Miracles: Myth or Fact

[Storm]

Just thought I'd jump back to this.

YAY!

Since I'd define a miracle as something like "a special exception to the normal laws of nature caused by God", IMO, a miracle is necessarily outside "the rules".

A definition which is rather nonsensical within the context of my particular brand of panentheism, don't you think?

That said, I do believe the rules are a hell of a lot weirder than you do!

In keeping with this, I also think that for us to claim a miracle, we also have to have a reasonable idea of what those "rules" are, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to say when they've been breached or not.

Granted, see above.

This is a big part of why I reject the entire idea of miracles. IMO, if an unexpected event happens, it's always more reasonable to chalk it up to our less-than-perfect understanding of the laws of nature (and try to revise our understanding to account for what happened) than it is to say that we know the laws of nature well enough to determine that the event did violate them.

... especially because the whole way that we deduce the laws of nature in the first place is by observing and measuring what happens and what doesn't. An unexpected event is just one more data point to add to the mix in figuring out how things work.

Agreed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The fact that it's a miracle is a miracle that it's a fact.

 

[outhouse]

Just thought I'd jump back to this.

Since I'd define a miracle as something like "a special exception to the normal laws of nature caused by God", IMO, a miracle is necessarily outside "the rules".

In keeping with this, I also think that for us to claim a miracle, we also have to have a reasonable idea of what those "rules" are, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to say when they've been breached or not.

This is a big part of why I reject the entire idea of miracles. IMO, if an unexpected event happens, it's always more reasonable to chalk it up to our less-than-perfect understanding of the laws of nature (and try to revise our understanding to account for what happened) than it is to say that we know the laws of nature well enough to determine that the event did violate them.

... especially because the whole way that we deduce the laws of nature in the first place is by observing and measuring what happens and what doesn't. An unexpected event is just one more data point to add to the mix in figuring out how things work.

I find this to be true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A definition which is rather nonsensical within the context of my particular brand of panentheism, don't you think?

I think it's incompatible with your definition of "miracle" at least. IMO, a "miracle that happens within the rules" would be like a "perfectly normal mutant" - it's a contradiction in terms.

You could probably speak to your beliefs better than I could - I can't remember the details well enough to say whether it allows for miracles (as I define the term) or not.

 

[outhouse]

a miracle implies a divine connection.

so far a connection has never been established for a spectacular event.

The fact ut is unexplained does not make it divine.

again this is another classic example of god of the gaps

 

[Storm]

I think it's incompatible with your definition of "miracle" at least. IMO, a "miracle that happens within the rules" would be like a "perfectly normal mutant" - it's a contradiction in terms.

You could probably speak to your beliefs better than I could - I can't remember the details well enough to say whether it allows for miracles (as I define the term) or not.

OK, fair enough.

I believe consciousness can shape energy, and in some cases matter. We do this subconsciously all the time. Doing it deliberately is magic.

Humans have a limited capacity for magic, and it's in steady decline. Other beings are far more accomplished. Jesus was such a being.

So I consider "miracles" to be acts of magic that are beyond human capacity.

Using Jesus as an example, I have no qualm believing that He could, for instance, resurrect Himself at will. That's one miracle I absolutely believe He performed. The other miracles described in the Passion may or may not have occurred.

Assuming that makes sense to you, let the debate begin!

 

[outhouse]

Jesus was such a being.

we dont know that

I believe consciousness can shape energy

examples??? besides possible fiction added to create a deity

 

[Storm]

we dont know that

I was asked to explain my beliefs, or at least the relevant portion. I did so. :slap:

examples???

The placebo effect.

besides possible fiction added to create a deity

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

 

[outhouse]

I was asked to explain my beliefs, or at least the relevant portion. I did so.

using jesus for examples of magic does not even apply. we dont know if he ever preformed a single act.

you also sated other beings, to date yeshua has never been proven to be anything more then a man

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

in study of historical jesus one looks at how man has always ceated deities and always gives them magical powers. Its human nature to try and rationalize the things we didnt know at the time.

as we progress the magic has been pushed back NOW to the big bang and its only because of the gap in our knowledge that it remains there for now. In the future this will be pushed back to.

 

[Storm]

using jesus for examples of magic does not even apply. we dont know if he ever preformed a single act.

you also sated other beings, to date yeshua has never been proven to be anything more then a man

So what? I was explaining what I believe. I don't pretend to have proof.

If you disagree, that's fine, but do not presume to correct me on the subject of my opinion.

in study of historical jesus one looks at how man has always ceated deities and always gives them magical powers. Its human nature to try and rationalize the things we didnt know at the time.

as we progress the magic has been pushed back NOW to the big bang and its only because of the gap in our knowledge that it remains there for now. In the future this will be pushed back to.

No, not really. If you're going to attempt to debate me, it would help if you actually listened to my position.

 

[outhouse]

it would help if you actually listened to my position.

bud its all good

You just used a personal example I dont find valid

 

[Storm]

bud its all good

You just used a personal example I dont find valid

No, it wasn't an example. It was an explanation of my beliefs.

I'd love to have an actual debate with you, but for that to happen, you have to respond to MY points, not what you assume or want me to say.

 

[outhouse]

No, it wasn't an example. It was an explanation of my beliefs.

Ok fair enough

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, fair enough.

I believe consciousness can shape energy, and in some cases matter. We do this subconsciously all the time. Doing it deliberately is magic.

Humans have a limited capacity for magic, and it's in steady decline. Other beings are far more accomplished. Jesus was such a being.

So I consider "miracles" to be acts of magic that are beyond human capacity.

So... combining this with your definition of "magic", I get that you consider a mirable to be something like "a deliberate shaping of energy or matter by a consciousness in a way that's beyond human capacity"... is that right?

If so, I suppose that works as a definition. My disagreements would be:

- about whether consciousness can shape energy/matter: if you're talking about something like telekinesis, then I'd say it probably can't. If you're talking about how we actualize our thoughts by manipulating the world with our physical bodies, then I'd say consciousness can do this, but I wouldn't call it "magic".

- about whether consciousnesses "beyond human capacity" exist: I'd say that we have no evidence to suggest that they do, and therefore no real reason to conclude that any particular event is the act of such a consciousness.

Put this all together, and I'd say that even with your formulation of things, I'd still consider miracles to be myth, not fact. IMO, it assumes quite a few things that I don't believe are supported.

 

[Storm]

So... combining this with your definition of "magic", I get that you consider a mirable to be something like "a deliberate shaping of energy or matter by a consciousness in a way that's beyond human capacity"... is that right?

Yes.

- about whether consciousness can shape energy/matter: if you're talking about something like telekinesis, then I'd say it probably can't.

Not exactly... I don't rule out the possibility, but nor do I accept it as a reality.

To give an example of something within normal human magical capabilities, it would be more along the lines of energy healing. Deliberately invoking the placebo effect.

Another example would be the Asian performers who channel chi to perform stunts like laying on top of a spear point without being pierced.

If you're talking about how we actualize our thoughts by manipulating the world with our physical bodies, then I'd say consciousness can do this, but I wouldn't call it "magic".

Agreed.

- about whether consciousnesses "beyond human capacity" exist: I'd say that we have no evidence to suggest that they do, and therefore no real reason to conclude that any particular event is the act of such a consciousness.

Miscommunication. It's not that consciousness is beyond human capacity. It's that certain applications of it are, like the example of Christ's resurrection.

Put this all together, and I'd say that even with your formulation of things, I'd still consider miracles to be myth, not fact. IMO, it assumes quite a few things that I don't believe are supported.

Fair enough. Seeing as I have no interest in changing your mind, I'd much rather get your feedback on my internal logic than scientific evidence.