Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does anyone know of a "Modern Day Miracle"?

I mean the bible is just packed with the suckers and yet in the age of modern man, its my understanding that there has been nothing even bordering on being a "Miracle" in the biblical sense.

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.

Web links would help for those of us who haven't got a whole lot of time to be surfing the internet.

Have fun.

Liverpool winning the Champions league.

Originally posted by jaden101
Liverpool winning the Champions league.

Good one.

Originally posted by jaden101
Liverpool winning the Champions league.

More likely than walking on water or rising from the dead.

(But not by much lol)

Nuclear weapons.

A modern day miracle?

Human beings have not destroyed themselves.

Yet.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nuclear weapons.

Discovered by science, employed by idiots.

Not a Miracle.

Originally posted by Mindship
A modern day miracle?

Human beings have not destroyed themselves.

Yet.

Give Humanity a chance. There is still time.

Originally posted by Beliver
Discovered by science, employed by idiots.

Not a Miracle.

An act of great power that you can't hope to really understand. Close enough to a miracle.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An act of great power that you can't hope to really understand. Close enough to a miracle.

I take it you failed to read criteria 1.

The big sun shine bomb was designed by man.

At no point is God or a saint involved. Not a Miracle.

Originally posted by Beliver
I take it you failed to read criteria 1.

The big sun shine bomb was designed by man.

At no point is God or a saint involved. Not a Miracle.

No I read the criteria, I think they're bad ones for a modern Miracle.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No I read the criteria, I think they're bad ones for a modern Miracle.

Okay I'll get the crayons out if you really need them.

Has anyone walked on water?

Turned water into wine?

Risen from the dead?

Parted a body of water just by shouting at it?

Is that clear enough or do I have to get the Elmo Explains Miracles book out?

Originally posted by Beliver
Okay I'll get the crayons out if you really need them.

Has anyone walked on water?

Turned water into wine?

Risen from the dead?

Parted a body of water just by shouting at it?

Is that clear enough or do I have to get the Elmo Explains Miracles book out?

I have turned water into wine. I used some grapes along with the water.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have turned water into wine. I used some grapes along with the water.

But you didn't convert water to wine through sheer force of faith though like the big J supposedly did.

Making your own is just copping out of buying it from the shops.

Originally posted by Beliver
But you didn't convert water to wine through sheer force of faith though like the big J supposedly did.

Making your own is just copping out of buying it from the shops.

No, I put everything together and willed it with a supernatural power. It just took me a lot longer then Jesus.

My point is: Miracles are whatever you want them to be. Magic and supernatural are products of the mind. You cannot restrict products of the mind with the laws of physics or logic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I put everything together and willed it with a supernatural power. It just took me a lot longer then Jesus.

My point is: Miracles are whatever you want them to be. Magic and supernatural are products of the mind. You cannot restrict products of the mind with the laws of physics or logic.

Let us say the ground in the middle of Liverpoll FC football ground opened up and Jesus jumped out and started smacking down the non-belivers...thats pretty miraculous.

Some drunken Mexican finding the face of Jesus in a potato is not.

Nothing like the events depicted in the bible have happened again (in any irrefutable way) since the end of times described in the bible.

Originally posted by Beliver
Let us say the ground in the middle of Liverpoll FC football ground opened up and Jesus jumped out and started smacking down the non-belivers...thats pretty miraculous.

Some drunken Mexican finding the face of Jesus in a potato is not.

Nothing like the events depicted in the bible have happened again (in any irrefutable way) since the end of times described in the bible.

However, some Christians on LSD my see Jesus jump out of a football field. To them, this is real; just as real as Jesus on the potato. Sure this is not real to you, but your reality is just as much in your mind as is everyone else.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, some Christians on LSD my see Jesus jump out of a football field. To them, this is real; just as real as Jesus on the potato. Sure this is not real to you, but your reality is just as much in your mind as is everyone else.

But your looking at this from the perspective of the individual.

Humanity as a collective has not seen anything that borders on the parting of the Red Sea, or the dead getting up and talking to people or people healing other people by just by touching them on the head (and it not be a scam)

Originally posted by Beliver
But your looking at this from the perspective of the individual.

Humanity as a collective has not seen anything that borders on the parting of the Red Sea, or the dead getting up and talking to people or people healing other people by just by touching them on the head (and it not be a scam)

The collective has never seen anything like that, ever. Miracles are personal by nature, and then become public by story telling.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The collective has never seen anything like that, ever. Miracles are personal by nature, and then become public by story telling.

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.

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:



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.

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

So there are no miracles.

Originally posted by Beliver
So there are no miracles.

As I pointed out in my previous analysis of your flawed logic:

You have chosen not to perceive miracles.

Originally posted by Beliver
So there are no miracles.

lol, try to stop reading what you want into what I am saying.

There are no miracles that meet your criteria, but that is your fault because the criteria are impossible to meet.

It would be like me saying "Find me a red car, but it cannot be red". You can't find that car, however, it isn't because there are no red cars, it is because my criteria for the car is flawed.

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.

So, in your opinion a 'miracle' can be anything at all?

Originally posted by Eon Blue
So, in your opinion a 'miracle' can be anything at all?

A miracles is a product of the mind. How limited is your imagination?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A miracles is a product of the mind. How limited is your imagination?

Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks, they are futile and you are simultaneously refusing to address my points.

If by chance you saw a shining light in the night sky that descended upon the city, with a being emerging from the light that was engulfed in a fiery radiance that healed tens upon thousands of persons with ailments, would you simply attribute it to mere imagination? Please keep in mind that when you saw this, thre were no mind-altering drugs in effect.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks, they are futile and you are simultaneously refusing to address my points.

If by chance you saw a shining light in the night sky that descended upon the city, with a being emerging from the light that was engulfed in a fiery radiance that healed tens upon thousands of persons with ailments, would you simply attribute it to mere imagination? Please keep in mind that when you saw this, thre were no mind-altering drugs in effect.

Ad-hominem attacks? I never attacked anyone. I was asking a rhetorical question.

What you described would never happen, but if it did happen, then I would assume that we are being visited by a more advanced alien race.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison Ad-hominem attacks? I never attacked anyone. I was asking a rhetorical question.

By your saying "How limited is your imagination", I gathered you weren't asking a rhetorical question, but targeting me.



I doubt it would ever happen either, but that's irrelevant. And even if it were an alien race, would you contribute it to being a mircale? What is in your definition, a mircale? Can they exist?

Originally posted by Eon Blue
By your saying "How limited is your imagination", I gathered you weren't asking a rhetorical question, but targeting me.

I was speaking in general.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
I doubt it would ever happen either, but that's irrelevant. And even if it were an alience race, would you contribute it to being a mircale? What is in your definition, a mircale? Can they exist?

No, it would not be a miracle. A miracle by definition is supernatural. Therefore, if a natural explanation can be found, then it is not a miracle.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was speaking in general.



No, it would not be a miracle. A miracle by definition is supernatural. Therefore, if a natural explanation can be found, then it is not a miracle.

So its a miracle until it can be explained using the laws of nature, and then its not a miracle?

Originally posted by Beliver
So its a miracle until it can be explained using the laws of nature, and then its not a miracle?

No, miracles do not exist outside the mind.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, miracles do not exist outside the mind.

So they dont exsist in the real sense, just as imagined fantasies. Then miracles depicted in the bible have been proven false by your statment.

Originally posted by Beliver
So they dont exsist in the real sense, just as imagined fantasies. Then miracles depicted in the bible have been proven false by your statment.

If you believe in something the effect is the same as if it was real. In our minds, the distinction between real and imagined is not so clear cut. For example; phobias.

Originally posted by Beliver
So they dont exsist in the real sense, just as imagined fantasies. Then miracles depicted in the bible have been proven false by your statment.

Only to people that know nothing about science, logic and evidence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only to people that know nothing about science, logic and evidence.

Show me the science, logic and evidence for the parting of the Red Sea by Moses, or Jesus feeding the many with little or Jesus coming back from the dead.

(Sits back and waits for the staggering weight of irrefutable evidence and facts to support your statment).

not having evidence to support something is not the same as it being proven wrong

There is no empirical evidence to the miracles in the bible, thus there is no support for them, but as they are single events in history and not controlled laboratory experiments, science has little more than that to say.

It is impossible to prove that anything in history didn't happen. All we can do is provide evidence to support what we did think happened.

Originally posted by Beliver
Show me the science, logic and evidence for the parting of the Red Sea by Moses, or Jesus feeding the many with little or Jesus coming back from the dead.

(Sits back and waits for the staggering weight of irrefutable evidence and facts to support your statment).

I never claimed to have any of those (nor as you seem to think do I believe any of them happened). I simply made the, factual, statement that you have failed to use science, logic or evidence at an point in your reasoning. If you're going to be an atheist at least try to also be a rationalist because if you don't you change nothing.

wait...what does Believer believe anyway?

Originally posted by Quark_666
wait...what does Believer believe anyway?

It's "Beliver" so, first that spelling is not important. Beyond that he has faith in his dogma and believes (or belives) that that supernatural can be positively disproved. So as far as the atheist -- theist spectrum goes he would be referred to as an irrational nutcase, but also an atheist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I never claimed to have any of those (nor as you seem to think do I believe any of them happened). I simply made the, factual, statement that you have failed to use science, logic or evidence at an point in your reasoning. If you're going to be an atheist at least try to also be a rationalist because if you don't you change nothing.

I didn't realist that I had to follow an "ist" to have an opnion on the "fact" that at no point in time (the past or the present) has any event even remotley close to those in bible.

Therefor LOGICALLY I deduce that the events were made up or the "witness" (i use the term loosely) was experiencign an altered sense of reality ( a delusion if you will).

And I think SCIENCE is more than happy to show you that man can not feed 500 people with a couple of fish and a loaf of bread, or cause a body of water to part by sheer force of will. Unless you know differently of course.

Originally posted by Beliver
And I think SCIENCE is more than happy to show you that man can not feed 500 people with a couple of fish and a loaf of bread, or cause a body of water to part by sheer force of will. Unless you know differently of course.

which is why, you know, they are called miracles

Originally posted by inimalist
which is why, you know, they are called miracles

No its called makey uppey rubbish. Fiction. Not real. Fantasy. You know?

Originally posted by Beliver
I didn't realist that I had to follow an "ist" to have an opnion on the "fact" that at no point in time (the past or the present) has any event even remotley close to those in bible.

You didn't realist? What the hell does that mean.

Originally posted by Beliver
Therefor LOGICALLY I deduce that the events were made up or the "witness" (i use the term loosely) was experiencign an altered sense of reality ( a delusion if you will).

You have given no evidence for your logic so it's not logic yet.

Originally posted by Beliver
And I think SCIENCE is more than happy to show you that man can not feed 500 people with a couple of fish and a loaf of bread, or cause a body of water to part by sheer force of will. Unless you know differently of course.

Actually science can only prove that no one so far tested in modern times has those abilities. From that we can extrapolate that it's unlikely anyone did it before, but we still cannot prove anything.

Much as you can't disprove Superman you can't disprove God. At most you can say there's no good reason to believe in or worship either one (which there isn't, IMO) but you can't, logically, state that either does has been or can be proven non-existent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You didn't realist? What the hell does that mean.



You have given no evidence for your logic so it's not logic yet.



Actually science can only prove that no one so far tested in modern times has those abilities. From that we can extrapolate that it's unlikely anyone did it before, but we still cannot prove anything.

Much as you can't disprove Superman you can't disprove God. At most you can say there's no good reason to believe in or worship either one (which there isn't, IMO) but you can't, logically, state that either does has been or can be proven non-existent.

I can disprove Superman as he is a fictional character developed to tell fictional stories. Superman only exsists in the fictional not the factual. Unless you can prove to me and the rest of the world otherwise.

And I didn't mean to type realist. I mean to to type realise.

Originally posted by Beliver
I can disprove Superman as he is a fictional character developed to tell fictional stories. Superman only exsists in the fictional not the factual. Unless you can prove to me and the rest of the world otherwise.

And I didn't mean to type realist. I mean to to type realise. you can create a counter theory with a simpler line of reasoning. not proof.

Originally posted by Beliver
And I think SCIENCE is more than happy to show you that man can not feed 500 people with a couple of fish and a loaf of bread, or cause a body of water to part by sheer force of will. Unless you know differently of course.

Science called. She says you don't understand her.

It's a Miracle that this thread has not been closed.