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!