Miracles

[frbnsn]

Miracles are a subset of the set of all magic things.

Magic is altering reality independently of the rules of physics, especially just by wishing eg 'Let there be light'.

There are no authenticated cases of magic, hence none of miracles. Or as someone once said, Why can't God heal amputees?

What about Moses opening water? how do you explain with the laws of physics?

 

[Valjean]

Not really because God is the cause

A providence is where God works according to the laws of nature
A miracle is where God sets aside the normal order of things

In the end there still is a cause

The Super Epic Psalms book 1- what the longer Psalm point to

What about Moses opening water? how do you explain with the laws of physics?

No need to, it's folklore, as may be Moses himself.

 

[frbnsn]

The Creator of causality can bend his own creations where He wishes and How He wishes.

I don't aggree at all.
We learn from nature that God has created, God should have created (creating) according to a reason, not like a magician!

 

[frbnsn]

No need to, it's folklore, as may be Moses himself.

I don't see it folklore, isn't it in the Holy Book?

 

[frbnsn]

I would say’not contrary’ but rather including causes not perceptible through our physical-level senses.

Do you believe that God may violate its own principles or has not a principle?

 

[blü 2]

What about Moses opening water?

I've read various hypotheses on that, one that the colossal Thera (Minoan) cataclysm c. 1600-1500 BCE caused a withdrawal of water before the tsunami.

But the archaeological evidence since then says there was neither an Egyptian captivity nor an Exodus nor a Moses (whose existence as an historical figure has anyway been questioned on textual grounds since the 18th century); rather there was an Egyptian occupation of the eastern end of the Mediterranean / Canaan.

how do you explain with the laws of physics?

As far as we can tell they come in the same box that brought us the Big Bang and our universe. (I'd be inclined to phrase that as, they express our understanding of properties of mass-energy.)

 

[frbnsn]

I've read various hypotheses on that, one that the colossal Thera (Minoan) cataclysm c. 1600-1500 BCE caused a withdrawal of water before the tsunami.

But the archaeological evidence since then says there was neither an Egyptian captivity nor an Exodus nor a Moses (whose existence as an historical figure has anyway been questioned on textual grounds since the 18th century); rather there was an Egyptian occupation of the eastern end of the Mediterranean / Canaan.
As far as we can tell they come in the same box that brought us the Big Bang and our universe. (I'd be inclined to phrase that as, they express our understanding of properties of mass-energy.)

Iam not sure your archeological evidence.
One time I had read that the name of Moses was written in ancient papyrus tablets.
The Bible and the Quran accept the existence of Moses and the children of Israel (after the old covenant).

 

[Valjean]

I don't see it folklore, isn't it in the Holy Book?

You mean the Holy Book of Abrahamic folklore? It's a wonderful anthology of ancient literature, but hardly an authoritative historical or scientific tome.

 

[Valjean]

I don't aggree at all.
We learn from nature that God has created, God should have created (creating) according to a reason, not like a magician!

I don't think Nature teaches us anything of the sort. How does Nature support a God concept? What does "according to a reason" mean?
Divine creation, as depicted in the Bible, seems very magical.

 

[frbnsn]

Not really because God is the cause

A providence is where God works according to the laws of nature
A miracle is where God sets aside the normal order of things

In the end there still is a cause

The Super Epic Psalms book 1- what the longer Psalm point to

According to me, God has put laws on matter and He never violates His/Her principles.
Every phenomenon has a physical explanation.

 

[frbnsn]

I don't think Nature teaches us anything of the sort. How does Nature support a God concept? What does "according to reason mean?"
Divine creation, as depicted in the Bible, seems very magical.

In nature, nothing can come into being; for example, no human can come into existence without male and female.
I am not mentioning the creation of the bible, but natural phenomenon, no miracle.

 

[frbnsn]

Frankly, I don't believe in them, but then I don't disbelieve in them either. I've experienced some very "strange" things fairly recently that simply defy coincidence or imagination, so I have had to modify my viewpoint on this lately.

Dear metis,
I absolutely believe in the existence of a god.

 

[Valjean]

According to me, God has put laws on matter and He never violates His/Her principles.
Every phenomenon has a physical explanation.

Doesn't this make God irrelevant; a sleeping God who takes no part in the affairs of His universe?

In nature, nothing can come into being; for example, no human can come into existence without male and female.
I am not mentioning the creation of the bible, but natural phenomenon, no miracle.

This seems reasonable from our everyday experience, but so do many false physical facts. Cause and effect is looking increasingly dubious.

 

[Shantanu]

Doesn't this make God irrelevant; a sleeping God who takes no part in the affairs of His universe?

God makes Himself available to people when they seek His help: this includes developing and fine-tuning knowledge.

 

[frbnsn]

Doesn't this make God irrelevant; a sleeping God who takes no part in the affairs of His universe?
This seems reasonable from our everyday experience, but so do many false physical facts. Cause and effect is looking increasingly dubious.

Why sleeping God?!
He/She may do affairs in a way natural, necessarily need a miracle?

 

[frbnsn]

No, because there is an identifiable cause ie God

I mean the relation between matter in this universe which working in a way God's laws, not miracle.

 

[frbnsn]

What kind of mirale are you thinking of?

For example birth.
A human needs 9 months to come into earth.

 

[blü 2]

Iam not sure your archeological evidence.
One time I had read that the name of Moses was written in ancient papyrus tablets.

'Moses' is simply the Egyptian word for 'son'. (So the name of Pharaoh Ramasses is made of the elements Ra + mases / moses = "son of Ra". Ra was of course the sun god.)

The Bible and the Quran accept the existence of Moses and the children of Israel (after the old covenant).

This brings us to the question, What test do we use to determine whether a statement is true or not?

For me, a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects (objective) reality.

That test works just as well on texts from sacred books as it does on statements by POTUS.

Do you use a different test?

 

[frbnsn]

I was reading this a moment ago.

Causality

Correlation versus causality

Statisticians have found that violent crime is correlated with ice cream sales. When more ice cream gets sold, there’s more violent crime; when ice cream sales go down, there’s less violent crime.

This is a strong correlation, but it doesn’t imply causality.

Do the statisticians really think that ice cream causes people to run around committing armed robberies? Or, conversely, is it that criminals like to go get an ice cream cone after they rob someone? Neither story seems very likely. So what’s really going on here?​

The idea is that instead of one thing being the cause of another. Since we cant prove this, it could just have an illusion of a strong relationship between the two events but actually a correlation.

Correlation is more accourate (according to the article). It states that even though it seems that I threw the ball and it broke the glass, the glass shattering can be any cause. There is a correlation between ball, throw, and proken glass but not proof my action or ball actually broke the glass.

With miracles, by definition, there is no known cause. It breaks the boundary of cause and affect.

However, if the article is correct, it is an illusion to say that we know that anything cause the event. There is no proof that the event or miracle has a cause.

We have our own criteria of correlation such as X unknown thing happen and I already believe in Y (god can do all things) so Y must be the cause of X.

Its a correlation between event, the miracle, and the cause, god. BUT if going by the article, this is an illusion. We ideally dont know the cause of X even if it strongly implies that it does.

But not many people think so philosophically on wether or not they caused the ball to hit the glass when they saw it broke from their actions.

Miracles have no cause because it is 1. outside the law of causality and 2. Only exist in correlation not an affect to criteria already set by a given religion or belief.

As long its just a correlation, believers can debate whether its from god but they are debating in a valcuum. It has no cause just a correlation betwen what we know, dont know, and the criteria by which we determine there is a cause of things we dont know, just because, we dont know.

As far as I understand, you mean that miracle is something already no corelation to brain which works in current nature laws.

 

[frbnsn]

'Moses' is simply the Egyptian word for 'son'. (So the name of Pharaoh Ramasses is made of the elements Ra + mases / moses = "son of Ra". Ra was of course the sun god.)

I am not sure about this analyse.