if it were possible to prove a miracle, for you to accept a miracle. The simple reason is that a miracle is subjective to you, and you cannot (ever, it seems) accept a miracle. So why continue arguing in circles? You won't learn anything.

[Hobbs]

Hmmm. According to the Wikipedia articles on these two books, Mere Christianity is one big argument from morality and The Rage Against God is one big argument from personal experience. Neither type of argument is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of anything. You might as well say "we should all believe in Cthulu because his law keeps us in line" or "I've seen pink elephants, so I know they exist!"

So, in other words, you won't even try to expand your own (lack of) belief by reading books by people who believe differently than you. Glad to see you're not closed-minded or anything.