Miracles

[Didymos Thomas]

But I do not see health or sanity in dedicating negative virtue to purposed customs. Rather such influences should be the course of nature. Let experience happen rather than try to make such happen.

What's the trouble? If practice X cultivates compassion towards other human beings, practice X seems rather positive.

What I find particularly interesting is that it appears as our knowledge of the physical world increases, so does the frequency with which the claims of miracles decrease.

Do they decrease? Or do we just use different language?

For example, people claim to be abducted by aliens. This is not a traditional miracle, but it is the same sort of event. Some strange occurrence far beyond ordinary experience, and more than likely, horribly misunderstood by the person having the experience.

I would take acception to the spiritual life as knowledge of the supernatural.

Absolutely. If some event is supernatural we, human kind, could not experience the event.

To entertain the idea of miracles is just one effort to close the door on wonder.

Not for a child. We allow children to entertain miraculous ideas in order to secure their sense of wonder.

But I do agree with your sentiment. Often, people use miracles, God, ect to explain away events they do not understand, which eliminates the wonderful scientific curiosity that should follow from the unexplained event.

Miracles can be applied on two different levels.
If we apply them literally, we have made an obvious mistake. Jesus, a human being, cannot walk on water. To believe that a human being literally walked on water is silly.
We can also apply miracles figuratively. Jesus didn't walk on water any more than Dante walked through Hell, but both accounts convey meaning in a valid way.

[boagie]

"What's the trouble? If practice X cultivates compassion towards other human beings, practice X seems rather positive. "

In itself the way in which compassion is presented it is delusional, and attributes our compassion to the intervention of a superior being. It sets up a system of falsehoods, in which if you accept one absurdity it necessiates the acceptence of the following absurdities, which will be grandiose.



Do they decrease? Or do we just use different language?

For example, people claim to be abducted by aliens. This is not a traditional miracle, but it is the same sort of event. Some strange occurrence far beyond ordinary experience, and more than likely, horribly misunderstood by the person having the experience.

I have to agree with you hear Thomas, my experience tells me that many people dispite an education, still believe in ghosts and goblins.



Not for a child. We allow children to entertain miraculous ideas in order to secure their sense of wonder.

This is a curious thing, this delight adults take in creating fantasies for children, instead of adapting them to the reality of their context. I often thought the creation of Santa Claus was a primer to the Christian god. Carried to far, which is often done, it is a pathology.



Miracles can be applied on two different levels.
If we apply them literally, we have made an obvious mistake. Jesus, a human being, cannot walk on water. To believe that a human being literally walked on water is silly.
We can also apply miracles figuratively. Jesus didn't walk on water any more than Dante walked through Hell, but both accounts convey meaning in a valid way.[/quote]

What is the meaning of Jesus walking on water that is not entirely pretentious?

[Didymos Thomas]

In itself the way in which compassion is presented it is delusional, and attributes our compassion to the intervention of a superior being. It sets up a system of falsehoods, in which if you accept one absurdity it necessiates the acceptence of the following absurdities, which will be grandiose.

Ritual fasting does not depend on the intervention of a superior being.

There is no system to going without food for a time; the sensation of hunger is not false, nor absurd.

To imagine yourself truly understanding hunger without having experienced hunger would be delusional. Fasting provides that experience.

This is a curious thing, this delight adults take in creating fantasies for children, instead of adapting them to the reality of their context. I often thought the creation of Santa Claus was a primer to the Christian god. Carried to far, which is often done, it is a pathology.

Children do not invent their own fantasies? You are a father, so I imagine you have watched children play at some point. A stick becomes a sword, ect.

Santa Claus is Odin, by the way. The Norse God.

What is the meaning of Jesus walking on water that is not entirely pretentious?

Walking on water shows up in many mythological traditions. Horus walked on water.

[democritus]

Hello everybody,

In case you haven't read my comment on this subject in the similar debate on Philosophy/Metaphysic/Miracles pages I reprint it here for the benefit of other readers [with minor alterations to suit this debate]:

Let us call "Miracle" = a very rare event in a particular time and place and with intelligence or intend. [with "will" or ON DEMAND]

Some events are unheard of and called "very rare events". [it is true]

A very rare event may be just a "very rare event" . [if it happens by accident]

A very rare event may be called a "miracle". [if it happens on demand]

Let us say X = A man walked through the wall = a very rare event in particular time and location [let us assume]

Let us say Y = Red Sea crossing = a very rare event in particular time and location [let us assume]

Xa = Miracle [if there is a will]
Xb = Not Miracle [if there is not a known will]

Ya = Miracle [if there is a will]
Yb = Not Miracle [if there is not a known will]

In order to talk about miracles, which -by definition- requires intelligence/intend or "will", we need to prove that this “will” is the cause of that particular event.

Now, the onus on the claimer's shoulder to prove without doubt that, there is a miracle and in this particular miracle -the very rare event- happened because of the "will" of the instigator.

Until now, no reliable evidence have been provided to justify the claim that a "miracle" has actually happened.

[Whoever]

Personally I am all for naturalism and believe that if we think some event is a miracle then we do not understand Nature. I can't imagine God thinking that miracles can happen.

To put this another way, if we believe in God we can hardly argue that He is not a natural phenomenon, and how can we call an event caused by a natural phenomenon a miracle?

Or is it heretical to see God as a natural phenomenon?

[Zetetic11235]

Miracle has aspects of subjectivity no matter the definition provided on this forum. I have been told that something as relatively common as having a child is miraculous in the eyes of the parents. What then is a miracle in that context? Clearly nothing rare and nothing necessarily divine and not even unexpected. It seems to me that what is denoted by a miracle in this sense is an unparalleled joy, a sensation unlike any other due to a singular happening.

On the other hand, one might consider something like a great stroke of luck a miracle, with or without the presence of intent.

I think that in some sense one might say that the experience of a miracle is simply an indication of a zest for life and appreciation of the sublime.

P.s. Boagie, Didymos, you guys have been dancing the same dance over and over. Boagie is set in this ways(way which you find ignorant and insulting) and you are trying to justify your position to him over and over in the same way. I think thak Boagie must have a reason to his assuming and staunch sense of proactive atheism, and I think that is is fear driven, which is understandable. There are indeed many things done in the name of religion. There are many religious conservative zealots. They are, fortunately, a minority among the religious. A boisterous minority, but a minority nonetheless.

What I find curious about you, boagie, is that you seem to focus more upon the Christian, rather that the Islamic fundamentalists. Perhaps you can clarify?

[Zetherin]

Miracles, tragedy, the lucky, the unlucky, the good, the evil...

Can we please just get over ourselves? Frankly, I'm surprised people still latch onto these simple-minded concepts. Well, I shouldn't really call them concepts, as the word "concept" usual implies some sort of rational order to the thought. There is no rationality here, it's just foolish.

Zetetic is absolutely correct - there will be subjectivity applied no matter what, as these thoughts are derived from feelings, feelings that are subjective. There is no objective miracle, good, evil, it's all fundamentally based on our personal desire. To believe that ANY of these things exist in an objective form is not only pretentious, but arrogant. The universe just is; it's not good or evil, it just is. And even though it's impossible not to apply meaning to all we are conscious of, I would think humanity would have matured. As I've muttered before, the sooner we realize our species isn't special, the better off we will be.

And don't let me contradict myself - my "better" is not objective, it too is a product of my desire.

[Joe]

Im still sticking with the idea that miracles are events or objects that we just do not have the information to comprehend. Numbers and patterns my friends, numbers and patterns. oh and Energy relationships.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Joe

Im still sticking with the idea that miracles are events or objects that we just do not have the information to comprehend. Numbers and patterns my friends, numbers and patterns. oh and Energy relationships.

The thing I'm concerned with is attaching the stigma "God-given, good implication" to the word.

If you want to define said word along the lines of an anomaly, I'm more inclined to support you.

[xris]

Whats a miracle? an observed demand from the faithful and answered by their god ? could someone please explain what the debate is about..