What is a miracle?

[Ghel]

There is a huge difference between "very unlikely" and "never." It's the difference between "a human can survive being near a volcano" and "a human can survive being dropped into an erupting volcano." It's the difference between "the human body has an amazing capacity for healing itself" and "a human being can survive having his head cut off."

I still leave that small chance open that my views might be demonstrated to be incorrect. But it seems very unlikely.


[Removed comment caused by member's posts being moderated.]

[Ghel]

Glad to see you're not closed-minded or anything.

We should be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out.

I'm sorry I have to repeat myself, but to believe in something means to accept it as true. I cannot accept that something exists without evidence. Moral arguments are not sufficient evidence for existence. Arguments from personal experience are not sufficient evidence for existence.

I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that you ignored my other questions - regarding your definition of miracles, giving credit to your God, and how you know that some things can never be explained by science. If you don't have responses, I would appreciate if you would concede those points.

[Hobbs]

We should be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out.

I'm sorry I have to repeat myself, but to believe in something means to accept it as true. I cannot accept that something exists without evidence. Moral arguments are not sufficient evidence for existence. Arguments from personal experience are not sufficient evidence for existence.

I'm sorry I have to repeat myself as well; what's the harm in reading a book that proposes a view different from your own? You say you want to understand religion, and the religious...well that's not going to happen if you only read what an athiest believes about religion.

I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that you ignored my other questions - regarding your definition of miracles, giving credit to your God, and how you know that some things can never be explained by science. If you don't have responses, I would appreciate if you would concede those points.

I didn't answer because any answer I give would just be discredited with the same lack of understanding and decorum as the rest of your counter-arguments.

I don't think everything can ever be explained by science. There's a certain limit to what can be understood by humanity, in my opinion. I'm sorry I'm not as elloquent as your beloved Dawkins in how I draw my conclusions, but that's how it is.

If God isn't a natural entity, what is He? In the Christian tradition (and other Abrahamic religions) He is the one who created nature.

I concede nothing to you since you have not addressed my question about the miracle of Consiglia de Martino. If you have nothing to say on that point, I would appreciate if you would concede that miracle.

[Lachrymose]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[Hobbs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

First off, the video is pretentious. Secondly, the argument within the video itself is flawed. Yes, science promotes open-mindedness, but that doesn't mean that believing in science automatically makes you openminded. An athiest can be just as closed-minded as a person who is devoutly religious.

Being secular doesn't automatically make you better than anyone, nor does it make you superior in your thinking. Like my post about culture in another thread, such thinking is very ethno-centric.

[Sage Blackthorn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Thank you, I was contemplating posting this one myself.

To everybody:

Would it be fair to say that in speaking of "miracles" at all, we are implying a belief in the spiritual of some sort? According to Webster's Dictionary:

Definition of MIRACLE
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

So in the first sense, to speak of a "miracle" you have to accept that there is a divine intervention. If there is a devine intervention, it follows that there's a Diety who's intervening. So the existence of the Diety is implied by the use of the term in this case.

In the second sense of an outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment, this is based, as I said eariler, on ones subjective point of view of what is normal.

That said, it is pointless to argue the divine definition of miracle with an atheist, because they don't accept the existance of a diety. No diety, then by definition, no "miracle". This leaves us with the second definition, which is again subjective. The "unusual or outstanding event" which is miraculous to one person may be familiar and mundane to the next. This makes such an arguement again rather pointless, as each person is entitled to their opinion, and that opinion is valid to them based on their knowledge and life experiences.

So that leaves us with arguing solely for the fun of it, as it were......

[the_std]

If God isn't a natural entity, what is He? In the Christian tradition (and other Abrahamic religions) He is the one who created nature.

This, again, is a badly-worded argument. Just because God created nature (if he did), that does not mean he is natural. If I create a robot, does that mean I'm robotic? Nope.

[Hobbs]

This, again, is a badly-worded argument. Just because God created nature (if he did), that does not mean he is natural. If I create a robot, does that mean I'm robotic? Nope.

Then what is God? And your argument is an apples and oranges comparison. So maybe you need to word your arguments better.

[the_std]

Then what is God? And your argument is an apples and oranges comparison. So maybe you need to word your arguments better.

How is mine apples and oranges? Just because I create something does not mean I am whatever it is I create. I have no idea what God is as I do not believe in him and therefore do not care what it is. I care that your argument is flawed. Just because someone creates something does not mean they are that thing. If you think God is natural, fine, but your argument does not prove anything to that effect.

[Sage Blackthorn]

My favorite defintion of god (little 'g' kind of god, not Big "G" kind of God) is:

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

[Hobbs]

<snip>

Definition:

Nature:

2. a. A creative and controlling force in the universe

6. The external world in it's entirety

Both definitions of the word support the idea that God is a natural element of the world. Since the Christian God is a creator god (among the other Abrahamic religions) then when referring to Him as a natural force, He fits the description.

*For some reason, I can't copy/paste from the site. I chose the definitions that fit the description of God, but here is the definition of nature in it's entirety.

[Mytical]

Before I go into this, remember that faith is something that one can not prove. My thoughts on the subject are fluid and ever changing, as I question everything. Even question questioning everything.

I am not a christian. Nor do I consider myself agnostic, nor any other label anybody might choose to put on me. I believe there is a higher power. It may or may not be a conscious higher power. Ie it might just be the cosmos doing it's thing. This being is all around us, but it is not like us. It would be the same as a scientist looking at ants. We can't understand it, it can't understand us. However, there are miracles.

In 1995 (ish) I was told I had no more then 2 years (and that was stretching it) to live. My liver was failing, and because I had a inherited disease that would just destroy any other liver I was not a candidate for a transplant. There was no cure, the most they could do is 'make me comfortable'.

With no explanation, no logical reason, here I am. 15 years (ish) later. No last minute wonder drug (there still is no cure), no liver transplant. My being here defies all medical explanation. If you want proof of a miracle all you have to do is look at me. I should be dead. In fact according to the doctors, the disease is STILL there, and STILL affecting me..but no death. Liver should be nothing more then a lump. Yeah there is discomfort, and a little pain..but nothing I can not handle.

An ... energy, for lack of a better description, fills the universe. I believe that we humans can access it, even if we don't know we can or what it looks like (or much else about it). It is not a cure all, or it can't win you the lottery, or any bs like that .. but it can do some amazing things. Miracles happen every second, but most people won't even see them. Because they are 'normal' and 'explainable'. Like childbirth, like hearing the sound of birds in a meadow. Ok..enough rambling for now

[Ghel]

I concede nothing to you since you have not addressed my question about the miracle of Consiglia de Martino. If you have nothing to say on that point, I would appreciate if you would concede that miracle.

You're kidding, right? You want me to explain how a woman who had a fluid buildup on her shoulder had it healed? Well, the answer the Catholic Church gives is that she prayed, and had others pray, to a priest who had died 27 years before she became ill, and was healed by him. It seems far more likely that she simply healed naturally. In the first 10 Google hits for "Consiglia de Martino," I find only one that suggests that her illness was life-threatening or that surgery was scheduled, and that was a tourism site for the area where she lives. Or perhaps lived, as I can find no current information for her. You would think that a living woman who was healed by a saint would be quite famous, at least among Catholics.

Would it be fair to say that in speaking of "miracles" at all, we are implying a belief in the spiritual of some sort?

Ah, definitions.

1. Divine Intervention
I suppose this could be an acceptable definition of miracle, but first you would have to prove that the intervening deity existed.

2. Unusual Event
The problem with this definition is that extremely unlikely things happen all the time. For example, natural [as opposed to IVF] quadruplets are extremely unlikely, averaging about one in 705,000 births. Which means, on average, there should be 194 sets of quadruplets born every year. Does this mean that every set of quadruplets should be heralded as a miracle? No.

That leaves us with a definition of "miracle" as a "supernatural event." This I find to be a satisfying definition, if only someone could demonstrate that a supernatural event has occurred.

My favorite defintion of god (little 'g' kind of god, not Big "G" kind of God) is:

What's the difference? "god" is a thing (though as far as I can tell, an imaginary thing), and "God" is a name or title.

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

I find this to be a rather useless definition for "god" (little g or big). Is your god sentient? Is it a creator god? Does it wish to be worshiped? Does it care if we believe in it? If any of the answers are "no" then why call it god?

Both definitions of the word support the idea that God is a natural element of the world. Since the Christian God is a creator god (among the other Abrahamic religions) then when referring to Him as a natural force, He fits the description.

If God is natural, that suggests he has some effect on the natural world. 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. What evidence is there for your God that wouldn't also be evidence for Allah, Kamui, or any of the other creator gods that humans have worshiped over the millennia?

Miracles happen every second, but most people won't even see them. Because they are 'normal' and 'explainable'. Like childbirth, like hearing the sound of birds in a meadow.

If miracles are normal and explainable, why call them miracles?

[Mytical]

Ask a deaf person who hears for the first time (due to some technology or surgery or whatever). Ask a person who was told it would be impossible for them to have a child, ever. This is why they are miracles. These things we take for granted, to somebody who can not experience them for whatever reason, they can be miracles.

[Ghel]

Ask a deaf person who hears for the first time (due to some technology or surgery or whatever).

This is not a miracle. This would be an application of science. To call it a miracle is to misplace credit.

Ask a person who was told it would be impossible for them to have a child, ever.

Doctors can be wrong. They're still human.

This is why they are miracles. These things we take for granted, to somebody who can not experience them for whatever reason, they can be miracles.

I would certainly not take either of these things for granted. I worry about my health all the time, but do I pray to be healed? No. I go to the doctor, take my blood pressure medicine, and try to get more exercise. I don't wait for some supernatural event to help me. That would be a waste of time.

It really bothers me when somebody is sick (with cancer, for example), and prays to be healed but also seeks medical treatment. Then, when they are healed, they give God the credit for their recovery when it was really the doctors, nurses, and decades of research that was truly responsibly for their recovery. Let's make sure we give credit where it's really due.