NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, they are just stories. But I suggest that IF such things did really happen, then they would not be supernatural. They would be happening within the context of nature. To me, the natural assumption then would be that they are natural events, possible within nature. On account of they happened within nature.

So if I had been there for the parting of the Red Sea or the loaves and fishes thing or the raising of Lazarus -- and they really actually happened -- my thought would not have been "The hecksters!!?? He's violating the laws of nature!! Wow! That's impressive!" My thought would have been, "Freaking catfish!! I didn't know that was possible!! Wow! That's impressive!"
yeah

to me that means that IF such things happened, they would have a natural explanation. it might still be miraculous in that its extremely unlikely for such a thing to happen and for it to happen at the correct time, but there would be a concrete natural reason for it to have happened.

Okay. I think we're just deciding to use different definitions of many words. Whatever.

I do not define the divine, deities, miracles, or god to be exclusively supernatural. I am not sure the supernatural even exists. If it does, I believe it would most likely exist in the manner I discussed with Murayvets.

I will tell you why I chose my screen name. It's actually the meaning of my first kid's name when you look it up in those stupid dictionaries about the meaning of names. But of course, it is also more than that. When you sit and think of the odds that this particular human being is going to come into your life, the odds of that particular combination of chromosomes, the odds of me deciding to breed with just that person, the odds of our families creating us parents, the odds of our families surviving all those war torn years we call our past, even before we learnt how to use our hands and minds to make tools, the odds of a planet being able to sustain life, a galaxy moving at just the right speed for planets and stars to form, a universe capable of even making elements.

It took all those things to make my child. The odds of all those things happening just the way they did are so minute as to be mindboggling. We'd have better luck finding the same grain of sand in the Sahara three or four times. Yet it happened. My child is here. It is completely natural, despite the fact that it is almost impossible.

I call that a miracle. You may not.



I'll see your agreement and go you one better. I also agree that there is no reason to regard such activity as supernatural. As Scully said to Mulder once, "nothing acts outside of nature, we just think they do," or something like that.
Yep. :D When you really stop to consider how life works, then the attributes ascribed to "miracles" pretty much describe every minute of an average day. If we're going to think in terms of "miracles," then it seems to me there's nothing but miracles. We're swimming in a soup of miracles, breathing a fog of miracles. At what point do we just sort of get over it, you know, get used to it? Stop getting freaked out and yelling, "But...but...but...seriously? This is it?" Yeah, this is it. Pretty neat, huh? The universe. Ta-daaah! Welcome to it. The martini faucet is over there, and the trash gets picked up once a week.

I can't help but think there's a little bit of hubris in saying that this isn't impressive enough. And even more hubris in thinking we understand it enough to declare that we know that X or Y doesn't fit its rules.

Okay. I think we're just deciding to use different definitions of many words. Whatever.

I do not define the divine, deities, miracles, or god to be exclusively supernatural. I am not sure the supernatural even exists. If it does, I believe it would most likely exist in the manner I discussed with Murayvets.

I will tell you why I chose my screen name. It's actually the meaning of my first kid's name when you look it up in those stupid dictionaries about the meaning of names. But of course, it is also more than that. When you sit and think of the odds that this particular human being is going to come into your life, the odds of that particular combination of chromosomes, the odds of me deciding to breed with just that person, the odds of our families creating us parents, the odds of our families surviving all those war torn years we call our past, even before we learnt how to use our hands and minds to make tools, the odds of a planet being able to sustain life, a galaxy moving at just the right speed for planets and stars to form, a universe capable of even making elements.

It took all those things to make my child. The odds of all those things happening just the way they did are so minute as to be mindboggling. We'd have better luck finding the same grain of sand in the Sahara three or four times. Yet it happened. My child is here. It is completely natural, despite the fact that it is almost impossible.

I call that a miracle. You may not.

That we can respect eachother's right of terms is reasonable.

But by your given premise, any set of instances with sufficiently large sample population will produce outliers of any arbitrarily large or small possibility. Your definition of "Miracle", exactly as you describe, necessitates only big numbers producing instances with comparatively sizable deviations from the standard, which happens. In fact, my whole point is that with big enough numbers, it should happen, without expecting anything more miraculous than math.

I'm glad you were the one that pulled the good numbers. You seem happy about it, as any universal lotto winner could be. But every lottery has a winner, no matter how small the odds get. The winner can say its a miracle if that makes them feel better.

But remember, all those many chromosomal potentials that didn't pan out are also illustrative of a principal. I have a child on the way myself. Many factors resulted in it. Any outcome requires an increasing narrowness of potential to outcome; every result has behind it all the unlimited number of ways it could have been different.

If your reply is "This amazing thing happened", well...there are events in high energy physics that have even smaller possibilities, in the 1 x 10^-15 range...but if they are given chance to manifest in 1 x 10^12 instances per second, they occur, as unlikely as they are.

I respect your right to call extremely unlikely events "miraculous", since you're not using the dictionary definition, just your definition that "miracle" just means "almost impossible and of desirable outcome".

But since even an outcome of 1,000,000,000 standard deviations away from normative possibility is still of non-zero possibility, your own stated criteria for "miraculous" is no more amazing than a simple equation.

I'm glad it worked out for you; if calling it a miracle lets you get more out of it, you can and should.

i wasn't "dictating" anything to anyone, Hammurab, and i think that you know it.

i was simply stating my own understanding about the nature of the Divine, and in a way---no less---that i would follow up with greater argument in my very next post, to the effect of answering the OP's question (or what i thought that it had probably actually meant).

to elaborate a bit on what i was communicating in that first post:


Real God Is Absolutely Unlimited.

Only Real God Is Absolutely Unlimited.

No model of anything---even a "model of God"---is unlimited.

Every model of anything is limited, and is not, itself, Really God.

Therefore, the Truth about 'God' will not be disclosed by any mere model.


i'm simply expressing what i think to be true about God, for Real---no less or more so than anyone else here, many (or all) of whom are arguing from their own (inspected or uninspected, provable or unprovable) premises about the nature of the Divine.


Thanks for the above explanation because I actually didn't know exactly what you meant by your earlier post, which is why I didn't respond to it. With the above explanation, it makes very good sense. EDIT: Especially the part about a model always being more limited than the reality of the thing being modeled.

Just a return clarification: Not all of us are arguing our own premises about the nature of the Divine. Some of us are exploring intellectual constructs based on ideas raised earlier in the discussion, which we feel are more (or less) logical but which do not actually conform to our own views.

For instance, several of us (including, I assume, the OP) have been arguing our real opinions about the concepts of "natural" versus "supernatural," but I, for one, have not brought in my own personal views about divinity because they are significantly different from the general gist of the thread, they would only muddy the conversation further, and I don't need to bring them up to make my arguments herein.

i wasn't "dictating" anything to anyone, Hammurab, and i think that you know it.

i was simply stating my own understanding about the nature of the Divine, and in a way---no less---that i would follow up with greater argument in my very next post, to the effect of answering the OP's question (or what i thought that it had probably actually meant).

to elaborate a bit on what i was communicating in that first post:


Real God Is Absolutely Unlimited.

Only Real God Is Absolutely Unlimited.

No model of anything---even a "model of God"---is unlimited.

Every model of anything is limited, and is not, itself, Really God.

Therefore, the Truth about 'God' will not be disclosed by any mere model.


i'm simply expressing what i think to be true about God, for Real---no less or more so than anyone else here, many (or all) of whom are arguing from their own (inspected or uninspected, provable or unprovable) premises about the nature of the Divine.

for you to even suggest---much less actually say, outright---than i am doing anything other than that is transparently both utterly nasty and completely fallacious.

when i see how much thought and work you put into your other posts on this thread---and then see how perfunctory, snide, and dishonest you were in your response to my post---i can't help but wonder if there is something that you don't like about my post that you're not admitting to us---and maybe not to yourself; are you threatened by something about my expression of my understanding about the nature of the Divine?


whatever the "real" reason---you just engaged in absurdly gross mis-characterization of my communication, to the effect of leveling an ad hominem attack against me.

oh, yeah---"that's original". :rolleyes:

You originally made a categoricall statement, not just about your model, but about all models:


yes, all models do.

the Only Real God does not.

You then stated it applied to "The Only Real God." Nobody else here has done that.

I stand by what I said.

yeah

to me that means that IF such things happened, they would have a natural explanation. it might still be miraculous in that its extremely unlikely for such a thing to happen and for it to happen at the correct time, but there would be a concrete natural reason for it to have happened.

I'm simply saying this isn't the dictionary definition of miracle.

If there is a concrete natural reason, then it doesn't fit what "miracle" means in a dictionary.

Again, if you want to apply your own definitions, I believe your conclusions are then sound, and within your definitions, correct.

EDIT: I have to go write that paper I was supposed to write last night.

I'd like to point out the contradiction in saying we should "Just get over it and get used to it" and then simultaneously implying which should still consider it impressive.

Again, only if you go by dictionary definitions of impressive, though.

Take care, everybody.

I'm simply saying this isn't the dictionary definition of miracle.

If there is a concrete natural reason, then it doesn't fit what "miracle" means in a dictionary.

Again, if you want to apply your own definitions, I believe your conclusions are then sound, and within your definitions, correct.

EDIT: I have to go write that paper I was supposed to write last night.

I'd like to point out the contradiction in saying we should "Just get over it and get used to it" and then simultaneously implying which should still consider it impressive.

Again, only if you go by dictionary definitions of impressive, though.

Take care, everybody.
i dont care about dictionary definitions.

all i know is that supernatural miracles dont happen.

im not interested in an idea of god that does not reflect reality.

That we can respect eachother's right of terms is reasonable.

But by your given premise, any set of instances with sufficiently large sample population will produce outliers of any arbitrarily large or small possibility. Your definition of "Miracle", exactly as you describe, necessitates only big numbers producing instances with comparatively sizable deviations from the standard, which happens. In fact, my whole point is that with big enough numbers, it should happen, without expecting anything more miraculous than math.

I'm glad you were the one that pulled the good numbers. You seem happy about it, as any universal lotto winner could be. But every lottery has a winner, no matter how small the odds get. The winner can say its a miracle if that makes them feel better.

But remember, all those many chromosomal potentials that didn't pan out are also illustrative of a principal. I have a child on the way myself. Many factors resulted in it. Any outcome requires an increasing narrowness of potential to outcome; every result has behind it all the unlimited number of ways it could have been different.

If your reply is "This amazing thing happened", well...there are events in high energy physics that have even smaller possibilities, in the 1 x 10^-15 range...but if they are given chance to manifest in 1 x 10^12 instances per second, they occur, as unlikely as they are.

I respect your right to call extremely unlikely events "miraculous", since you're not using the dictionary definition, just your definition that "miracle" just means "almost impossible and of desirable outcome".

But since even an outcome of 1,000,000,000 standard deviations away from normative possibility is still of non-zero possibility, your own stated criteria for "miraculous" is no more amazing than a simple equation.

I'm glad it worked out for you; if calling it a miracle lets you get more out of it, you can and should.

No. You don't understand.The odds of even having a universe capable of sustaining life are almost astronomically impossible. To follow it through to the point where we even have life on a planet makes the odds even higher. And then, and only then, do we have the lottery must have a winner situation that you describe. Look at Barrow and Tipler's work on the Anthropic cosmological principle for further information.

i dont care about dictionary definitions.

That statement is an excellent disclaimer that should be prefaced to each time you use the english language in any context, to save people time when discussing things with you.


all i know is that supernatural miracles dont happen.

Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

I know you don't care about dictionary definitions. So, by your rules, we can decide that "happen" means "turnip"; only the dictionary would make that wrong.


im not interested in an idea of god that does not reflect reality.

So, the times you discussed and took interest in a model of god that the person presenting it (not me) expressly said to the effect that: "This is not what I think god is, its only a model and isn't intend to reflect reality", you were contradicting yourself.

Or the time where it was stated by someone on this thread (not me) that "whether the god exists or not is beside the point, this isn't even the god concept I believe in as real", their argument is then, by your own principal, of no interest, even though you examined and responded to it, thus showing interest.

Of course, without the dictionary, we could say the word "interest" means "no interest", so then you'd be consistent.

No. You don't understand.The odds of even having a universe capable of sustaining life are almost astronomically impossible.

They are supposed to be almost astronomically impossible. That's why you need a whole universe (the study of which is called astronomy) to have enough instances where the outcome even could occur. And again, almost impossible is still possible, and a sufficiently big (i.e. astronomically big) data set will, by simple concept of distribution, have such things, as a matter of course.


To follow it through to the point where we even have life on a planet makes the odds even higher. And then, and only then, do we have the lottery must have a winner situation that you describe. Look at Barrow and Tipler's work on the Anthropic cosmological principle for further information.

The odds of any discrete outcome drawn from continuous potential is so small as to asymptotically approach zero. When you use words like "odds", you subject your premise to statistical definition.

Suppose you have 10 centillion possible outsomes, or better yet, a continuum of outcomes from 0 to 10 centillion.

When any real number within the interval "X" is the outcome, the odds of it having specifically been "X" are astronomically small.

No matter what X is.

We'd all like an Anthropic cosmological principle; its a fine way to feel important and to feel our children are miraculous. Again, if it works for you and lets you feel how you need to feel, go for it.

Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

Does supernatural mean "apparently inexplicable by the laws of nature"? If so, aren't most husbands supernatural to wives, and vice-versa?

Hammurab, what is "supernatural"? What does it mean to be "above nature"?

Hammurab, what is "supernatural"? What does it mean to be "above nature"?

Its been given several times in the thread.

"Supernatural (from the dictionary):

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous."


To be "above nature" is very straight forward. Think of a natural law, any you like. Now imagine something that doesn't have to obey it.

Some models of god have that property.

Such a thing may or may not exist, but there are lots of words for things that don't exist, they still have meaning, they mean something that doesn't exist.

Its been given several times in the thread.

But not by you; just by the all-mighty dictionary.


To be "above nature" is very straight forward. Think of a natural law, any you like. Now imagine something that doesn't have to obey it.

Some models of god have that property.

Such a thing may or may not exist, but there are lots of words for things that don't exist, they still have meaning, they mean something that doesn't exist.

Cool. Does supernatural relate to laws, then? Or does it relate to the models of laws (a violation thereof)? Does it relate only to the "some models" or does it have a more universal meaning? What is a "law" of nature? What makes it "law"? Can a thing be that doesn't exist? If so, what does it mean "to be"?

I realise that this may be off-topic, but the thread appears to be in decline so if you're willing, we could pursue it in this direction.

They are supposed to be almost astronomically impossible. That's why you need a whole universe (the study of which is called astronomy) to have enough instances where the outcome even could occur. And again, almost impossible is still possible, and a sufficiently big (i.e. astronomically big) data set will, by simple concept of distribution, have such things, as a matter of course.

Fine. In which case you would require a universe full of universes so that we can be in one of the few that actually works. A huge multiverse wherein the vast majority of universes are completely incapable of making atoms, let alone life. Is that what you are arguing?

The odds of any discrete outcome drawn from continuous potential is so small as to asymptotically approach zero. When you use words like "odds", you subject your premise to statistical definition.

Suppose you have 10 centillion possible outsomes, or better yet, a continuum of outcomes from 0 to 10 centillion.

When any real number within the interval "X" is the outcome, the odds of it having specifically been "X" are astronomically small.

No matter what X is.

I understand that. The point is that there could have been 10 centillion different types of universes, but only about three of them would ever have supported anything more complicated than a subatomic particle.

Now, there are several ways around this. Some postulate an infinite multiverse, thereby giving us 10 centillion options. As Lunatic Golfballs pointed out once, in such a situation, the chances of one of these universes having a creator god approaches one.

Some use the absurdist argument, i.e. we just got lucky.

Some use the theist argument, obviously.

I have my reservations about what this implies. But more importantly, the numbers seem to be correct, and if that is the case, the existence of the universe and our presence as sentient beings within it does seem to indicate an incredibly lucky break.

We'd all like an Anthropic cosmological principle; its a fine way to feel important and to feel our children are miraculous. Again, if it works for you and lets you feel how you need to feel, go for it.

My feelings have nothing to do with the matter, so I do not understand why you bring them up. Show me where my logic or information is wrong instead of trying to dismiss my argument because of the emotions behind it.

That statement is an excellent disclaimer that should be prefaced to each time you use the english language in any context, to save people time when discussing things with you.



Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

I know you don't care about dictionary definitions. So, by your rules, we can decide that "happen" means "turnip"; only the dictionary would make that wrong.



So, the times you discussed and took interest in a model of god that the person presenting it (not me) expressly said to the effect that: "This is not what I think god is, its only a model and isn't intend to reflect reality", you were contradicting yourself.

Or the time where it was stated by someone on this thread (not me) that "whether the god exists or not is beside the point, this isn't even the god concept I believe in as real", their argument is then, by your own principal, of no interest, even though you examined and responded to it, thus showing interest.

Of course, without the dictionary, we could say the word "interest" means "no interest", so then you'd be consistent.
have you given any thought to addressing ideas instead of just sniping at posters?

i am not interested in debating the meaning of words. my post contained an idea. why not address that?

You originally made a categoricall statement, not just about your model, but about all models:

it was in response to you making a categorical statement that was equally as universal: "...all models have limitations..."

You then stated it applied to "The Only Real God." Nobody else here has done that.[/QUOTE]

no. i didn't. i made a different, contrasting categorical statement about the nature of the Divine, as i understand it; in fact, i made it specifically clear that the first statement definitively does not apply to "The Only Real God", in my view. and, as noted, i used this contrast to illustrate how i would be defining---or "qualifying" (per the OP)---"God" for the sake of answering the question, in the very next post.

Nobody else here has done that.

that's neither a 'sin', for them---nor my fault. so why should i care?

poor baby!

I stand by what I said.

go right ahead; but if you do, you will be graduating from nasty and dishonest to nasty, dishonest, and irrationally stubborn.

the choice is yours, of course.

have you given any thought to addressing ideas instead of just sniping at posters?

i am not interested in debating the meaning of words. my post contained an idea. why not address that?

"god forbid".

all i know is that supernatural miracles dont happen.


You don't know that.

Thanks for the above explanation because I actually didn't know exactly what you meant by your earlier post, which is why I didn't respond to it. With the above explanation, it makes very good sense. EDIT: Especially the part about a model always being more limited than the reality of the thing being modeled.


you're welcome. and thank you, for the thoughtful, well-meaning reply; i am being quickly disabused of my naive idealism that such would be in greater supply around here.

Just a return clarification: Not all of us are arguing our own premises about the nature of the Divine. Some of us are exploring intellectual constructs based on ideas raised earlier in the discussion, which we feel are more (or less) logical but which do not actually conform to our own views.


thanks for the clarification. and, i think that i already knew that...and, in any case, "more power to ya".

For instance, several of us (including, I assume, the OP) have been arguing our real opinions about the concepts of "natural" versus "supernatural," but I, for one, have not brought in my own personal views about divinity because they are significantly different from the general gist of the thread, they would only muddy the conversation further, and I don't need to bring them up to make my arguments herein.

fair enough, and---again---"more power to ya". i would never argue that such is not a legitimate use of the thread.

it is not, however, my own interest, so much. my first priority, in jumping in here, was to give what i thought to be a honest, considered, and meaningful answer to the OP's question. my second priority was to define my terms in a way that would lend itself most directly to that communication. thirdly, i wanted to frame that conversation in terms that were already "laying around" in the discussion, in an effort to provide an easier entry point for others into my argument.

personally, i'd much rather talk about what i really think---and hear the same from others---than engage in a seemingly perpetual quibble about definitions, that doesn't even necessarily seem committed to reaching the point that it can be useful in answering the question.

but, that's just me.

i realize that some are thoroughly interested in that exercise, as a method of exploring meaning and exposing the structures of the prevailing constructs. fair enough, and..."more power to ya".

best, and

peace.

You don't know that.
well when the next guy parts the red sea with his staff, wont i feel like a fool!

have you given any thought to addressing ideas instead of just sniping at posters?

Showing how a posters statements, in this course yours, directly contradict themselves, is a fair and useful way to examine their ideas. You continue to make claims about what you "aren't interested in", when you have demonstrably behaved otherwise in the thread. And I get called "dishonest".


i am not interested in debating the meaning of words. my post contained an idea. why not address that?

Your post contained words that attempted to present an idea that hasn't been consistent.

Those words have meanings, and the more you equivocate and distort words, the more the contained idea suffers.

All we can transmit to one another here is words, and if you can't take responsibility for their meanings and the way they are contrasting to your ideas, and your ideas to themselves, that's not my fault.

I have addressed your ideas, and shown, with your own words and mine, why I find them uncompelling.

it was in response to you making a categorical statement that was equally as universal: "...all models have limitations..."

Um, no, it was Gift-of-god who made that statement, not me. Go back and look. I realize this is a common mistake, I've made it myself at times, but if you are going to throw around words like "dishonest" and "nasty", and at least try to remember which poster you're talking to.


no. i didn't. i made a different, contrasting categorical statement about the nature of the Divine, as i understand it; in fact, i made it specifically clear that the first statement definitively does not apply to "The Only Real God", in my view. and, as noted, i used this contrast to illustrate how i would be defining---or "qualifying" (per the OP)---"God" for the sake of answering the question, in the very next post.



that's neither a 'sin', for them---nor my fault. so why should i care?

poor baby!



go right ahead; but if you do, you will be graduating from nasty and dishonest to nasty, dishonest, and irrationally stubborn.

the choice is yours, of course.

You referred to it as "The Only Real God". If you don't see how that goes beyond "the nature of divine as you understand it" all the way to claiming "the only real one" which is different, then your accusation of "irrationally stubborn" isn't credible.

Seriously, go back and look at the thread. It was not me that made the claim about all models have limits, it was Gift-of-god who posted that, even though you claim above it was me. You're way off here and anybody who wants to go back and look at the thread can see it. We all make mistakes like that, but its the sort of thing that warrants a retraction and maybe an apology.

Its been given several times in the thread.

"Supernatural (from the dictionary):

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous."


But, every use of 'supernatural' doesn't have to conform to ALL of those meanings, now, does it?

If one said... I don't know... "supernatural miracles dont happen", that wouldn't be internally inconsistent if one took the 'of a deity' reference point. You know - just for example.

"Miracle" would be similarly versatile.

So - quibbling that "supernatural miracles don't happen" is internally nonsensical, is somewhere between quibbling and equivocating.

To address the issue inherent in the point (without the semantic frippery), where is the evidence that events that can't be explained by natural laws... are happening? Only in theological texts?

If such events should happen - even if we can't explain them, we would be able to verify their existence, because we would have two distinct 'states' of being, one where all the elements link together, in a causative observable pattern, and one where things happen spontaneously and it can be shown that such a chain of events did NOT transpire.

So, for example - miraculous and non-miraculous earthquakes. One set showing all the usual precursors... one that flies directly in the face of the usual precursors.

But, every use of 'supernatural' doesn't have to conform to ALL of those meanings, now, does it?

I never said it did. I said several times, at least 3 I think, in the thread that if you go by definitions 1 and 2, you can move away from the divine aspect, but even by 1 and 2, the usage is still above and beyond nature, so you can't call it natural.


If one said... I don't know... "supernatural miracles dont happen", that wouldn't be internally inconsistent if one took the 'of a deity' reference point. You know - just for example.

Actually, I would say the only miracle that could happen and still fit the meanings of both words is a "supernatural miracle". I would say a miracle is not natural, it is defined as at least preternatural, beyond nature, a priori, by the definition of the word.


"Miracle" would be similarly versatile.

So - quibbling that "supernatural miracles don't happen" is internally nonsensical, is somewhere between quibbling and equivocating.

I never claimed it or quibbled, so I can't defend those who did on the thread. I wouldn't claim that "supernatural miracles don't happen". At least a supernatural miracle abides by the meaning of supernatural (any of the 5 you choose, ignoring whichever 4 you choose) and the meaning of miracle.



To address the issue inherent in the point (without the semantic frippery), where is the evidence that events that can't be explained by natural laws... are happening? Only in theological texts?

If such events should happen - even if we can't explain them, we would be able to verify their existence, because we would have two distinct 'states' of being, one where all the elements link together, in a causative observable pattern, and one where things happen spontaneously and it can be shown that such a chain of events did NOT transpire.

So, for example - miraculous and non-miraculous earthquakes. One set showing all the usual precursors... one that flies directly in the face of the usual precursors.

That just means the precursors are inadequate, which will often be the case. If the quake occurs for natural reasons, whether we know them or not, its not a miracle (call it frippery if you prefer, but a rigorous precision of language well serves these kinds of discussions). It can look like a miracle, but if its natural, its not, by the dictionary definition. If you want to use your own definition, you can arrive at different conclusions quite easily just by changing the meanings of the words.

Now, do miracles happen? I don't see why not, but they are then, by dictionary definition, the imposition upon nature of a power greater than nature. But just because we haven't determined the explanatory precursors or don't have a sufficiently penetrative model doesn't mean (necessarily) that its unnatural.

Hey Hammurab, how'd the memo turn out?

Fine. In which case you would require a universe full of universes so that we can be in one of the few that actually works. A huge multiverse wherein the vast majority of universes are completely incapable of making atoms, let alone life. Is that what you are arguing?

How many discrete points (analogous to outcome) are in any bounded (or unbounded, for that matter) continuum? How many real numbers, or even just rational numbers are between 1 and 2?

In a continuum, the premise of "vast majority" contradicts the premise of how set cardinality works. There are the same amount of real numbers (infinitely many) between 1 and 2 as there are between 1 and 10 centillion. Trying to compare their cardinalities is like asking what portion one infinity is of another infinity.


I understand that. The point is that there could have been 10 centillion different types of universes, but only about three of them would ever have supported anything more complicated than a subatomic particle.

Now take it to a continuum of possibilities rather than a discrete set. And remember, somewhere, somehow, its always possible that not just 1 of the 3, but all of the 3, and 3 more you and your sources didn't think of, there were twenty kinds of particles, non particles, uncollapsed probability wave forms of different character, life that don't require the things we require. In a continuum, even between 1 and 3, such outcomes can occur and they are no more amazing or unlikely than whatever outcome did occur. And all those other possibilities, had they occured, would feel just as lucky, and all the outcomes with nothing sentient wouldn't feel lucky (or anything at all).


Now, there are several ways around this. Some postulate an infinite multiverse, thereby giving us 10 centillion options. As Lunatic Golfballs pointed out once, in such a situation, the chances of one of these universes having a creator god approaches one.

As much as a I hate to differ with LG, that's like saying "In an infinite number of integers, the odds of one of them being pi approaches 1". It doesn't.


Some use the absurdist argument, i.e. we just got lucky.

Titling the argument as absurdist is just a clear example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

Its already been demonstrated that ANY discrete outcome drawn from a continuum has a likelihood approaching zero, so EVERY outcome "just got lucky" compared to its peers. That the one we like or think we like was it is arbitrary characterization.


Some use the theist argument, obviously.

I have my reservations about what this implies. But more importantly, the numbers seem to be correct, and if that is the case, the existence of the universe and our presence as sentient beings within it does seem to indicate an incredibly lucky break.

My feelings have nothing to do with the matter, so I do not understand why you bring them up. Show me where my logic or information is wrong instead of trying to dismiss my argument because of the emotions behind it.

You were the one who brought up how and why you thought your child was a miracle. It was a central part of your premise. Go back and look at what you posted. You brought it up, not me.


On a separate note, Reality-Humanity is trying to claim I posted something about "all models having limits", but if you go back and look, you posted it.

Could you please ask him to direct his critique of that claim to its originator, you?

Now, do miracles happen? I don't see why not, but they are then, by dictionary definition, the imposition upon nature of a power greater than nature. But just because we haven't determined the explanatory precursors or don't have a sufficiently penetrative model doesn't mean (necessarily) that its unnatural.

But if it's not, by the definition you were claiming, it wouldn't be a miracle.

You look like you're agreeing - the evidence suggests there are no 'miracles'. But, rather than just saying it, and saying you reserve judgment, and won't rule it out just ebcause all the evidence seems to speak against it.. you seem to be enjoying a legalistic wrangle over whether one can semantically express the concepts adequately.

On the subject of which - since we seem to be using 'miracle' to suggest something inexplicable, and 'supernatural' to suggest something external to and 'above' nature - even if we could show miracles, they wouldn't necessarily be 'supernatural'...

Hey Hammurab, how'd the memo turn out?

We'll find out, I submit it this evening. I'm happy with it. If it gets thumped, I might change my tune, we'll see.

If god exists then he, it, she, them are not by definition supernatural.

We'll find out, I submit it this evening. I'm happy with it. If it gets thumped, I might change my tune, we'll see.

want me to take a quick look?

edit: know what, I don't want to derail your thread, TG me if you want.

But if it's not, by the definition you were claiming, it wouldn't be a miracle.

That's my point. Now, if we find an exhaustive model of natural phenomenon, and something acts outside it, it either disproves the model or its a miracle (dictionary definition).


You look like you're agreeing - the evidence suggests there are no 'miracles'. But, rather than just saying it, and saying you reserve judgment, and won't rule it out just ebcause all the evidence seems to speak against it.. you seem to be enjoying a legalistic wrangle over whether one can semantically express the concepts adequately.

On the subject of which - since we seem to be using 'miracle' to suggest something inexplicable, and 'supernatural' to suggest something external to and 'above' nature - even if we could show miracles, they wouldn't necessarily be 'supernatural'...

Miracle is a "preternatural" (above and beyond nature) act by an ostensibly sentient actor.

Supernatural is a broader range of concepts, given above, that are either divine or at least "not bound by nature".

By being defined in the dictionary as "preternatural" or words to that effect, miracles appear to be a subset of the supernatural, specifically a supernatural imposition upon the natural world, to which the natural world is subordinated and to which the natural world's boundaries are violated in some instance.

want me to take a quick look?

edit: know what, I don't want to derail your thread, TG me if you want.

I'll let it sink or swim, thanks though, man.

Noticed you aren't interested in the jury? Too pretentious for you? Or don't like to argue shit in that manner off the clock?

Shit, its five, I have to roll. Take care everybody.

I'll let it sink or swim, thanks though, man.

Noticed you aren't interested in the jury? Too pretentious for you? Or don't like to argue shit in that manner off the clock?

Shit, its five, I have to roll. Take care everybody.

I haven't really had time to read the thread to be honest, I'll check it out.

Showing how a posters statements, in this course yours, directly contradict themselves, is a fair and useful way to examine their ideas. You continue to make claims about what you "aren't interested in", when you have demonstrably behaved otherwise in the thread. And I get called "dishonest".



Your post contained words that attempted to present an idea that hasn't been consistent.

Those words have meanings, and the more you equivocate and distort words, the more the contained idea suffers.

All we can transmit to one another here is words, and if you can't take responsibility for their meanings and the way they are contrasting to your ideas, and your ideas to themselves, that's not my fault.

I have addressed your ideas, and shown, with your own words and mine, why I find them uncompelling.
*shakes my head*

whatever.

How many discrete points (analogous to outcome) are in any bounded (or unbounded, for that matter) continuum? How many real numbers, or even just rational numbers are between 1 and 2?

In a continuum, the premise of "vast majority" contradicts the premise of how set cardinality works. There are the same amount of real numbers (infinitely many) between 1 and 2 as there are between 1 and 10 centillion. Trying to compare their cardinalities is like asking what portion one infinity is of another infinity.

Now take it to a continuum of possibilities rather than a discrete set. And remember, somewhere, somehow, its always possible that not just 1 of the 3, but all of the 3, and 3 more you and your sources didn't think of, there were twenty kinds of particles, non particles, uncollapsed probability wave forms of different character, life that don't require the things we require. In a continuum, even between 1 and 3, such outcomes can occur and they are no more amazing or unlikely than whatever outcome did occur. And all those other possibilities, had they occured, would feel just as lucky, and all the outcomes with nothing sentient wouldn't feel lucky (or anything at all).

Sorry. Never went to university. You'll have to write that in normal English. I think you're saying that if we have an infinite number of outcomes between 1 and 2, then it doesn't maater if we also have an infinite number of outcomes between 2 an 10 centillion. If that is what you're saying, what does that have to do with what I'm saying?

As much as a I hate to differ with LG, that's like saying "In an infinite number of integers, the odds of one of them being pi approaches 1". It doesn't.

Sure. Whatever. This is not central to the premise and my point still stands. I don't feel like arguing your assumptions about the nature of a creator god in an analogical comparison to pi.

Titling the argument as absurdist is just a clear example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

I was just using the common name for that particular solution. I do not consider something absurd to be bad. YMMV.

Its already been demonstrated that ANY discrete outcome drawn from a continuum has a likelihood approaching zero, so EVERY outcome "just got lucky" compared to its peers. That the one we like or think we like was it is arbitrary characterization.

I understand this. But it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. That is only useful when you're talking about a set of outcomes where all the outcomes are equally valid for what you want. This is not the case.

The point is that you have a huge range of possible outcomes. Out of that range, you need to get one out of three or four of those. The other gazillion of them won't do. They're no good. Now, you get one of those gazillion outcomes. You don't get to choose it. You just get it. What are your chances of getting one of the good ones?

About 1 in a gazillion, right? Well, that's roughly the odds against us ever existing. Yet here we are.

Currently, astrophysicists hope to deal with this apparent dilemma by finding a Grand Unified Theory and Final Theory which successfully explains why certain variables must be the way they are.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9909295

You were the one who brought up how and why you thought your child was a miracle. It was a central part of your premise. Go back and look at what you posted. You brought it up, not me.

I didn't bring up my feelings about my child as part of my premise. I brought up the example of the naturally occuring, yet mathematically highly improbable, event of our meeting as an example of what could be defined as a miracle if you weren't stuck on the whole 'supernatural' thing.

I wonder what you think my premise is.

Sorry. Never went to university. You'll have to write that in normal English. I think you're saying that if we have an infinite number of outcomes between 1 and 2, then it doesn't maater if we also have an infinite number of outcomes between 2 an 10 centillion. If that is what you're saying, what does that have to do with what I'm saying?

You brought up "odds" as central to your argument, I went back and looked. These things impact "odds".


Sure. Whatever. This is not central to the premise and my point still stands. I don't feel like arguing your assumptions about the nature of a creator god in an analogical comparison to pi.

Your brought it up as a supporting position, if you want to dismiss it as "not central" now, why include it in the first place? I can see why you don't feel like examing the analogy as it cogently addresses your assumptions about ostensibly "necessary" outcomes.


I was just using the common name for that particular solution. I do not consider something absurd to be bad. YMMV.

Common name amongst whom? And if you don't see how assigning the term "absurd" to a premise is inherently pejorative, it explains a great deal.


I understand this. But it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. That is only useful when you're talking about a set of outcomes where all the outcomes are equally valid for what you want. This is not the case.

That's exactly the assumption I'm taking issue with: that all the other outcomes would be "invalid" just because they wouldn't have included us. If they had resulted in utterly different things, or nothing at all, why is that outcome not valid just because we wouldn't be here to examine it, something else or nothing else would be? We think because we are, we are must have have been. Maybe we're just how it turned out, and other outcomes would have been just as valid.


The point is that you have a huge range of possible outcomes. Out of that range, you need to get one out of three or four of those. The other gazillion of them won't do. They're no good. Now, you get one of those gazillion outcomes. You don't get to choose it. You just get it. What are your chances of getting one of the good ones?

About 1 in a gazillion, right? Well, that's roughly the odds against us ever existing. Yet here we are.

You continue with exactly the same assumption. Every lottery winner considers their win to be the "good" one, and if somebody else had won, they'd suddenly be the "good" one. And if nobody wins, nobody thinks theirs is the "good" one, because nobody is there to think of it.

That profound self importance, to think that "good", in anything other than the most arbitrary and self-interested sense, always means "the outcome that makes me".

But there are limitless possible other beings from whose perspective it wouldn't be "good", just like if they or nothing had been the outcome, you call that outcome "bad" because it excludes us.

Well if "we" are the only possibly "valid" or "good" outcome, if you think the outcome that did happen is therefore the only outcome that must've happen (as opposed to simply the outcome that did happen, the beneficiaries of which will pronounce it "good" no matter who or what they are), its no more meaningful than a lottery winner saying they "Must" have won by divine grace, because otherwise it would have been "no good".


Currently, astrophysicists hope to deal with this apparent dilemma by finding a Grand Unified Theory and Final Theory which successfully explains why certain variables must be the way they are.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9909295

And would you say your view of this potential theory is reflective of a depth of mathematics consistent with what you've applied so far in discussing this? I'm not claiming to know all the math behind their work, but before I examine it, are you?


I didn't bring up my feelings about my child as part of my premise. I brought up the example of the naturally occuring, yet mathematically highly improbable, event of our meeting as an example of what could be defined as a miracle if you weren't stuck on the whole 'supernatural' thing.

I wonder what you think my premise is.

I explained several times (to which you said it had nothing to do with it, now you change) that EVERY outcome, including your child, is "mathematically highly improbably" as a discrete instance drawn from a continuum of possibilities.

It would have been just as highly improbably for your child to go through all that and be stricken with some rare disease, but you arbitrarily don't call that a miracle because it isn't good.

And all the other outcomes, the children that weren't born, were just as improbable, and as is the entire premise of probability that you repeatedly evoke, one outcome occurs. You got the "good" one, which is great; in a continuum of potentials, some outcomes will simply fit that.

As for the whole 'supernatural' thing, look at the thread title.

In short, of a whole range of outcomes, some will include outcomes people like. In a very large range of outcomes, some will include some that are very improbable. Like you posted, almost impossible, which is still possible.

So it didn't break any natural laws, is thus not super or preternatural, and thus doesn't fit the dictionary definition of miracle.

By your definition, merely an improbable outcome that pleases you, you can call it whatever you want, just like anybody else who wants to change the definitions to fit the conclusions they want.

I hate to post and run, but I need to get some rest. I'm not ignoring you if you post, I'll try back later. Thanks.

Sorry
I wonder what you think my premise is.

so leaving out all the debate on definitions, fancy college talk, and statistical analysis, what IS your premise?

Your brought it up as a supporting position, if you want to dismiss it as "not central" now, why include it in the first place? I can see why you don't feel like examing the analogy as it cogently addresses your assumptions about ostensibly "necessary" outcomes.

How does it challenge my assumptions about necessary outcomes?

Common name amongst whom? And if you don't see how assigning the term "absurd" to a premise is inherently pejorative, it explains a great deal.

Amongst the philosphers, theologians and scientists who discuss and debat ethese topics. Ian Barbour uses it when discussing possible solutions to Barrow and Tipler. It's actually the one I believe, but I have no trouble believeing that absurd things sometimes happen.

That's exactly the assumption I'm taking issue with: that all the other outcomes would be "invalid" just because they wouldn't have included us....its no more meaningful than a lottery winner saying they "Must" have won by divine grace, because otherwise it would have been "no good".

Well, I was discussing my child. My child only exists in a very slim few possibilities. That's why those are valid and the others aren't. They don't include my child. They also don't include the basic building blocks of the reality we know and love, but the child provides a more poignant example. I could have simply said sentient life and the argument would still be true.

I explained several times (to which you said it had nothing to do with it, now you change) that EVERY outcome, including your child, is "mathematically highly improbably" as a discrete instance drawn from a continuum of possibilities. ...
In short, of a whole range of outcomes, some will include outcomes people like. In a very large range of outcomes, some will include some that are very improbable. Like you posted, almost impossible, which is still possible.

See above.

So it didn't break any natural laws, is thus not super or preternatural, and thus doesn't fit the dictionary definition of miracle.

Yes. I pointed that out earlier.

By your definition, merely an improbable outcome that pleases you, you can call it whatever you want, just like anybody else who wants to change the definitions to fit the conclusions they want.

Not exactly. I think it would be more correct (I want to say correcter, because it's less correct) to say that I am defining miraculous as that which occurs despite astronomically improbable odds and results in amazingly complicated and challenging entities such as sentient beings.

Yeah. I 'll go with that until it's shown to be wrong.

But the dictionary definition is ood too. Don't get me wrong.

so leaving out all the debate on definitions, fancy college talk, and statistical analysis, what IS your premise?

I don't actually have one. I'm just talking about god. The question is "is god supernatural", and I don't think so, but I'm not arguing that. I did propose a model of god, and a definition of miracle that does not limit itself to the supernatural, but mostly I'm just discussing how a god would be modelled to be consistent with our observable reality.

How does it challenge my assumptions about necessary outcomes?

You presented, by the proxy of LG, that in a universe, the probability of a god approaches 1, yet the pi analogy shows thats you can have infinite cardinality without any specific set element approaching one. It shows by simple and clear example the probability need not approach 1 as you assumed.


Amongst the philosphers, theologians and scientists who discuss and debat ethese topics. Ian Barbour uses it when discussing possible solutions to Barrow and Tipler. It's actually the one I believe, but I have no trouble believeing that absurd things sometimes happen.

Yet you think they imply some sort of "miracle" (your term applied, go back and look) to happen.


Well, I was discussing my child. My child only exists in a very slim few possibilities. That's why those are valid and the others aren't. They don't include my child. They also don't include the basic building blocks of the reality we know and love, but the child provides a more poignant example. I could have simply said sentient life and the argument would still be true.

This is the precise mentality I was attributing to you. You've now explicitly stated it.

As far as "sentient life", ours isn't the only conceivable manifestation thereof. Your phrase "the reality we know and love" reveals exactly the assumption I've described. Just because we "know" it and some "love" it doesn't make it the only "valid" or "good" outcome, and the fact that it occurred is only as uniquely "valid" as we want to arbitrarily make ourselves. Other possible outcomes might consider themselves just as valid in ways we can't even project.



Yes. I pointed that out earlier.

So then if you pointed out earlier that it is not supernatural, not preternatural, and not a miracle, yet you've repeatedly claimed its a miracle and represents something somehow signficant by stochastic inference. You contradict yourself. If your only claim is that "Its a miracle by the definition of what I want to be a miracle", then anyone can claim anything is a miracle by just dictating the definition to conform to their desired outcome. It has no real substance as discussion.


Not exactly. I think it would be more correct (I want to say correcter, because it's less correct) to say that I am defining miraculous as that which occurs despite astronomically improbable odds and results in amazingly complicated and challenging entities such as sentient beings.

"Amazing" and "challenging" are arbitrary. Just because you can't or don't realize other outcomes may have been just as amazing or challenging or conceivably moreso, but this is the reality you know, so you think its the most impressive. Many think exactly as you are describing.


Yeah. I 'll go with that until it's shown to be wrong.

Of course you will. Since there are a huge range of things, (including contrary things you've assumed to be wrong), that can't be shown to be wrong, it lets you go with whatever you want. Lots of thing can't be shown to be wrong; you picked the one you like, and ignored all the others that were just as valid.


But the dictionary definition is ood too. Don't get me wrong.

I don't actually have one. I'm just talking about god. The question is "is god supernatural", and I don't think so, but I'm not arguing that. I did propose a model of god, and a definition of miracle that does not limit itself to the supernatural, but mostly I'm just discussing how a god would be modelled to be consistent with our observable reality.

You say you don't have a premise. You then present several, as you have done throughout.

You present a "definition" of words to allow you to arrive at the conclusion you want. In that manner, one could model a mammal that is not a mammal, just by changing definitions.

Your "discussion" is just changing definitions. Your appeal to being "consistent", when rendered against your previous posts, is demonstrably not consistent, even just using your own detailed premise, which you evidently claim you don't have.

EDIT: I've noticed you haven't followed up on your attempt to use contemporary astrophysics to back your given premise. May I take it that if we explored the depth to which you are able to really address your own supporting information, your use of the work of astrophysicists may not reflect pervasive grasp of the work itself? Remember, you brought it up.

You presented, by the proxy of LG, that in a universe, the probability of a god approaches 1, yet the pi analogy shows thats you can have infinite cardinality without any specific set element approaching one. It shows by simple and clear example the probability need not approach 1 as you assumed.
...

Your "discussion" is just changing definitions. Your appeal to being "consistent", when rendered against your previous posts, is demonstrably not consistent, even just using your own detailed premise, which you evidently claim you don't have.

EDIT: I've noticed you haven't followed up on your attempt to use contemporary astrophysics to back your given premise. May I take it that if we explored the depth to which you are able to really address your own supporting information, your use of the work of astrophysicists may not reflect pervasive grasp of the work itself? Remember, you brought it up.

Wow. You really missed the boat. That's probably my fault for not being clear.

I was bringing up an example of how one could define something as being miraculous, yet not include the supernatural. I used the anthropic cosmological principle as an example of something that would fit that definition. I'm not trying to prove anything or win an argument or show how your definiton of whatever is wrong.

I'm sorry you have trouble figuring this out.

As for the astrophysics, I know enough to say that my link shows that there is a dilemma that is currently not solved by science.

I don't actually have one. I'm just talking about god. The question is "is god supernatural", and I don't think so, but I'm not arguing that. I did propose a model of god, and a definition of miracle that does not limit itself to the supernatural, but mostly I'm just discussing how a god would be modelled to be consistent with our observable reality.

oh thats what i was doing.

oh thats what i was doing.

Me too. Or at least that's what I was trying to do.

Me too. Or at least that's what I was trying to do.
its a fairly interesting challenge. its better without the restriction of modern christian god concept but i guess that just makes it more challenging.

its a fairly interesting challenge. its better without the restriction of modern christian god concept but i guess that just makes it more challenging.
I approached it with the mindset that "someone has brought me this god-concept (labeled on the box "modern Christian"), and they've asked me to see if it works as a natural concept or a supernatural concept." Kind of like bringing a food product to a test kitchen.

Now, being the person that I am, I'm not going to be content just to get one answer and leave it at that. I'm going to test both conditions and all possible combinations/variations of them before I'm satisfied that I've fully tested out the model.

So, in testing this god-concept, the "yes, it's supernatural" answer came easily and obviously. The model is designed to be supernatural, and it works very well as a supernatural concept. But for me, that still leaves the natural concept question to be addressed.

And that is what I have been testing ever since. And if I do say so myself, I think the application of the model posted by you, GoG and me works very well for getting this particular model of god-concept to work as part of the natural universe. Yes, it is true that we had to throw out the instructions that came with the model, but I don't think we had to do much fiddling with the model itself to get it to work.

So, as far as I'm concerned, this model can be released with two sets of instructions, one for supernatural understanding and one for natural understanding. Just like prepared foods come with instructions for heating in a microwave and heating in a conventional oven.

for people like me (however few there may be) who cant sign onto a concept of a god of miracles who has stopped handing them out to his faithful, its more religiously satisfying to suggest that nature IS god and that he does not violate the laws that he created.

it wont move me from the atheist column but its still compelling.

for people like me (however few there may be) who cant sign onto a concept of a god of miracles who has stopped handing them out to his faithful, its more religiously satisfying to suggest that nature IS god and that he does not violate the laws that he created.

it wont move me from the atheist column but its still compelling.
Well, if it comes right down to what we really think, personally -- fuck it, I'm a polytheist. There's not one part of this conversation -- which is entirely based on this one particular monotheistic spiritual cosmology -- that doesn't sound crazy to me. :D

EDIT: But if someone just wants to ask me how their god-concept works, my answer, after due and careful testing, is "it works both ways." :)

Wow. You really missed the boat. That's probably my fault for not being clear.

I addressed each thing you said, directly, and instead of responding to that, you just say I "missed the boat" without even trying to cope with how my responses illustrate the inconsistencies in what you're saying. That is not lack of clarity, its lack of any reply to what I showed above.


I was bringing up an example of how one could define something as being miraculous, yet not include the supernatural.

That is what is called a premise, which you claimed not to have. Its also been repeatedly shown to you that the miraculous includes the supernatural or preternatural, a priori. All you've done is change the meaning of the world to what you want the outcome to be.


I used the anthropic cosmological principle as an example of something that would fit that definition. I'm not trying to prove anything or win an argument or show how your definiton of whatever is wrong.

I'm sorry you have trouble figuring this out.

So, responses that show the contradictions in your definition mean I'm the one having trouble figuring this out? Most of what I've put forward you've conveniently ignored when it shows that your assumptions are contrary to your other assumptions.


As for the astrophysics, I know enough to say that my link shows that there is a dilemma that is currently not solved by science.

I never claimed otherwise and no link is necessary to prove that. My own work and papers in the adjacent area of solid state physics leave much unresolved.

But what you claimed was that the link suggests that there non-supernatural miracles. That is an utterly different claim than just "there is a dilemma that is currently not solved by science".

You put forward a premise and say you have no premise.

You present (ostensibly) supporting evidence for that premise and say you aren't trying to win an argument (even though that's what an argument is).

Those things you do say are demonstratively untennable by merely placing your words next to your other words, and showing how they are inconsistent.

In the end, if all you're doing is "presenting a definition" and having it fit the outcome that appeals to you, anyone can do that about anything. It shows nothing.

I addressed each thing you said, directly, and instead of responding to that, you just say I "missed the boat" without even trying to cope with how my responses illustrate the inconsistencies in what you're saying. That is not lack of clarity, its lack of any reply to what I showed above.

That is what is called a premise, which you claimed not to have. Its also been repeatedly shown to you that the miraculous includes the supernatural or preternatural, a priori. All you've done is change the meaning of the world to what you want the outcome to be.

So, responses that show the contradictions in your definition mean I'm the one having trouble figuring this out? Most of what I've put forward you've conveniently ignored when it shows that your assumptions are contrary to your other assumptions.

I never claimed otherwise and no link is necessary to prove that. My own work and papers in the adjacent area of solid state physics leave much unresolved.

But what you claimed was that the link suggests that there non-supernatural miracles. That is an utterly different claim than just "there is a dilemma that is currently not solved by science".

You put forward a premise and say you have no premise.

You present (ostensibly) supporting evidence for that premise and say you aren't trying to win an argument (even though that's what an argument is).

Those things you do say are demonstratively untennable by merely placing your words next to your other words, and showing how they are inconsistent.

In the end, if all you're doing is "presenting a definition" and having it fit the outcome that appeals to you, anyone can do that about anything. It shows nothing.

Yes. You are totally correct. I am wrong. You have shown my premise to be wrong. Well done.

If I had just been trying to show how you could define miracles a different way, and used the ACP as an example of something that could fit such a definition, that would have been an amusing counterexample to your pedantic approach to the subject.

But as you so carefully pointed out, this was not the case.

It was, in fact, a confused and contradictory attempt to redefine things in such a way that I can make everything relative so that you'll believe in my god of intelligent design or believe in my premise which says that you can define words in different ways sometimes. Or something like that. I'm sure you're clear on how my argument sucks.

By the way, do you have anything to say about my model of a god that is both natural and supernatural? It seems to be consistent with both reality and the dictionary definition of supernatural, yet still provides meaningful contact to humans.

Yes. You are totally correct. I am wrong. You have shown my premise to be wrong. Well done.

If I had just been trying to show how you could define miracles a different way, and used the ACP as an example of something that could fit such a definition, that would have been an amusing counterexample to your pedantic approach to the subject.

But as you so carefully pointed out, this was not the case.

It was, in fact, a confused and contradictory attempt to redefine things in such a way that I can make everything relative so that you'll believe in my god of intelligent design or believe in my premise which says that you can define words in different ways sometimes. Or something like that. I'm sure you're clear on how my argument sucks.

By the way, do you have anything to say about my model of a god that is both natural and supernatural? It seems to be consistent with both reality and the dictionary definition of supernatural, yet still provides meaningful contact to humans.

My adherence to formal rules will likely cause anything I say to not be useful to you, as calling it "natural" and concurrently "supernatural" is problematic.

You can define words in different ways sometimes; and by doing so, you can arrive at proportionately convoluted conclusions sometimes. You've shown you can do this very well on your own.

Now bear in mind, I never claimed a "supernatural" god thing, if it did exist, couldn't have contact with humans. And one could argue that the supernatural would then impose itself briefly to some intersection of the "natural", such as an angel letting you know to get out of town because God has chosen not to renew the lease on dry land or whatever.

What you have is a case of the supernatural excercising its defined ability to act above and beyond the natural, or to act onto it and defy its rules, to which the natural would then be subordinate (under this model).

Then you'd have a supernatural or preternatural act upon the natural world (defined as a miracle), but humans could be subject to its consequence, much as an autocrat not limited by law can do things to subordinates who are limited by law.

Um, no, it was Gift-of-god who made that statement, not me. Go back and look. I realize this is a common mistake, I've made it myself at times, but if you are going to throw around words like "dishonest" and "nasty", and at least try to remember which poster you're talking to.

you're right. that's my mistake. i apologize.

You referred to it as "The Only Real God". If you don't see how that goes beyond "the nature of divine as you understand it" all the way to claiming "the only real one" which is different, then your accusation of "irrationally stubborn" isn't credible.

in referring to it as "The Only Real God", i simply mean to indicate that i am referring directly to what i understand to be The Divine, Itself---and not just to a particular conception or perception or knowledge of The Divine. also---in doing so---i am effectively implying that my own understanding of that Divine is not the one that prevails and might otherwise be presumed of me---which happens to be true; that is, i am "setting off" my reference from the common one.

i would do that again.

however, i don't deny that this reference occurred as part of a categorical statement. i don't regret that either. i begrudge no one their categorical statements---only, possibly, their validity, as i did gift-of-god's. i wouldn't dish that out if i couldn't take it; if anyone wants to challenge my statement, i'll be happy to respond to that. but: i'm not going to apologize for making it.

the statement reflects my own experience and understanding.

Seriously, go back and look at the thread. It was not me that made the claim about all models have limits, it was Gift-of-god who posted that, even though you claim above it was me. You're way off here and anybody who wants to go back and look at the thread can see it. We all make mistakes like that, but its the sort of thing that warrants a retraction and maybe an apology.

you're right; i was way off---at least on that point.

i apologize, hammurab, and i retract that particular criticism.


i don't have time, right now, to go back through and consider what i would personally like to still carry forward in this discussion; maybe i will do that later this evening or tomorrow.


in the meantime, i hope that you will please accept my sincere apology for my mis-attribution and criticism of you on its basis.

best.

you're right. that's my mistake. i apologize.

in referring to it as "The Only Real God", i simply mean to indicate that i am referring directly to what i understand to be The Divine, Itself---and not just to a particular conception or perception or knowledge of The Divine. also---in doing so---i am effectively implying that my own understanding of that Divine is not the one that prevails and might otherwise be presumed of me---which happens to be true; that is, i am "setting off" my reference from the common one.

i would do that again.

however, i don't deny that this reference occurred as part of a categorical statement. i don't regret that either. i begrudge no one their categorical statements---only, possibly, their validity, as i did gift-of-god's. i wouldn't dish that out if i couldn't take it; if anyone wants to challenge my statement, i'll be happy to respond to that. but: i'm not going to apologize for making it.

the statement reflects my own experience and understanding.

you're right; i was way off---at least on that point.

i apologize, hammurab, and i retract that particular criticism.


i don't have time, right now, to go back through and consider what i would personally like to still carry forward in this discussion; maybe i will do that later this evening or tomorrow.


in the meantime, i hope that you will please accept my sincere apology for my mis-attribution and criticism of you on its basis.

best.

I more than accept your apology, I respect and admire it.

I am still offput by the premise of "The Only Real God", but your rendering of the term can serve for sake of discussion. Respond at your convenience, I don't doubt you are genuine, even if we deeply differ.

My adherence to formal rules will likely cause anything I say to not be useful to you, as calling it "natural" and concurrently "supernatural" is problematic.

Do you believe something can't be both at the same time? Could part of god be natural and part of it supernatural?

Now bear in mind, I never claimed a "supernatural" god thing, if it did exist, couldn't have contact with humans. And one could argue that the supernatural would then impose itself briefly to some intersection of the "natural", such as an angel letting you know to get out of town because God has chosen not to renew the lease on dry land or whatever.

What you have is a case of the supernatural excercising its defined ability to act above and beyond the natural, or to act onto it and defy its rules, to which the natural would then be subordinate (under this model).

Then you'd have a supernatural or preternatural act upon the natural world (defined as a miracle), but humans could be subject to its consequence, much as an autocrat not limited by law can do things to subordinates who are limited by law.

But god does not apparently do this.

Do you believe something can't be both at the same time? Could part of god be natural and part of it supernatural?

Once he/she/it separates itself into parts, it loses claim to things like unity, all-encompasingness, and if part of it is limited, but another part is not, as a whole it is unlimited by acting through its unlimited portion.

Its sort of like, I can juggle. Not with my feet, but I can juggle.

Once you start attributing that sort of conceptual fracturing and "partial limit" to something like a God, you're again playing the definitions so loose, you can wiggle it, but its a sort of conceptually contrived conclusion.



But god does not apparently do this.

That assumption is broad. For all we know, some god right now is constantly acting supernaturally to restrain some celestial event outside our observation range or even right in front of us, but since its restrained, we would never know. It would never be apparent to us.

Further, what if ( I stress if) some supernatural god used its supernatural power to decide what the gravitational constant would be (being above and beyond nature by being able to arbitrarily govern it), but then act supernaturlly to change it, long ago, and it would never be apparent to us that this occurred.

EDIT:

I'm not into any particular version of God, but to claim what a real god "apparently" does implies an observational capacity and pervasiveness that humans really don't have.
I don't know if there is any god, but to imply that that we have thorough and transparent view of it, or that it doesn't act or potentially act in unapparent ways.

Once he/she/it separates itself into parts, it loses claim to things like unity, all-encompasingness, and if part of it is limited, but another part is not, as a whole it is unlimited by acting through its unlimited portion.

Its sort of like, I can juggle. Not with my feet, but I can juggle.

Once you start attributing that sort of conceptual fracturing and "partial limit" to something like a God, you're again playing the definitions so loose, you can wiggle it, but its a sort of conceptually contrived conclusion.

I am not sure that having a god of distinct parts is necessarily one that is not unified or all-encompassing. Your hands that juggle are still part of you as your feet are still part of you or the part of you that subconsciously calculates the trajectory of each ball.

Your mind can do all this crazy stuff that your feet can't do, and vice-versa. Yet both are you and you are a unified being. Why can't god also have different parts that perform different functions?

That assumption is broad....
I'm not into any particular version of God, but to claim what a real god "apparently" does implies an observational capacity and pervasiveness that humans really don't have.
I don't know if there is any god, but to imply that that we have thorough and transparent view of it, or that it doesn't act or potentially act in unapparent ways.

That's why I used the word apparent. Because, as far as we know, god doesn't do these things. I wouldn't call it an assumption as much as an observation, because the truth is that we don't observe these things. You are completely correct in that we are limited in our ability to observe everything, so god could be be doing some unapparent supernatural stuff all the time. Why would an omnipotent being do that?

I am not sure that having a god of distinct parts is necessarily one that is not unified or all-encompassing. Your hands that juggle are still part of you as your feet are still part of you or the part of you that subconsciously calculates the trajectory of each ball.

Your mind can do all this crazy stuff that your feet can't do, and vice-versa. Yet both are you and you are a unified being. Why can't god also have different parts that perform different functions?

Then it means God would have to say "I can't do this with that, I have to do it another way", which is possible, but its a limited god, bound in some ways and being thus forced to only act in other ways. Possible, not very goddy.


That's why I used the word apparent. Because, as far as we know, god doesn't do these things. I wouldn't call it an assumption as much as an observation, because the truth is that we don't observe these things. You are completely correct in that we are limited in our ability to observe everything, so god could be be doing some unapparent supernatural stuff all the time. Why would an omnipotent being do that?

How could an omnipotent being avoid doing some things that would not or could not be apparent to non-omnipotent beings?

Only if it voluntarily restrained itself to acting only in ways that would be apparent to us. Why would it do that? It could, but we can't assume it chooses only to act in ways we can observe.

And if it was then limited by acting only in apparent ways, its even more
constrained then nature, which can act in unapparent ways all the time.

Then it means God would have to say "I can't do this with that, I have to do it another way", which is possible, but its a limited god, bound in some ways and being thus forced to only act in other ways. Possible, not very goddy.

That's fine. I don't really mind having a less goddy god, if that god is logical and internally consistent and consistent with our observed reality.

How could an omnipotent being avoid doing some things that would not or could not be apparent to non-omnipotent beings?

Only if it voluntarily restrained itself to acting only in ways that would be apparent to us. Why would it do that? It could, but we can't assume it chooses only to act in ways we can observe.

And if it was then limited by acting only in apparent ways, its even more
constrained then nature, which can act in unapparent ways all the time.

I should have been more clear. What I meant to ask was: Why would an omnipotent being choose to only manifest itself in apparently natural ways, rather than manifesting in obviously supernatural ways?