• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

As long unexplained miracles happen, there will always be believers

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Miracles are unexplained events with no natual causes.

That's it. Very clean cut definition.

The definition provided here is problematic. I can consider that, yes, miracles are considered unexplained events of not natural causes, but by far most unexplained events claimed as miracles today have possible natural explanations. Most common are many of the claims of healing miracles, which upon a less biased examination they have possible natural explanations. There are, of course, miraculous claims, without explanation, because of the lack of information.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Hm. I was about to quote exactly the content and source: events unexplained by natural causes...from the dictionary, but @KenS beat me to it.

Reread the post you replied to.

Miracles are events that happen outside of natural causes

The definition is subjective depending on the person. Ken believes miracles come from god; I do not. Some miracles are right in front of your face but to be grateful you got to see it beyond mundane "how are you?"

Shift your worldview and everything you are grateful for---》that wholeness and gratitude cant be explained by natural causes. Science and psychologist can study it. Our upbringing and religions can influence it, but its not a religous word and it does not need to be supernatual for it to "not be explained by natural causes."

You can make the word as grand as you like but dont discredit the people who see miracles in everything in life not just walking on water and seeing statues cry.

Read this before replying. Its short.
I would agree that even looking at the natural with wholeness and gratitutde can become just as much as a miracle from God. Even looking into the eyes of my #10 grandchild, I can say... "He's a miracle" :)

:D But I would still consider Lisette with an inoperable brain tumor with a short death sentence and then there was none a beautiful miracle too :D
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No, I think it is the choice of definition that you and Carlita are choosing that is creating the disconnect. You are still not using the word as it is being used in this post--"As long as unexplained miracles happen, there will always be believers." I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that they were not talking about the "miracle" of waking up in the morning, or a great-sounding speaker. I'm certain they were not talking about miracles in the third or fourth definition that you quoted, but in the first and second definitions--something that cannot be explained by natural laws, specifically as described in the second definition, as an event that cannot be explained by natural laws and is attributed to God.

As I said before to Carlita, if you want to use "miracle" in the third or fourth sense, then you're talking about the "It's a miracle I got home before the game started" kinds of miracles.
I have no problem with her expanding the viewpoint. :D
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
change your tone, dont insult
Hope this isnt how you speak to strangers in person :( Online doesnt excuse you from being insultful.
This is an insult.

Let's get one thing clear from jump. NOTHING I have said to you is an insult. Your own defense for using "miracle" to describe events that can be explained by natural laws is that YOU DON'T KNOW what the explanation is--therefore, it's a miracle.

When someone doesn't know something, they are said to be ignorant of it. By your own admission, you are ignorant of the natural laws that explain those events that you call "miracles." That is not the same as calling someone ignorant as an insult--using it as the equivalent of "stupid," for instance. In this case, it is a legitimate, objective description of the circumstances. It does not mean that you are stupid, it just means what you said yourself--YOU DON'T KNOW what the explanation is.

Let's proceed...

What in the world is the issue???

The issue is your insistence upon using the word "miracle" incorrectly in the context of this thread.

You told us your opinion

I have not told you any "opinions" whatsoever. I have tried to educate you regarding the definition of a miracle. The most frustrating part is that you seem to agree on the definition, that a miracle is something that cannot be explained by natural causes, but then continue to insist on applying it to things which can be explained by natural causes, like waking up in the morning.

read our post with a fresh eye not what you are expecting.

That's okay. My reading comprehension is on a level that allowed me to understand it the first time, and just in case I HAD missed it, you've repeated the error ad nauseum since.

Like the word god and deity and love, the definitions range by culture and language. Check out the definition of marriage back in the early 90s and now. Its not a clear cut word either. Language defintions like abstracts and religious words are influenced by culture. Name one definition of god that doesnt have a slant to the culture and religion deacribing it in Its own words. Miracles are no different.

Yes, and if enough people start using the word "miracle" to include those things which can be explained by natural causes, then in 50 or 500 years we might be looking back on a different definition of that word, too. But right now, in a religious context (such as the one of this thread), the word applies only to events that can NOT be explained by natural causes--so anything natural is excluded by definition.

I dont see the point youre making. I see everything as a miracle because I dont know the source/the unnatural cause behind why life and things exist. Some say god. Some, I dont know, E.T. Who knows. Unless you know, it will be a miracle (the event that lead us here) that cant be explained by natural causes. They are trying. So far, we know life comes from the sea. We havent bridge the gap between neanderthals and people today, though.

See, here again you are saying, "I don't know"--admitting ignorance--and that is the point that I was making--that ignorance of a natural cause for some event does not make it miraculous. Even if you are not familiar with the law of gravity, it's still not a miracle for a thrown ball to drop to the ground.

You are attributing the universe to a supernatural cause, but there's no reason to assume that the natural universe as a whole would have a supernatural cause. It's entirely possible (and everyone who disbelieves in a Creator believes) that the universe exists naturally--it is the nature of the universe to exist. In any case, if you're going to allow everything in the universe to be considered a miracle by virtue of the notion that the universe itself is a miracle (unable to be explained by a natural cause), then there's NOTHING left to BE a "natural cause"--so the word "miracle" becomes meaningless. If a miracle is anything that's unexplainable by natural causes, and there are no natural causes, then a miracle is anything whatsoever.

You attacking me as if Im a believer of some sort.

Once again, I am not attacking you at all; I am correcting your usage of the word "miracle."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I would agree that even looking at the natural with wholeness and gratitutde can become just as much as a miracle from God. Even looking into the eyes of my #10 grandchild, I can say... "He's a miracle" :)

:D But I would still consider Lisette with an inoperable brain tumor with a short death sentence and then there was none a beautiful miracle too :D

Yeah. I first heard a miracle when I shared somewhere about my friend. They called her Blue Baby. She is christian...believe herself some god; saved her life. She was born with conginitive heart disease. Had a stroke as an infant. Had seizures. Legally blind. Her parents were going to abort her but her father decided otherwise. She wasnt supposed to live pass about ten, says the natural laws ;) she is thirty six now, has a boyfriend, highly catholic, and felt she owed her parents, god, and St. Mary, for her life that she is internally grateful.

I mean all those things can be explained by natural causes but the miracle was more her devotion and how she loved moreso than curing her condition overnight and being able to see in a day.

My tomayto is another person's toematoe.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
http://www.sgbcmodesto.com/Audio/Non...tVisualExt=jpg

The actual interview starts around the 3 minute mark and the recording of his voice being restored "live" at the 11:40 mark.

Not only restored, but doctors found no evidence or scars that something had ever happened. Doctors didn't understand why.

There was no incision or tear, why would there have to be scars? So he got an infection and after taking medication, it healed. The nerves took longer to regenerate. I severed the nerves in my wrist and lost feeling in most of my right hand. The doctor who did the surgery told me although the would would heal in a few weeks, the nerves take much longer, in this case, about a year and a half. And that is what happened.

Why would anyone attribute this to the supernatural?

This is nothing more than a classic case of an argument from ignorance, essentially, " I don't know how it happened, therefore god."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Let's get one thing clear from jump. NOTHING I have said to you is an insult. Your own defense for using "miracle" to describe events that can be explained by natural laws is that YOU DON'T KNOW what the explanation is--therefore, it's a miracle.

When someone doesn't know something, they are said to be ignorant of it. By your own admission, you are ignorant of the natural laws that explain those events that you call "miracles." That is not the same as calling someone ignorant as an insult--using it as the equivalent of "stupid," for instance. In this case, it is a legitimate, objective description of the circumstances. It does not mean that you are stupid, it just means what you said yourself--YOU DON'T KNOW what the explanation is.

Let's proceed...



The issue is your insistence upon using the word "miracle" incorrectly in the context of this thread.



I have not told you any "opinions" whatsoever. I have tried to educate you regarding the definition of a miracle. The most frustrating part is that you seem to agree on the definition, that a miracle is something that cannot be explained by natural causes, but then continue to insist on applying it to things which can be explained by natural causes, like waking up in the morning.



That's okay. My reading comprehension is on a level that allowed me to understand it the first time, and just in case I HAD missed it, you've repeated the error ad nauseum since.



Yes, and if enough people start using the word "miracle" to include those things which can be explained by natural causes, then in 50 or 500 years we might be looking back on a different definition of that word, too. But right now, in a religious context (such as the one of this thread), the word applies only to events that can NOT be explained by natural causes--so anything natural is excluded by definition.



See, here again you are saying, "I don't know"--admitting ignorance--and that is the point that I was making--that ignorance of a natural cause for some event does not make it miraculous. Even if you are not familiar with the law of gravity, it's still not a miracle for a thrown ball to drop to the ground.

You are attributing the universe to a supernatural cause, but there's no reason to assume that the natural universe as a whole would have a supernatural cause. It's entirely possible (and everyone who disbelieves in a Creator believes) that the universe exists naturally--it is the nature of the universe to exist. In any case, if you're going to allow everything in the universe to be considered a miracle by virtue of the notion that the universe itself is a miracle (unable to be explained by a natural cause), then there's NOTHING left to BE a "natural cause"--so the word "miracle" becomes meaningless. If a miracle is anything that's unexplainable by natural causes, and there are no natural causes, then a miracle is anything whatsoever.



Once again, I am not attacking you at all; I am correcting your usage of the word "miracle."

How are you correcting me?

You use miracle for divine and things like that. Things Im "robbing" from you type of thing. Never heard such a thing.

The usages: is dependent on langauge, culture, and common use of the word. English can use deity, god, and divine in ways that have nothing to do with religion. Miracles in English czn be liked to fairies and magic and other cases just seeing a baby born or the OP example.

The word you are arguing about has many usages especially by country. You have surface dictionary definition of the word.

Its not like the word wall which has a static meaning...well, if not referring to wall flower or wallstreet for that matter.

You have to go beyond that.

Have you experienced a miracle before?
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
How are you correcting me?

And you want ME to re-read YOUR posts?

Have you experienced a miracle before?

Possibly, but I was under the influence of LSD at the time, so it's also possible that I'm just ignorant to the natural explanation of the event.

At the time, I believed that hallucinogenic drugs were valid tools for achieving spiritual insight, a la the Native American practices of using psilocybin and mescaline for holy ceremonies and rituals--and that is how I used them, with the intention of determining spiritual truths, not just to "party."

So there was this one night when I was struggling with whether or not to retain Christianity as my primary framework for interpreting spirituality, and while under the influence, I tried the ol' "open the Bible to any page and put your finger on a verse for inspiration" trick--but I never got to putting my finger on a verse. When I opened the Bible, one verse appeared to me as if it was in boldface type--and I don't have a Bible that uses boldface type for any kind of emphasis. I looked at the back of the page, to see if there was a picture or other dark block that might make the words on the other side seem darker, but the other side of the page just had normal print on it.

I was familiar with the type of hallucinations that LSD typically produced--very fluid, shifting representations of reality--but this was not like that. The words that appeared in boldface were distinct, the emphasis was not moving around to other words--it stayed in one place--and it encompassed one single, distinct verse--1 John 2:27 (I was using the Amplified Bible):

"But as for you, the anointing (the sacred appointment, the unction) which you received from Him abides [permanently] in you; [so] then you have no need that anyone should instruct you. But just as His anointing teaches you concerning everything and is true and is no falsehood, so you must abide in (live in, never depart from) Him [being rooted in Him, knit to Him], just as [His anointing] has taught you [to do]."

The perception persisted even after closing the Bible and looking up the verse a few more times--but the next day, the verse appeared normal, in type indistinguishable from the rest of the page again.

I have never seriously considered abandoning Christianity since then.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
And you want ME to re-read YOUR posts?



Possibly, but I was under the influence of LSD at the time, so it's also possible that I'm just ignorant to the natural explanation of the event.

At the time, I believed that hallucinogenic drugs were valid tools for achieving spiritual insight, a la the Native American practices of using psilocybin and mescaline for holy ceremonies and rituals--and that is how I used them, with the intention of determining spiritual truths, not just to "party."

So there was this one night when I was struggling with whether or not to retain Christianity as my primary framework for interpreting spirituality, and while under the influence, I tried the ol' "open the Bible to any page and put your finger on a verse for inspiration" trick--but I never got to putting my finger on a verse. When I opened the Bible, one verse appeared to me as if it was in boldface type--and I don't have a Bible that uses boldface type for any kind of emphasis. I looked at the back of the page, to see if there was a picture or other dark block that might make the words on the other side seem darker, but the other side of the page just had normal print on it.

I was familiar with the type of hallucinations that LSD typically produced--very fluid, shifting representations of reality--but this was not like that. The words that appeared in boldface were distinct, the emphasis was not moving around to other words--it stayed in one place--and it encompassed one single, distinct verse--1 John 2:27 (I was using the Amplified Bible):

"But as for you, the anointing (the sacred appointment, the unction) which you received from Him abides [permanently] in you; [so] then you have no need that anyone should instruct you. But just as His anointing teaches you concerning everything and is true and is no falsehood, so you must abide in (live in, never depart from) Him [being rooted in Him, knit to Him], just as [His anointing] has taught you [to do]."

The perception persisted even after closing the Bible and looking up the verse a few more times--but the next day, the verse appeared normal, in type indistinguishable from the rest of the page again.

I have never seriously considered abandoning Christianity since then.

Well, there ya go. Sounds like the same line of thought in the OP. Before I was christian, I was walking in the city from work. A lot of homeless people around here. One occasion I was walking and saw this on a cardboard a person was holding. Many have things written like need money but this in just had one verse: Galations 2:20

I was crucified in christ. The life I lived is no longer I, but christ who lives in me. Insofar, I live not for myself but for the son of god.

A year or so later, I became Catholic. The sacraments were miracles so was my spiritual growth both explained by natural causes. Coincedence happen like in your story is the same coinsedence that happen in another persons experiences. We all live in a world thst is not all explained by natural causes. Your definition may have to do with god but the fact is there is no god nor supernatural in the definition of miracles.

That being the case, your miracle experience is just as good as mine. We arent aliens to each other. I dont attribute it to god. You probably do.

Nothing wrong with that. The word miracle isnt owned by one faith neither is god nor marriage for that matter. Enjoy life for its unseen things that influenced the seen rather than defining things supernatural and divine apart from natural causes. To me, that depreciates life.

But Im never rude about it. Good you have an experience. Not many people do.

Edit.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
Your definition may have to do with god but the fact is there is no god nor supernatural in the definition of miracles.

Agreed. Well, partially agreed, anyway. Miracles need have nothing to do with any god. But they DO have to do with the supernatural--because if it's not supernatural, it's natural--and therefore, not miraculous.

As I've said before, my definition is the same as yours--something that can't be explained by natural causes. Your mistake is thinking that just because you don't know the natural explanation, that there isn't one--and for everything you have cited so far, there is a natural explanation--not even a complicated one.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Agreed. Well, partially agreed, anyway. Miracles need have nothing to do with any god. But they DO have to do with the supernatural--because if it's not supernatural, it's natural--and therefore, not miraculous.

As I've said before, my definition is the same as yours--something that can't be explained by natural causes. Your mistake is thinking that just because you don't know the natural explanation, that there isn't one--and for everything you have cited so far, there is a natural explanation--not even a complicated one.

I do not seperate the the two. If there is one, so be. If there isnt, so be. I wouldnt Know until I figure it out myself. I dont all of the sudden believe god (or supernatural) happen just because I cant explain it. We have coinsedences all the time in your case and mine but what makes it a miracle is not so much the dictionary definition, wed both be wrong, but the context and way we interpret our experiences. It becomes personal

Beyond the cultural non static dictionary definition.

I just dont see life and natural causes mundane. Given I dont see that, how can I logically understand the difference when I need to know the mundane in order to know what is a miracle, magic, or just plain life.

I need that mundane prerequiste belief to understand what you mean by miracld. I dont have that.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
I do not seperate the the two. If there is one, so be. If there isnt, so be.

And therein lies your error. Natural events have natural explanations. Miracles do not. To use the words correctly, you must separate the two.

I dont all of the sudden believe god (or supernatural) happen just because I cant explain it.

Yes, you do. Maybe not the god part, but if you're claiming that something is a miracle, then you are claiming there is no natural explanation for it--that is, that the explanation is supernatural. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a miracle, in which case the explanation is supernatural, or it's not a miracle. You can't say it's both a miracle and a natural phenomenon.

We have coinsedences all the time in your case and mine but what makes it a miracle is not so much the dictionary definition, wed both be wrong, but the context and way we interpret our experiences. It becomes personal

Beyond the cultural non static dictionary definition.

No, it's not a matter of personal interpretation. What makes a word meaningful is its dictionary definition. We would not both be wrong by appealing to the dictionary definition; I would be right, and you would be wrong.

Meanings may change, over time, but for now, the meaning of a "miracle" (in the context of this thread) is an event that does not have a natural explanation. It is not a matter of interpretation or personal preference or cultural bias.

I just dont see life and natural causes mundane.

Oh good, you're introducing another word that you don't seem to understand. Sigh. The dictionary definition of "mundane" is "lacking interest or excitement; dull." (Well, unless you mean the second definition, but then you would be saying that you see life and natural causes as being "of the heavenly or spiritual world, rather than the earthly one," and that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.)

Just because the natural world is not miraculous doesn't mean that it's not interesting or exciting. As I said before, the physical universe is pretty amazing--it's just not miraculous, by definition. But whether you see life and natural causes as interesting or not, what you do have to see them as is "NATURAL"--and therefore, not miraculous.

Given I dont see that, how can I logically understand the difference when I need to know the mundane in order to know what is a miracle, magic, or just plain life.

I need that mundane prerequiste belief to understand what you mean by miracld.

No, you do not need to know what is uninteresting or unexciting in order to know what is natural and what is not.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
Rats. I thought I said the last word.

Oh no. You can't weasel your way out of reality with a bunch of hand-waving and misdirection. I intend to continue returning you to the fact(s) of your error(s) until you stop pretending that your position is rationally defensible (or at least until you prove me wrong by defending it rationally).


Yep; or errors, as the case may be.

Not an error if you read my post.

Well, that's why you should read MY post, now isn't it--so that you can understand the error(s)? You're clearly not acknowledging them on your own.

Supernatural is different than just not being explained by natural causes.

ERROR!

Nope, that is EXACTLY what "supernatural" means!

Again. Life doesnt have a "natural cause". Its a cycle of one thing forming, exploding, and combining continuously before and after the last human standing. So, anything we do is a continuation of one thing to another. No cause. Since circles dont have a starting point, like life, it would be silly to say there is unless I know everything so much as to make circles with a starting point and still call it a circle.

Circle of Life, Lion King, Hakuna Matata, whatever. The universe DOES have a starting point (and this is true even if you believe in and endless cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches accordioning back and forth in time) and the process by which the universe started is either a natural one or a supernatural one. If you believe the universe exists by means of a supernatural process--and therefore you can call everything in it a "miracle"--then nothing ever has to be explained by "natural" processes--because there really ARE no natural processes--everything in the universe can be called a miracle! If you believe the universe exists by means of a natural process, then everything that occurs normally, naturally and replicably within it--like waking up in the morning--is a natural process and not a miracle.

If you observe something that is predicted by natural processes, like your survival until morning, you have no grounds to make the case that you have experienced a miracle. If you observe something that strongly violates natural processes, like someone coming back to life after three days, THEN you might have a miracle on your hands--or there could just be a natural process in play that you don't understand yet, but at least you can make the case.

If anything, the term miracle doesnt make sense. Unless you Know every single thing about life, everything can be a product of a miracle.

ERROR!

The term "miracle" makes a lot of sense if you abide by its definition. If you can make it mean anything you want, then not so much. Again, you don't have to KNOW the explanation for there to be one. You could be a rock on a mountaintop somewhere, unaware of any natural processes at all, and still, your eventual fall down the mountainside would still be attributable to the natural process of gravity--and not a miracle, in any sense of the word.

How so you call what happened to you a miracle (as I asked snd thats your example) when it needs to be defined by the dictionary?

What did you experience since that example of a miracle isnt defined in the dictionary

If you'll recall, I didn't assert that it WAS a miracle. You asked if I had ever experienced one, and I said that it was possible that I had, but it was also possible that I just didn't understand the natural explanation for what I had experienced. In any case, what I experienced seemed to strongly violate natural processes, as I understand them; thus, there is the possibility that the experience does not have a natural explanation.

Deity, god, miracle, blessing, etc do Not have fixed meanings.

ERROR!

Yes, they do; that's how we know what someone means when they use those words.

deity - a god or goddess

god - a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers

miracle - a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws

blessing - favor or protection given by a deity

There is no "for now." Everything changes daily.

ERROR!

Seriously? Many philosophers would argue that all we ever HAVE is an eternal "now," but that's kind of beside the point. Are you seriously arguing that the meanings of words are not stable enough to mean the same thing from one day to the next? That one might come here tomorrow and find all these words to be completely nonsensical? And therefore maybe by the time I get done setting you straight, the meaning of "miracle" might have changed in your favor? That's some mighty furious hand-waving.

Years ago there wasnt such thing as a blackberry. Today, not many youngins know what a payphone is. Really, they dont. (City area of the state)

So? A miracle still means the same thing now that it did then. Smokescreen penetrated.

Culture, interpretation, language ALL are part of a definition of a word. Its not isolated. We form definitions. If it were fixed, the "word of god" wouldnt have thousands of translations-if words are static, one translation in each language is good enough.

ERROR!

The "word of God" is of course not a word, but an awful lot of words, forming provocative phrases and entire passages which have challenged scholars to try to interpret them as a whole for centuries. But there's not much disagreement about translating any single word in the Bible. And here, we don't even have to worry about trying to translate the word "miracle" into another language--we're only talking about what it means in the ENGLISH language.

Here we go with the insults and sarcasm. Makes it hard to take gour critics seriously.

ERROR!

You still have not been insulted. You have, however, also been corrected regarding your use of the word "mundane." It's thinking errors like this that make your arguments hard to take seriously.

You are putting your own conclusions to what I said and then critizing what you think I mean by your summary.

Basicaly, summarizing what you think I said then insult your interpretation of what I said without asking for clarificafion.

I would ask about it but the insults are throwing me off from your points.

You are talking about this block of quoted text:

"Just because the natural world is not miraculous doesn't mean that it's not interesting or exciting.
As I said before, the physical universe is pretty amazing--it's just not miraculous, by definition. But whether you see life and natural causes as interesting or not, what you do have to see them as is "NATURAL"--and therefore, not miraculous."

Please tell me what you see in there that leads you to believe I was personally insulting you.

I was explaining to you the ramifications of using "mundane" to describe the world--that you were saying that it was not interesting or exciting--but then showed you how it didn't matter if that's what you meant or not. So if I put words in your mouth by explaining what your use of "mundane" implied, then at least my criticism is not leveled against those words. My criticism is that you refuse to see natural causes as being natural. So your accusation that I've built and attacked a straw man here is in...

ERROR!

When I asked you if you experienced a miracle, you shared your experience. Even though YOU thought it was from god, doesnt mean there wasnt a natural cause. You cant call it a miracle unless you know there are natural causes. Its your bias and interpretation of that miracle that to me could be coinsedence but to you from god.

How would I know if you experienced a miracle without you depending on your own interpretation and bias to define it as such?

If your experience was a miracle, explain it to me thats beyond coinsedence and your interpretation of your experience.

ERROR!
ERROR!
ERROR!


Let's review.

Have you experienced a miracle before?
Possibly, but I was under the influence of LSD at the time, so it's also possible that I'm just ignorant to the natural explanation of the event.

I did not claim it WAS a miracle, I didn't claim that it was from God, I didn't claim there was no natural cause. I explicitly stated just the opposite, in fact.

I see everything as a miracle because there are many things in life that have no source (circle).

ERROR!

Can you support your claim? Name one thing in this physical universe that has no source--i.e., something that comes from nothing. If you can name one, then you do indeed have a pretty good argument for a miracle on your hands. But... that still wouldn't mean that EVERYTHING qualifies as a miracle, even if some things do.

Natural causes and supernatural roll into onem

ERROR!

No they don't. Natural is still natural, and supernatural is still supernatural. If they were the same, they wouldn't be different.

You dont have to agree but cool it with the insults.

Can you support your claim? Can you point to any text of mine that attacks you personally, rather than criticizing your ideas? Or is this just another...

ERROR!
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Oh no. You can't weasel your way out of reality with a bunch of hand-waving and misdirection. I intend to continue returning you to the fact(s) of your error(s) until you stop pretending that your position is rationally defensible (or at least until you prove me wrong by defending it rationally).



Yep; or errors, as the case may be.



Well, that's why you should read MY post, now isn't it--so that you can understand the error(s)? You're clearly not acknowledging them on your own.



ERROR!

Nope, that is EXACTLY what "supernatural" means!



Circle of Life, Lion King, Hakuna Matata, whatever. The universe DOES have a starting point (and this is true even if you believe in and endless cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches accordioning back and forth in time) and the process by which the universe started is either a natural one or a supernatural one. If you believe the universe exists by means of a supernatural process--and therefore you can call everything in it a "miracle"--then nothing ever has to be explained by "natural" processes--because there really ARE no natural processes--everything in the universe can be called a miracle! If you believe the universe exists by means of a natural process, then everything that occurs normally, naturally and replicably within it--like waking up in the morning--is a natural process and not a miracle.

If you observe something that is predicted by natural processes, like your survival until morning, you have no grounds to make the case that you have experienced a miracle. If you observe something that strongly violates natural processes, like someone coming back to life after three days, THEN you might have a miracle on your hands--or there could just be a natural process in play that you don't understand yet, but at least you can make the case.



ERROR!

The term "miracle" makes a lot of sense if you abide by its definition. If you can make it mean anything you want, then not so much. Again, you don't have to KNOW the explanation for there to be one. You could be a rock on a mountaintop somewhere, unaware of any natural processes at all, and still, your eventual fall down the mountainside would still be attributable to the natural process of gravity--and not a miracle, in any sense of the word.



If you'll recall, I didn't assert that it WAS a miracle. You asked if I had ever experienced one, and I said that it was possible that I had, but it was also possible that I just didn't understand the natural explanation for what I had experienced. In any case, what I experienced seemed to strongly violate natural processes, as I understand them; thus, there is the possibility that the experience does not have a natural explanation.



ERROR!

Yes, they do; that's how we know what someone means when they use those words.

deity - a god or goddess

god - a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers

miracle - a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws

blessing - favor or protection given by a deity



ERROR!

Seriously? Many philosophers would argue that all we ever HAVE is an eternal "now," but that's kind of beside the point. Are you seriously arguing that the meanings of words are not stable enough to mean the same thing from one day to the next? That one might come here tomorrow and find all these words to be completely nonsensical? And therefore maybe by the time I get done setting you straight, the meaning of "miracle" might have changed in your favor? That's some mighty furious hand-waving.



So? A miracle still means the same thing now that it did then. Smokescreen penetrated.



ERROR!

The "word of God" is of course not a word, but an awful lot of words, forming provocative phrases and entire passages which have challenged scholars to try to interpret them as a whole for centuries. But there's not much disagreement about translating any single word in the Bible. And here, we don't even have to worry about trying to translate the word "miracle" into another language--we're only talking about what it means in the ENGLISH language.



ERROR!

You still have not been insulted. You have, however, also been corrected regarding your use of the word "mundane." It's thinking errors like this that make your arguments hard to take seriously.



You are talking about this block of quoted text:

"Just because the natural world is not miraculous doesn't mean that it's not interesting or exciting.
As I said before, the physical universe is pretty amazing--it's just not miraculous, by definition. But whether you see life and natural causes as interesting or not, what you do have to see them as is "NATURAL"--and therefore, not miraculous."

Please tell me what you see in there that leads you to believe I was personally insulting you.

I was explaining to you the ramifications of using "mundane" to describe the world--that you were saying that it was not interesting or exciting--but then showed you how it didn't matter if that's what you meant or not. So if I put words in your mouth by explaining what your use of "mundane" implied, then at least my criticism is not leveled against those words. My criticism is that you refuse to see natural causes as being natural. So your accusation that I've built and attacked a straw man here is in...

ERROR!



ERROR!
ERROR!
ERROR!


Let's review.




I did not claim it WAS a miracle, I didn't claim that it was from God, I didn't claim there was no natural cause. I explicitly stated just the opposite, in fact.



ERROR!

Can you support your claim? Name one thing in this physical universe that has no source--i.e., something that comes from nothing. If you can name one, then you do indeed have a pretty good argument for a miracle on your hands. But... that still wouldn't mean that EVERYTHING qualifies as a miracle, even if some things do.



ERROR!

No they don't. Natural is still natural, and supernatural is still supernatural. If they were the same, they wouldn't be different.



Can you support your claim? Can you point to any text of mine that attacks you personally, rather than criticizing your ideas? Or is this just another...

ERROR!

What the hell????

You must have a passion for this word :rolleyes:

Im scared to reply. Ha. Youd probably go through another rant instead conversing like a normal person word. RF isnt an excuse to be rude. :confused: Sometimes I wonder.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I believe it is. Miracles of the kind performed by Jesus and his apostles do not happen today. The holy spirit does not fail and there are other explanations that fit what people are experiencing more accurately.
Jesus is alive, and He is the same yesterday and today. Miracles have not ceased.

You don't have to believe it, but for those who receive it, receive the blessing.

Miracles were performed only for the benefit of unbelievers. This was to give glory to God, not Jesus.
Scriptural reference? Was Mary and Martha unbelievers when Jesus raised Lazarus?

Matthew 15:30-31..."And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, 31 so that the crowd wondered, when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled healthy, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel."

There were no miracles performed in the first century that were for the benefit of those who already believed that Jesus was the Messiah. This scripture in context does not mean what you imply.
Beg to differ. "In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor.". Notice that Dorcas WAS A DISCIPLE. The believers went to Peter and God raised her from the dead.

Matthew 13: 53-58 (ESV)..."And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief."

Where was he? And what did he say about those people as to why he chose not to perform miracles there?
He was in the place where he grew up. The people there just saw him as "the carpenter's son". Jesus was not "honored" there because of their familiarity with him. His own family members (apart from his mother) did not yet accept him as Messiah. Their witness would have to wait a while until Jesus' works were more widely broadcast and their pre-conceptions broken down.
58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief."]

It is self explanatory

58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
The woman in this account had exhausted all her finances trying to get healed from her affliction, but she only got worse. She had heard about the teacher and felt confident that this one could heal her.
Mark 5:27..."She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well."

What did Jesus say?
Mark 5:30..."Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?”

Once she confessed, Jesus said...“Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

He did not heal her intentionally....her faith drew the healing power from him. He felt the power go out of him.

So again, I believe you are misreading the scripture.
Exactly. FAITH drew it out. Heb 11:6 "WITHOUT faith it is impossible to please God". The others touched but without faith.

This account (in plain English ESV) reads..."And someone from the crowd answered him, “Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a spirit that makes him mute. 18 And whenever it seizes him, it throws him down, and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid. So I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able.”

This was the expulsion of a demon....a particularly powerful one. When Jesus expelled it, the boy appeared to be dead, but Jesus raised him up, cured of his affliction.
Later it says...."And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” 29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”
You missed the point. You said the Holy Spirit cannot fail... The apostles failed (not the Holy Spirit) and so can we. We have a part to play.

The devil has not changed his tactics since Eden. He lies and deceives and paints himself as "an angel of light" to get people to believe his side of the story. He puts temptations in our path in an attempt to create a wedge between us and God.

One of his favorite tactics is to sever people's relationship with God by getting them to break God's laws.
Just before entering the Promised Land, many of the Israelite men fell away to the immoral advances of the Moabite women who supposedly came to offer them friendship and comfort. They were seduced into joining in false worship and immoral sex. 24,000 lost their lives on that occasion.

It is interesting that when Jesus comes as judge, "many" who claim him as their "Lord" will be rejected as "workers of lawlessness". (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus says that he NEVER knew these ones.....yet they seem unaware of why Jesus is rebuking them. They even enumerate the many things they did "in his name", "powerful works" being one of their appeals. They are 'good Christians' in their own eyes, but not in the eyes of God. How can this be? They are hoodwinked by the devil because of who and what, they want to believe.

It is because of the foretold apostasy that was to take place after the death of Jesus and the apostles....and after the last book of the Bible was penned. What happened to Judaism, was repeated by Christendom. Just as the Jews saw no wrong in what they were doing and teaching in Jesus' day, so Christendom sees no wrong in her teachings today either. It is all they have ever known. Each had slowly led their flocks down the wrong path by introducing "the traditions of men" and teaching them as doctrines.

Only when a person knows the truth, can they escapes from "Babylon the great"...the devil's world empire of false religion. (Revelation 18:4-5) Unless people know what Babylon the great is, they will remain her prisoner and continue their lawlessness.
confused0036.gif
I agree about the angel of light. Satan always tries to imitate what God does. Which means God is still doing it.

We haven't broken any of God's laws because we still follow what Jesus said "Preach the Gospel and heal the sick".
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There was no incision or tear, why would there have to be scars? So he got an infection and after taking medication, it healed. The nerves took longer to regenerate. I severed the nerves in my wrist and lost feeling in most of my right hand. The doctor who did the surgery told me although the would would heal in a few weeks, the nerves take much longer, in this case, about a year and a half. And that is what happened.

Why would anyone attribute this to the supernatural?

This is nothing more than a classic case of an argument from ignorance, essentially, " I don't know how it happened, therefore god."
Hardly. The doctors EXPECTED to see evidence of a throat condition. I will opt for the view of the doctors who were experts in their field.

Thus... supernatural
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
TONE IT DOWN AND THEN TALK
Tone it down and then talk

::: shrug ::: You're just redefining the word "miracle" to mean anything that seems fortuitous to you.

Nope. Miracle, like god and blessings, are defined by culture and origin of language. Toemayto, tomatoe

The beauty of nature is, by definition, NATURAL!

Don't need to yell. I get it. :rolleyes:

Well, you've certainly spent a lot of time and effort trying to justify your disregard, if not ignorance, of the definition

Thank you for the insult. :rolleyes:

In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen someone so passionately invested in using a word incorrectly before. Kudos to the strength of your will, if not the acuity of your reasoning.

Thanks??

Well, you and @Carlita can form a movement to redefine the word "miracle" and then you'll both be right--but until then, you'll have to be content with your unjustified chutzpah in taking liberties with the English language.

Seems to be a problem for you. Got to understand language and culture before you attack my facts.

Now you're cooking with gas. So that disqualifies most of your examples of "miracles."

Then why are you attacking me and what I say?

You got to go deeper.

You are determined to use it incorrectly, and justify that by claiming that all kinds of things that we CAN explain by natural laws are somehow "unexplainable mysteries," but ignorance of the explanation doesn't mean that they are unexplainable by natural laws. Anything natural (like life) is, by definition, explainable by natural laws.

So you know everything about life?

I know what I experience doesn't have natural causes. I also believe anything I do is a miracle because life has no natural cause. It has no cause.

You're not getting my point. Looker deeper. See the big picture. :rolleyes:

Not at all. It just makes you ignorant of the natural laws that govern your life.

Thanks for the insult. We disagree doesn't mean you are ignorant nor does it mean I am. Cut it.

Let's get one thing clear from jump. NOTHING I have said to you is an insult

HAHA Okay. Believe that.

Your own defense for using "miracle" to describe events that can be explained by natural laws is that YOU DON'T KNOW what the explanation is--therefore, it's a miracle.

Thanks for the insult.

Why caps it? Why bold?

Unnecessary. :(

It does not mean that you are stupid, it just means what you said yourself--YOU DON'T KNOW what the explanation is.

If I knew, I might see if there are natural causes. Since I don't know (like your experience) and there are no natural causes I can pick up to justify whether I know or not, the best I can do is go by what I DO know and put the pieces together. I don't use the word miracle a lot; but, since that's a hot word for you, I'll use something else.

I have not told you any "opinions" whatsoever. I have tried to educate you regarding the definition of a miracle.

Thanks for the insult.

That's okay. My reading comprehension is on a level that allowed me to understand it the first time, and just in case I HAD missed it, you've repeated the error ad nauseum since.

I not someone who insults; so, I'll say no comment instead.

See, here again you are saying, "I don't know"--admitting ignorance--and that is the point that I was making--that ignorance of a natural cause for some event does not make it miraculous. Even if you are not familiar with the law of gravity, it's still not a miracle for a thrown ball to drop to the ground.

The colors are distracting your point.

Once again, I am not attacking you at all; I am correcting your usage of the word "miracle."

You can do that without colors, bold, and caps though. No calling me ignorant and no teaching me something you think I don't know.

Then we can talk.

And you want ME to re-read YOUR posts?

In context.

Possibly, but I was under the influence of LSD at the time, so it's also possible that I'm just ignorant to the natural explanation of the event.

Hmmm. (Looks over your thread) No comment.

As I've said before, my definition is the same as yours--something that can't be explained by natural causes. Your mistake is thinking that just because you don't know the natural explanation, that there isn't one--and for everything you have cited so far, there is a natural explanation--not even a complicated one.

Better way to phrase it: We have the same definition, and I notice the definition you use is incorrect. What you are describing does have natural causes. How do you connect your experiences as miracles.

This addresses my statements not me specifically and not my knowledge level.

Oh no. You can't weasel your way out of reality with a bunch of hand-waving and misdirection. I intend to continue returning you to the fact(s) of your error(s) until you stop pretending that your position is rationally defensible (or at least until you prove me wrong by defending it rationally).

No insults. Address the information.

ERROR!

Nope, that is EXACTLY what "supernatural" means!

NOW THAT is an insult.

Read your posts, tone it down, then come back to me.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
?? Divine isnt god. If someone cant see the beauty how do you define that as a miracle? Many who see beauty find what they see a miracle whether it has a source depends on the persons belief.

Usually miracles, the details, are defined person to person regardless if there is a god or just being thankful as its own benefit.

Dont understand what you mean.
"Miracle" to me implies that God suspended the normal laws of nature to make it happen.

Someone who appreciates beauty can just say "this thing is beautiful." It's the person who can't appreciate the thing's beauty who says "this thing is a miracle, therefore it's beautiful."
 
Top