Modern Day Miracles

Originally posted by Beliver
But they have in the Bible.

Jesus didnt turn the water into wine on his own, and the Red Sea parting had an audience.

I claim there is no such thing as a Miracle.

How do you know any of those stories are fact?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know any of those stories are fact?

I don't know they are fact. But I do know that nothing of its kind has happened again in the space of 2000ish years.

What scares me are the "true" belivers who take the bible as "gospel" and belive it word for word.

Originally posted by Beliver
I don't know they are fact. But I do know that nothing of its kind has happened again in the space of 2000ish years.

What scares me are the "true" belivers who take the bible as "gospel" and belive it word for word.

Miracles happen all the time.

All extremism is wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Miracles happen all the time.

All extremism is wrong.

Show me/explain one to me.

Originally posted by Beliver
Show me/explain one to me.

Imagine something, then convince yourself that it really happened. Now you have a Miracle.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Imagine something, then convince yourself that it really happened. Now you have a Miracle.

No what you have there is a delusion.

I can convince myself really hard that I have won the lottery. Unless a big pile of money lands in my lap, it isnt real.

And I'm sure deluding your self isnt all that healthy.

Originally posted by Beliver
No what you have there is a delusion.

I can convince myself really hard that I have won the lottery. Unless a big pile of money lands in my lap, it isnt real.

And I'm sure deluding your self isnt all that healthy.

You are making a judgment. I did not say if it was good or bad, just that it is real in the mind of the delusional.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are making a judgment. I did not say if it was good or bad, just that it is real in the mind of the delusional.

Just because its real to the delusional doesnt make a Miracle.

Originally posted by Beliver
Just because its real to the delusional doesnt make a Miracle.

Are you adding rules. 😠

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you adding rules. 😠

That's called the self-sealing fallacy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's called the self-sealing fallacy.

What I was illustrating or Beliver changing the rules?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I was illustrating or Beliver changing the rules?

Beliver.

It's it great when people violate logic in support of logic. Good to know the fundies are winning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you adding rules. 😠

No I'm not adding any rules.

I'm just saying that a delusion within one persons mind does not fit with the common conception of a miracle.

If one person "sees" something its a delusion. If a couple of people "see" something you have a corroborating story and if hundreds (or more) "see" something then it is undeniable (unless proven later on through science to be non-miraculous).

From Wikipedia:

"A miracle is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker. Many folktales, religious texts, and people claim various events they refer to as "miraculous". People in different cultures have substantially different definitions of the word "miracle." Even within a specific religion there is often more than one of the term. Sometimes the term "miracle" may refer to the action of a supernatural being that is not a god. Thus, the term "divine intervention," by contrast, would refer specifically to the direct involvement of a deity.

In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even which regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth. Other miracles might be: survival of a terminal illness, escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds.'"

In my opinion there are no such things as miracles, just Chaos in action. Random events that happen to be benifical to the perceiver are miraculous. Its just dumb luck.

Originally posted by Beliver
No I'm not adding any rules.

I'm just saying that a delusion within one persons mind does not fit with the common conception of a miracle.

If one person "sees" something its a delusion. If a couple of people "see" something you have a corroborating story and if hundreds (or more) "see" something then it is undeniable (unless proven later on through science to be non-miraculous).

From Wikipedia:

"A miracle is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker. Many folktales, religious texts, and people claim various events they refer to as "miraculous". People in different cultures have substantially different definitions of the word "miracle." Even within a specific religion there is often more than one of the term. Sometimes the term "miracle" may refer to the action of a supernatural being that is not a god. Thus, the term "divine intervention," by contrast, would refer specifically to the direct involvement of a deity.

In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even which regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth. Other miracles might be: survival of a terminal illness, escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds.'"

In my opinion there are no such things as miracles, just Chaos in action. Random events that happen to be benifical to the perceiver are miraculous. Its just dumb luck.

Here are the rules for this thread:

Now a few criteria:
1. Has to have been widely recognised as a Miracle.

2. Not refuted scientifically.

3. Non-annecdotal (sorry for spelling).

4. And just for records sake since 1800 onwards.

1. A delusion that one person has can become wide spread by story telling.

2. Delusion cannot be refuted by science because facts cannot sway the blind believer.

3. Anecdotal works in favor of delusions.

4. Delusions have no time restrictions.

You never said anything about disqualifying delusions. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Here are the rules for this thread:

1. A delusion that one person has can become wide spread by story telling.

2. Delusion cannot be refuted by science because facts cannot sway the blind believer.

3. Anecdotal works in favor of delusions.

4. Delusions have no time restrictions.

You never said anything about disqualifying delusions. 😉

😆

1. If only one person "sees" the miracle then he has no corroborating evidence and the story becomes heresay and rumour.

2. Delusions can be refuted by science. Its just a chemical imbalance in the persons head and they need help.

3. Anecdotal may work in the favour of delusions but does make it anymore beliveable to the outsider.

4. The mad rantings of a man 2000 years ago hold about as much water as a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

Other than the milk drinking Hindu statues (which was explained as a natural phenomenon) which you pointed out in another thread no-one has presented anything bordering on a modern day miracle.

Anyone else willing to offer up a nugget of fantasy?

Originally posted by Beliver
1. Has to have been widely recognised as a Miracle.

2. Not refuted scientifically.

3. Non-annecdotal (sorry for spelling).

4. And just for records sake since 1800 onwards.

your criteria are, in fact, impossible to meet

A miracle, by definition, is not a natural phenomenon. One cannot investigate it in an empirical sense. This makes it, forever, outside of the realm of science. Thus, science will always provide refutation for any claimed miracle.

Should the "miracle" be explainable through science, it fails to be a miracle because it is natural, in the sense that it can be studied empirically.

For something to be a real miracle, there must be scientific refutation, else the phenomenon is a natural one, which no longer is a miracle.

I assume you mean "There is no other, more logical, empirical explanation", but that is a moot point anyways. Given miracles are "one-time" events, any explanation that appeals to natural logic is just as suspect as those that appeal to the supernatural, as it is impossible to ever ascertain what caused events in the past, only predict how they will occur in the future. At the very least, there would be no objective way of distinguishing between natural or supernatural causes to an even that has already occured

Originally posted by Beliver
2. Delusions can be refuted by science. Its just a chemical imbalance in the persons head and they need help.

care to expand this?

to begin with, because we live in a society where people generally accept that God can "talk" to you, or you can be in his "presence", most people who experience God aren't delusional. The same would be true of miracles. In fact, a miracle in many ways is the personal attribution of cause to a situation. God causing something is a culturally acceptable conclusion to come to, therefore believing something is miraculous is not delusional.

Second, you cannot refute the claim that God communicates with someone scientifically. Nor can you refute that any miracle that they might have experienced has not happened.

The reason these things are looked at as symptomatic of mental disorder is, almost entirely, because science cannot use non-empirical evidence when determining cause.

A person who feels they speak to God, might in fact speak to God, there is just no possible way for science to ever prove that against the null of "they don't speak to God", therefore, it is sort of scientifically irrelevant.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you adding rules. 😠

I agree. Perception is reality to an individual. Until an individual changes their perception, they will not alter their reality.

Fact and truth are things that do not exist. They are simply perceived en masse.

Originally posted by Beliver
1. If only one person "sees" the miracle then he has no corroborating evidence and the story becomes heresay and rumour.

This is incorrect. It is simply one man's perception. Is it uncorroborated to others? Yes. However, to the person who experiences it, it is very much real.

Originally posted by Beliver
2. Delusions can be refuted by science. Its just a chemical imbalance in the persons head and they need help.

Delusions, in fact, are not generally attributed to chemical imbalances.

Originally posted by Beliver
3. Anecdotal may work in the favour of delusions but does make it anymore beliveable to the outsider.

I agree to this.

Originally posted by Beliver
4. The mad rantings of a man 2000 years ago hold about as much water as a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

it is not, in fact, the rantings you have an issue with. You dont know them. As in all historical research, it is the interpretation and record of these "rants" that you take issue with.

Originally posted by inimalist
your criteria are, in fact, impossible to meet

A miracle, by definition, is not a natural phenomenon. One cannot investigate it in an empirical sense. This makes it, forever, outside of the realm of science. Thus, science will always provide refutation for any claimed miracle.

Should the "miracle" be explainable through science, it fails to be a miracle because it is natural, in the sense that it can be studied empirically.

For something to be a real miracle, there must be scientific refutation, else the phenomenon is a natural one, which no longer is a miracle.

I assume you mean "There is no other, more logical, empirical explanation", but that is a moot point anyways. Given miracles are "one-time" events, any explanation that appeals to natural logic is just as suspect as those that appeal to the supernatural, as it is impossible to ever ascertain what caused events in the past, only predict how they will occur in the future. At the very least, there would be no objective way of distinguishing between natural or supernatural causes to an even that has already occured

So basically your saying there are no-more biblical style miracles because through the advancement of science (i.e. we're not living in mud huts, afraid of evil spirits, know how to cure disease and can travel to the moon) that which had no explanation (other than its Gods work) can be explained and proven to be non-miraclous.

Originally posted by Beliver
So basically your saying there are no-more biblical style miracles because through the advancement of science (i.e. we're not living in mud huts, afraid of evil spirits, know how to cure disease and can travel to the moon) that which had no explanation (other than its Gods work) can be explained and proven to be non-miraclous.

no, I'm saying it is impossible to meet the second criteria you have for miracles.

You are saying that there must be no scientific refutation of the miracle. If science didn't refute the miracle, it wouldn't be one.