NationStates Jolt Archive

...eg. that they can be disproved by science, for example by, after seeing a seemingly amazing event, replicating that event to "prove" it's not a miracle:

READ THIS:

http://www.kencollins.com/hope-19.htm

I haven't quoted from it as I don't want people just reading the quotes and replying without getting the full picture.

I can't believe in them, sorry.

I can't believe in them, sorry.

Can't or would prefer not to?

So far, I gather miracles do exist, just we try too hard to disprove them?

Can't or would prefer not to?

Due to experiences in my life, I'd have to go with can't.

So far, I gather miracles do exist, just we try too hard to disprove them?

Something like that... or because we can replicate them, we decide they must be fake (a non-miracle example would be the moon landing - because it can be replicated, that "proves" it's fake, or if we see an explosion apparently caused by a gas leak, because we can replicated it using arson, that "proves" it wasn't caused by a gas leak). And then there's the miracles that happen that we don't see, because we're too busy trying to disprove them and/or trying to disprove the extence of miracles. So then God perhaps decides "what's the point of me showing you a miracle if you've ignored the one I've already shown you?"

Due to experiences in my life, I'd have to go with can't.

Fair enough. Have a hug (((( ))))

Fair enough. Have a hug (((( ))))

http://gurukitty.com/forum/Smileys/default/hug.gif

Wait. What was the miracle?

Something like that... or because we can replicate them, we decide they must be fake (a non-miracle example would be the moon landing - because it can be replicated, that "proves" it's fake, or if we see an explosion apparently caused by a gas leak, because we can replicated it using arson, that "proves" it wasn't caused by a gas leak). And then there's the miracles that happen that we don't see, because we're too busy trying to disprove them and/or trying to disprove the extence of miracles. So then God perhaps decides "what's the point of me showing you a miracle if you've ignored the one I've already shown you?"

That, I think for me, was the stupidest part of the whole deal, because in the case of the moon landing or a gas leak-in both instances they can go back and point to how the actual moon landing was done. Which is to say, yeah-you can construct a film set or it, but then NASA can show you all the crap they used and explain the process that they went through to actually land on the moon. NASA isn't asking you to believe in a miracle, it's asking you to believe in all this gear and equipment and other stuff that they used and will show you.

With the miracle thing, it's either I can show you a way it was done or I can accept that it was done by 'magic.' Which is a fun thing to do when maybe watching David Copperfield, but at the end of the performance I'm not likely to follow him so he'll teach me his ways.

Trilby63;11867479']Wait. What was the miracle?

If it involves sitting around a pumpkin patch at night smoking reefers, I'm in.

If it involves sitting around a pumpkin patch at night smoking reefers, I'm in.

I'll bring the peanut butter m&ms.

That was... errmm... 'interesting'. Not a word of it interested me, mind.

I'll bring the peanut butter m&ms.

ooo, can I come?

for the record - "church" miracles may often be bullshit, but getting involved in the occult will disabuse even the most skeptical of atheists of the notion that the supernatural does not exist. I've encountered several poltergeists, and perhaps they were hallucinations and the injuries were psychosomatic, but frankly that's going a bit too far to try and make it fit into a materialist worldview. the spiritual is real. anybody who doesn't believe that should live in a place like gettysburg for a year or work at a 100 year old hotel and see if they still believe ghosts and spirits are imaginary. I don't believe in anything I haven't seen - and I believe in a damn lot.

I don't believe in anything I haven't seen - and I believe in a damn lot.

400 years ago, lightning was considered "The wrath of god".

Nowadays, it's just positive and negative charges making a connection due to air friction. I won't say whether supernatural events do or don't exist, but a lot of people tend to attribute stuff they don't understand to the supernatural i.e. ghosts, aliens, Lunatic Goofballs, etc, etc. It gives a comforting sense in the worldview that something unidentified is now identified, whether it is true or not being another matter altogether.

400 years ago, lightning was considered "The wrath of god".

Nowadays, it's just positive and negative charges making a connection due to air friction. I won't say whether supernatural events do or don't exist, but a lot of people tend to attribute stuff they don't understand to the supernatural i.e. ghosts, aliens, Lunatic Goofballs, etc, etc. It gives a comforting sense in the worldview that something unidentified is now identified, whether it is true or not being another matter altogether.

That too. There have been a lot of things that defied explanation, but not once has any of those explanations, when discovered, turned out to be 'magic'

READ THIS:

http://www.kencollins.com/hope-19.htm

Well he missed the point completely...

Couldn't the reverse equally be true. God any manifestations of God do not exist, but some humans just try too hard to prove that he does. And in doing so they claim any piece of serendipity to be the work of God. Or something along those lines.

Basically, this epistemology (ohh, big word) states that we can know virtually nothing about the world in which we live, and cannot in any way make decisions about ontology.

Wow, and there was me thinking I'd never hear those words again, let alone use them outside of my degree.

And your degree was in?

...eg. that they can be disproved by science, for example by, after seeing a seemingly amazing event, replicating that event to "prove" it's not a miracle:
Hume sufficiently dealt with this. Miracles are simply impossible. Believing that they are possible is just wishful thinking.

And your degree was in?
Applied Large Word Usage, BHons., obviously.

Simply put:

We don't know yet /= magic/miracle/goddidit

Miracles exist for people who feel the need to believe in them.

Miracles exist insofar as the word is simply an exaggerated descriptive term. E.g., "his recovery from the cancer was a miracle," when in fact you mean "his recovery from the cancer was highly unexpected."

Supernatural miracles do not exist.

I really don't feel like clicking the link, so what was the miracle?

Even in my more religious moments I don't believe that God would run miracles these days. He wants us to believe, he wants us to have faith. He doesn't want mindless, worshiping shiny stuff slugs. He wants people to freely believe in his word, and to use their brains to embrace what he's got to offer.

I really don't feel like clicking the link, so what was the miracle?

Love, acception, togetherness etc

Even in my more religious moments I don't believe that God would run miracles these days. He wants us to believe, he wants us to have faith. He doesn't want mindless, worshiping shiny stuff slugs. He wants people to freely believe in his word, and to use their brains to embrace what he's got to offer.

I agree with you 100%. That's why I don't believe in modern miracles, but I do believe in Biblical miracles.

Of course, you DO have the occasional miracle now and then, but it's very subtle and requires faith to see it. At least, that's what I believe.

Love, acception, togetherness etc

Mmkay, I was getting paranoid that it was going to be something extremely scary.

Mmkay, I was getting paranoid that it was going to be something extremely scary.

Are we talking Virgin Mary in a cheese sandwich scary or endless crimson rivers of blood scary?

Am I the only one wondering why the people who wrote that page bothered to obtain permission to reproduce parts of the Bible...?

So what is the point of this article? Yeah, just because we can cause the same thing to happen without magic/god/the supernatural doesn't mean it wasn't a miracle, but just because we can't be sure it wasn't a miracle doesn't mean it definitely was.

Am I the only one wondering why the people who wrote that page bothered to obtain permission to reproduce parts of the Bible...?

Maybe they are afraid that god would sue the shit out of them?

well that was a useless reading of someone's sermon

what did it have to do with miracles? NOTHING

it advocates that we see miracles where there are none. geeez so now i dont only have to believe that someone being spontaneously cured of cancer is a miracle but i have to believe that someones evangelical service is too?

no thanks.

Maybe they are afraid that god would sue the shit out of them?

Wouldn't you be? I bet God has the best lawyers in the universe.

Are we talking Virgin Mary in a cheese sandwich scary or endless crimson rivers of blood scary?

Endless Crimson Rivers of Blood, lol.

Wouldn't you be? I bet God has the best lawyers in the universe.

How could he? I thought all lawyers go to hell, per definition.

Well, having read that article, I now feel that part of my life was truely wasted. That being the part taken up by religion.

It is less that we of the sound mind are refusing to accept miracles, but more that those with religious tendancies see them because they aren't rational enough to sit down and work it through. Just because you see David Copperfield in the street doing a bit of magic, doesn't mean he is warping time and space for our amusement. Rather it is slights of hand and tricks for the eye.

Rather than your earlier statement, multi, about can't or won't see a miracle, I put it to you that you either can't or won't see the truth. Instead you would rather have faith. Your choice, self-delusion has been going on for thousands of years, why break the habit of a thousand lifetimes?

How could he? I thought all lawyers go to hell, per definition.

Only the ACLU lawyers. :)

How could he? I thought all lawyers go to hell, per definition.

ahhh thats the miraculous part

god doesnt have lawyers, he creates them as needed. best in the universe

then when the case is done, he sends them to hell. it was their CHOICE to be lawyers. his hands are tied.

...eg. that they can be disproved by science, for example by, after seeing a seemingly amazing event, replicating that event to "prove" it's not a miracle:

READ THIS:

http://www.kencollins.com/hope-19.htm

I haven't quoted from it as I don't want people just reading the quotes and replying without getting the full picture.


But that really moves the discussion nowhere.......Plus when referring to Biblical miracles we have no way of knowing that anything occurred. Bollocks.

Again, the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine...

I believe miracles may end up being explained in terms of physical phenomena, but of course that still raises the question of how or what enables those physical phenomena to occur, and so on from there down the investigative chain. What we need to do is eliminate the "God of the Gaps" and instead focus on the things that really can't be explained as physical in nature; in other words, eliminate all physical causes and then see what's left. There is a limit to which things can be reduced, and ultimately the supernatural is never going to be truly explained because it doesn't fall in to the same category as physical phenomena.

I do think that there are things that we can't explain; our primitive scientific instruments and technology are very limited in their ability to perceive the world around us. It's naive to assume that we can explain everything given our finite capacity to know about the universe...after all, how can you truly conceive of something that might not exist in this physical world or dimension?

is to be or not to be? the same as i am therefore i think.
Which doesn't mean the vilage priest didn't cure magdalena.

...after all, how can you truly conceive of something that might not exist in this physical world or dimension?

This does not contradict the lightning example I gave however. Whatever people call miracles do not occur without reason or cause. In most miracles, the effect is seen, but not the cause. This leads to the easy assumption that it is a miracle. But once the cause becomes explain, it loses its "miracle" status, becoming something more common.

Certainly, not all phenoemena can be explained with today's instruments and scientific knowledge, but who is to say that such will be the case in the future?

This does not contradict the lightning example I gave however. Whatever people call miracles do not occur without reason or cause. In most miracles, the effect is seen, but not the cause. This leads to the easy assumption that it is a miracle. But once the cause becomes explain, it loses its "miracle" status, becoming something more common.

That's true. Of course, the challenge is that miracles are spontaneous, making it difficult for us to test to see what possible physical causes might have resulted in the miracle happening. Unfortunately, the nature of these paranormal events makes it very difficult to experiment with them; I'd say beyond a doubt that there is something happening due to the sheer body of evidence throughout history, but what that something is remains a mystery.

Even so, if the paranormal is shown to be explainable it still raises a lot of questions about our worldview and our position in the universe. This place is weird, and the fact that so many weird things could happen with just the physical laws makes it even stranger.

Certainly, not all phenoemena can be explained with today's instruments and scientific knowledge, but who is to say that such will be the case in the future?

Chances are, if it's entirely physical in nature it can be explained at some point in the future; I'd say at least some of the phenomena like miracles might be explained in the future but we're not going to be certain until we can investigate them.

Then again, if we look at how little progress has been made understanding things like consciousness or memory despite huge advances in technology and the biochemical, neurological and psychological sciences over the past century, I'm not sure if we can ever discover the truth behind some things.

Now I know why Jesus was annoyed. Imagine working miracles for nine thousand people and even your followers forget!

yeah, that is sort of strange. unbelievable really. almost as if it were a not very well written work of fiction.
exactly like that, actually.

Miracles exist for people who feel the need to believe in them.

I couldn't say it better.

Something like that... or because we can replicate them, we decide they must be fake (a non-miracle example would be the moon landing - because it can be replicated, that "proves" it's fake, or if we see an explosion apparently caused by a gas leak, because we can replicated it using arson, that "proves" it wasn't caused by a gas leak). And then there's the miracles that happen that we don't see, because we're too busy trying to disprove them and/or trying to disprove the extence of miracles. So then God perhaps decides "what's the point of me showing you a miracle if you've ignored the one I've already shown you?"


That's completely illogical.

Occam's razor tears that one apart so fast it isn't even funny.

It's clever, no doubt, because it takes away all means of attacking its logic by playing David Hume's "There is no proof of causality" logic, but it is still just a series of assumptions that are completely unsupported by any evidence other than a desire to beleive.

It's clever, no doubt, because it takes away all means of attacking its logic by playing David Hume's "There is no proof of causality" logic, but it is still just a series of assumptions that are completely unsupported by any evidence other than a desire to beleive.

I don't know though; desire to believe can be a very powerful thing in itself that could achieve similar ends through the placebo effect. One might wonder if this placebo effect is the real miracle in that it enables us to achieve physical changes through the power of belief.

Then again, prayer in Maimonides' philosophy was interpreted to be for personal benefit and understanding of God rather than any kind of direct petitioning; perhaps that's more correct than we might think since it does have interesting similarities.

...eg. that they can be disproved by science, for example by, after seeing a seemingly amazing event, replicating that event to "prove" it's not a miracle:

READ THIS:

http://www.kencollins.com/hope-19.htm

I haven't quoted from it as I don't want people just reading the quotes and replying without getting the full picture.

That's a terrific example of circular reasoning, but not much else.

Of course, the challenge is that miracles are spontaneous, making it difficult for us to test to see what possible physical causes might have resulted in the miracle happening.

Spontaneous occurences are highly unlikely, as it suggest that there was no cause. It is more logical to assume that there have been factors present that were not taken into account when examining the evidence. The key to good investigative practices is to never leave out any detail, no matter how insignificant.

Of course that requires that the investigator be completely aware of everything regarding the surroundings. Not truly possible today.


Even so, if the paranormal is shown to be explainable it still raises a lot of questions about our worldview and our position in the universe. This place is weird, and the fact that so many weird things could happen with just the physical laws makes it even stranger.


The problem however, is that we do not know all the rules. There is much that humanity has no clue of yet.


Chances are, if it's entirely physical in nature it can be explained at some point in the future; I'd say at least some of the phenomena like miracles might be explained in the future but we're not going to be certain until we can investigate them.

One should not use physical natures as a benchmark of object behaviour. Light for example, was thought to be a wavelength. Then a particle. Now it's both. But it's not a physical object is it? Or is it both?

Look! A flying plane! It's a miracle! *faints*

Spontaneous occurences are highly unlikely, as it suggest that there was no cause. It is more logical to assume that there have been factors present that were not taken into account when examining the evidence. The key to good investigative practices is to never leave out any detail, no matter how insignificant.

That's correct. I personally feel that there is a similarity between the placebo effect (which is itself not really understood by scientists) and miracles; belief is a very powerful force and I do believe that it can shape our physical world if we believe in something strong enough.

You could also look at paranormal concepts like the poltergeist or tulpa for similar examples of mind-over-matter type phenomena.

Of course that requires that the investigator be completely aware of everything regarding the surroundings. Not truly possible today.

And when you venture in to the realm of subjective experience, it probably wouldn't be possible to be completely aware of the surroundings. After all, religious and spiritual experiences are some of the most subjective out there, and it's likely impossible for us to really understand them in an objective sense.

In fact, it's hard for many people to put their experiences in words, let alone explore them scientifically.

The problem however, is that we do not know all the rules. There is much that humanity has no clue of yet.

And, there's always the risk that what we do know is either wrong or incomplete; even the slightest error in one physical law could bring the system crashing down on us. We're not in as confident or knowledgeable a position as many people would like to believe; to borrow one of Carl Sagan's titles, science may be a candle in the dark, but that still leaves a lot of darkness ...and candles can be easily snuffed out if we're not careful.

One should not use physical natures as a benchmark of object behaviour. Light for example, was thought to be a wavelength. Then a particle. Now it's both. But it's not a physical object is it? Or is it both?

That's one of the more interesting things about the universe; the smaller and more basic the particle, the more its properties change and the more uncertain the structure of the universe becomes. One might see parallels between the Buddhist concept of the Middle Way or even the yin/yang of Taoism and the behavior of these particles depending on your interpretation.

Look! A flying plane! It's a miracle! *faints*

One might see the complexity of the universe and its fine-tuned physical laws or the randomness of evolution which produced the variety of creatures living in ecological equilibrium (with the exception of people, unfortunately) as signs of something far greater than we imagine. After all, fractals are beautiful things made from randomness; perhaps God's creation was simply creating and letting things run until intelligence developed that was capable of conceiving it.

Maybe all living things have a soul of some sort (they have a form of consciousness, after all), and maybe we're just not looking for God in the right places...

Or maybe it's just speculation on my part.

One might see the complexity of the universe and its fine-tuned physical laws or the randomness of evolution which produced the variety of creatures living in ecological equilibrium (with the exception of people, unfortunately) as signs of something far greater than we imagine. After all, fractals are beautiful things made from randomness; perhaps God's creation was simply creating and letting things run until intelligence developed that was capable of conceiving it.

Maybe all living things have a soul of some sort (they have a form of consciousness, after all), and maybe we're just not looking for God in the right places...

Or maybe it's just speculation on my part.

Or maybe the universal constants are what they are because else we would not have exsisted in the first place.

And without us, no God to believe in ;) .

Or maybe the universal constants are what they are because else we would not have exsisted in the first place.

And without us, no God to believe in ;) .

But then again, that raises the question of why those constants are what they are, and why they are capable of supporting carbon-based life.

And, of course, the age old question: Why do we exist?

But then again, that raises the question of why those constants are what they are, and why they are capable of supporting carbon-based life.

Because if they weren't what they are, stars would fall apart or explode, protons would simply dissolve and the very fabric of space and time would be ripped apart.

They have to be this way because else the universe as we know it couldn't exist. It is self evident that without these circumstances carbon-based lifeforms would not have formed in the first place.

And, of course, the age old question: Why do we exist?

I've been thinking a lot about this recently. Until not too long ago I figured it was to reproduce. But then I took into account the potential of the human race and it's technological, physical and mental possibilities and it led me to conclude we are here te take our rightful place in the universe as, well, quite blunty put, the equivalent of what we would call 'gods'.

Because if they weren't what they are, stars would fall apart or explode, protons would simply dissolve and the very fabric of space and time would be ripped apart.

They have to be this way because else the universe as we know it couldn't exist. It is self evident that without these circumstances carbon-based lifeforms would not have formed in the first place.

That's true. Of course, the question is still reduced further by asking why it has to be this way; you could argue that if it wasn't, we wouldn't be arguing it but the existence of something is not sufficient explanation of its cause.

I think there is a God simply because there was a beginning to this universe, and what existed before it can't be comprehended by physical beings; that's a pretty similar definition to the nature of God if you ask me.

I've been thinking a lot about this recently. Until not too long ago I figured it was to reproduce. But then I took into account the potential of the human race and it's technological, physical and mental possibilities and it led me to conclude we are here te take our rightful place in the universe as, well, quite blunty put, the equivalent of what we would call 'gods'.

It's logical, too; if God created us in his image, wouldn't it make sense that our final goal would be to reunite with him through the advancement of our species and the expansion of intelligence throughout the universe? Perhaps the concept of transcending the biological world in to the pure noosphere and then advancing at an accelerating rate until all the universe is infused with intelligence is more on-target than we think.

It also ties together with reincarnation, which makes it even more interesting as a metaphysical concept. Perhaps the Omega Point is more correct than we know now...

That's true. Of course, the question is still reduced further by asking why it has to be this way; you could argue that if it wasn't, we wouldn't be arguing it but the existence of something is not sufficient explanation of its cause.

I think there is a God simply because there was a beginning to this universe, and what existed before it can't be comprehended by physical beings; that's a pretty similar definition to the nature of God if you ask me.

Perhaps. But simply saying that because modern physics cannot correctly theorize about the very first beginnings of our universe it must've been a god or greater power that created us is quite unsubstantial as well.

It's logical, too; if God created us in his image, wouldn't it make sense that our final goal would be to reunite with him through the advancement of our species and the expansion of intelligence throughout the universe? Perhaps the concept of transcending the biological world in to the pure noosphere and then advancing at an accelerating rate until all the universe is infused with intelligence is more on-target than we think.

It also ties together with reincarnation, which makes it even more interesting as a metaphysical concept. Perhaps the Omega Point is more correct than we know now...

But for now we are left unknowing, wandering and dreaming. Only time will tell.

Perhaps. But simply saying that because modern physics cannot correctly theorize about the very first beginnings of our universe it must've been a god or greater power that created us is quite unsubstantial as well.

That's true. I think, however, that whatever existed before this physical universe is probably not explainable in physical terms. I tend to believe God in a primarily deist mindframe, with any "personal" intervention only occurring in terms of the mind and mental states and then forcing us to act freely on something that we're not sure about.

But for now we are left unknowing, wandering and dreaming. Only time will tell.

Well, if there is a God we'll benefit and even if there isn't we'll benefit. It's really a win-win situation to strive for this end; the more we develop as a species, the more we can know and the better our lives will be.

Of course, if it were possible develop things like effective immortality or the ability to shape/create matter it more or less makes us "God" with some interesting shades of Asimov's "The Last Question".

Stumble gave me this (http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/205) while I was still thinking about this thread. It's a good counter weight to the op article.