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

Every time I ask Christians why God doesn't perform miracles in modern times, someone inevitably answers "because then it wouldn't require faith to believe in him". I'd like to devote this thread to trying to understand the logic behind this notion.

1st off, this is obviously a modern argument. For the first 1800 years, almost all Christians would have answered that he does perform miracles. The Catholic church has a collection of hundreds, even thousands of "miraculous" objects. So I highly question if there is any biblical justification for this argument; if there was, obviously 99% of Christians in history didn't get the message. No, this seems rather to be an apologetic, created when science had refuted the supposed miracles.

2nd, God never had the slightest hesitancy to provide miracles in the Bible. In the old testament, he will provide miracles whenever his existence is put to the test, for instance, when the Baal worshippers questioned Elijah about him, God gladly provided a miracle to prove his existence, a literal "bolt from the blue". Now, I have heard people say, "well that's the Old Testament, it doesn't count". Except that this stuff happens all the time in the New Testament as well. Jesus performed miracles. The apostles performed miracles. When Paul doubted Jesus's existence, God had no problem providing a miraculous vision to persuade him. This happened after Jesus died, so any doubts people had about whether God will perform miracles post-crucifixion should be answered.

3rd, the logic itself bends my mind. Why would God care about this? Why is it so important to him that his believers have no hard evidence when they convert? Surely a belief inspired by reason and fact would be better than one founded on a guess. Obviously I lack the omniscient, all-knowing mind of God, but it seems to me that if I were in his shoes, I would want my followers to be informed, not under the spell of blind faith. If God wanted people to simply guess his existence from faith alone, with no facts, why would he create the bible, or ever appear on Earth at all? This argument presupposes that God would want to hide 100% of the evidence of his existence; otherwise he would "invalidate" people's faith. Obviously no message of the sort is in the Bible.

Is my logic here flawed? Or is this argument complete nonsense?

Buddhism was espousing this before it was cool. uhuh

God was performing miracles during the old testament because people did not have the Bible, his inspired word, to learn about him.

Or something like that, that's what I heard.

Also, Catholics don't know anything about Christianity. I heard that too.

But God revealed himself to Moses and that is where the 1st 5 books supposedly come from, so for a lot of the bible they did have revealed works of God. That never stopped him from performing miracles.

The writings weren't widespread. Also, a lot of miracles were used to protect his people.

And they obviously did not "invalidate" his people's faith.

Many people don't want to acknowledge how a religion changes as the world changes around it. I think you make a good point that this is a new-ish development that wouldn't have existed even, say, 300 years ago.

I wish people would really explore their thoughts on this matter, and others like it. Too often I think the quickest rationalization is clung to in order to support whatever a person's current belief is. Critical thought and thorough investigation are sorely missing from religious approaches to answers.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And they obviously did not "invalidate" his people's faith. No, they did not, and they still wouldn't.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Unless its a Baal worshipper doing it, I guess. God's prerogative.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But in the Bible, God will present miracles to convince non believers, see the example I gave with Elijah. How come if I hold out a sacrifice and dare God to light it, he won't send down a bolt any more?

In order to make the same parallel, you'd need a bonified prophet to be the one holding out the sacrifice of his or her own volition.

There's plenty of people claiming to be a "prophet" but how many are actual prophets?


Additionally, I've already presented miracles that definitely defy our current understanding of science and atheists can easily explain those away and have done so on KMC (Symmetric Chaos says my own personal "miracle" could just as likely be a remote viewer/telepath giving me a mental warning to save my sister...just as easily as it could be a magical skyfather. Who is to say he's wrong? God certainly isn't going to come around and smack him in the face and say, "It was me, dude".)

So what's the point of the entire discussion to begin with when all possible miracles still require faith?


Originally posted by King Kandy
As far as mutually exclusive, that's the whole point. People told me that the two were mutually exclusive, and i'm basically trying to disprove that stance. Neither in the Bible, or in common sense, would having evidence make your faith somehow lesser.

I agree. Blind faith is weak faith.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Attributing someone's lifestyle change to God is selling them short. I can't think of a crueler way to demean someone's efforts in life than to tell them that everything they accomplished, was actually God working through them. I mean call me crazy but I like to think that humans can change their ways without a miracle.

I'd like to think a little less like an atheistic jerk (but most of the time, that's pretty much the only way I think) and think of it more like this:

Some problems in life require someone else to help get over. Some problems in life require a strong support system and God to get over. Some problems can never be gotten over but God can be there to lighten the burdern.

DDM youre a mormon?

Originally posted by Mindset
DDM youre a mormon?

Yes sir. I know, I know....I have a foul mouth for a Mormon. Jesus didn't die for nothin', man!

Originally posted by King Kandy
Unless its a Baal worshipper doing it, I guess.
My favorite miracle story is the tale of how the Vikings were supposedly converted. A priest came to Norway and offered the current head honcho viking (don't remember if he was a king or just a really powerful chieftain) a wager: if he could prove his God was more powerful than the Norse gods (which is interesting because its almost as if even now at this point in the Middle Ages the Christians aren't totally convinced that there are no other extant gods, just not gods worth worshiping) then the Viking leader and all his subjects would convert to Christianity.

There were two tests, first they heated up an iron bar until it was red hot and presented it to the priest who picked it up and held it for all to see without any sign of pain and without getting burned.

Then they did a more direct contest and had two fires built, one by a viking shaman/priest and the other by the Christian priest.

They had a berskerker try running through both fires and while he had no trouble going through the pagan fire the Christian fire was impassible.

Originally posted by Digi
Sorry, but this just sounds to me like "Miracles exist, but there's no way to validate or test them" *sticks tongue out at science*

You're being unnecessarily defensive.

Here's the real interpretation:

"One person's miracle is another person's probability realized", you know, almost EXACTLY what I had already said?


Or, in other words, the exact opposite of what you said. I have no idea how you landed on that thought when there was plenty of context to directly contradict such a fallacious conclusion.

Originally posted by Digi
I doubt Kandy considers those types of things miracles. The "immature magic things" aren't explainable through standard rational means. Lifestyle changes certainly are, and need no divine involvement to make complete sense.


You're like...

Not even on the same page.

I don't know how you could have possibly gotten the most incorrect interpretation from "immature magic things".

You seriously could not have been further from actually understanding what I meant by that: the exact opposite is the intention.

Even if you had no idea what the context of the statement was, a bit of context would have revealed the meaning to you.


For example, I had also stated he following:

Originally posted by dadudemon
One man's miracle is another's extreme coincidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They do disagree on the "origin" of those miracles: the theist to God and the atheist to very extreme luck/intuition.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, seriously, if your Christian peers are filling your head full of such garbage, do me a favor and tell them that they are clearly idiots. Don't hold back.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Additionally, I've already presented miracles that definitely defy our current understanding of science and atheists can easily explain those away...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd like to think a little less like an atheistic jerk (but most of the time, that's pretty much the only way I think)


So why did you conclude what you did?


Regardless, I called it "immature magic interpretation" because I consider those interpretations by theists to be..."immature magic interpretations".


Regardless, I disagree with what you said here: "The 'immature magic things' aren't explainable through standard rational means." There's always a rational explanation for every miracle, imo. Even if we don't currently understand all the science behind it.

Lastly, I do not believe we can scientifically and soundly say that people "deal with problems" only in a self-contained bubble of awesome motivation. We are a bit more complex than that. Some would like to say they got help from God and I do not see a way for you to say they didn't. That just smacks of "prove that God doesn't exist" to me.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm fine with using 'miracle' in a colloquial sense. For example, "She survived! It's a miracle!" It's an unlikely even that has ended in a positive way. But those types of things, exciting as they are, need no creator being to happen. It's just people ascribing an abstract quality to the physical forces of the universe that they don't fully comprehend. It's a modern-day version of "Zeus makes the lightning."

You do know that you're restating my thoughts in a different way, correct?




Edit - I think I understand where your interpretations are coming from. You're confused over the fact that I am a professed Mormon: you're putting a filter on my words as supporting any and all "Christian God Fearing Statements". The fact that you did not quote the sections that would have contradicted statements you made about the portions you did quote does say something to contradict that previous thought. However, I wanted to make it clear that I am trying to provide a reason for your erroneous conclusions.

Fair enough, dudemon. Just a case of misinterpretation. So you're saying that you don't believe in miracles in a supernatural sense, right?

I'd still disagree if you then say it's God working through the universe's rational means. But you're at least denying the sillier definition of miracles, so yeah, I think we're mostly on the same page.

Originally posted by Digi
Fair enough, dudemon. Just a case of misinterpretation. So you're saying that you don't believe in miracles in a supernatural sense, right?

Pretty much. Not entirely. I more or less think what we think as "supernatural" is actually just unexplained science...or at least not explained fully.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd still disagree if you then say it's God working through the universe's rational means. But you're at least denying the sillier definition of miracles, so yeah, I think we're mostly on the same page.

I don't think God can operate in the universe in any other manner, actually. Right now, sure, it seems supernatural. But like I said above, we should eventually understand it and it becomes "rational"* to us.






*I put "rational" in quotes because particle duality is by no means "rational".

I just don't think there's anything else going on. A "rational" miracle that God creates is a "rational" miracle with no need for God, because the very idea of rational implies that it is causal and in line with the laws of our universe, whether we understand them or not.

At that point, just apply Occum's Razor. For example: a ball fell, or a ball fell and an omniscient, all-powerful, totally unknowable being made it fall. Logic clearly dictates we lean toward one option over the other. Even supposedly improbable events follow the same line of logic. There is an underlying causality to it happening, however improbable or "miraculous," therefore no God is needed to have intervened.

But it seems we agree at least that colloquial definitions of supernatural and miracle are needlessly abstract and illogical.

Originally posted by Digi
I just don't think there's anything else going on. A "rational" miracle that God creates is a "rational" miracle with no need for God, because the very idea of rational implies that it is causal and in line with the laws of our universe, whether we understand them or not.

A rational miracle that God creates is a miracle that can be understood but does not instantly exclude a variable of God at all.

Your definition of God is one of perpetual ignorance or "carrot on the stick" (meaning, we can never know the nature of God or the mediation). Mine is not. I feel that with enough time, even "God" and everything about God will be a rational understanding.


In other words, I would not be shocked at all if there was some sort of energy or field permeating the universe/multiverse which provides the conduit through which God interacts.

Knowing that I'm a Mormon, you should already know that "we" think we will one day be Gods ourselves...creating our own universes/realities. It should not shock you that a Mormon thinks God is just "super-science". In fact, that's a motif that is often discussed at church and a topic we talked about at church, Sunday: the secular and God are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, they are one in the same. We just haven't progressed far enough as a species.

Originally posted by Digi
At that point, just apply Occum's Razor. For example: a ball fell, or a ball fell and an omniscient, all-powerful, totally unknowable being made it fall. Logic clearly dictates we lean toward one option over the other. Even supposedly improbable events follow the same line of logic. There is an underlying causality to it happening, however improbable or "miraculous," therefore no God is needed to have intervened.


Occam's razor has it's logical problems. But, using Occam's razor, I would conclude that a sentient being far beyond our own intellectual ability created the rules that created our universe. So, indirectly, yes, God caused that ball to fall.

Additionally, the more philosophical the discussion using logic, the more subjective the application of logic becomes.

For example, imo, occam's razor says that the universe/multiverse was created by "God" because that's a far simpler concept than a baseless creation that results in an infinite number of configurations with an infinite number of sets of physics.

Originally posted by Digi
But it seems we agree at least that colloquial definitions of supernatural and miracle are needlessly abstract and illogical.

Meh. As inimalist loves to say, it's all anthropic in the end. Everything becomes arbitrary the deeper you philosophically consider things. It is we humans that have decided to symbolically represent everything around us. I'm perfectly accepting of there not being a God and there is no literal point to life other than the subjective labels/constructs that people create.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A rational miracle that God creates is a miracle that can be understood but does not instantly exclude a variable of God at all.

Your definition of God is one of perpetual ignorance or "carrot on the stick" (meaning, we can never know the nature of God or the mediation). Mine is not. I feel that with enough time, even "God" and everything about God will be a rational understanding.

In other words, I would not be shocked at all if there was some sort of energy or field permeating the universe/multiverse which provides the conduit through which God interacts.

Ok, cool, though this goes against traditional and cultural uses of the idea of God. It's debatable whether we'd actually call it God or not if you're right...it wouldn't be much different than if we discovered aliens created life on earth. A higher intelligence, sure. God, probably not.

Still, you're assuming a lot here, and presupposing the existence of fields and forces that we frankly have zero reason to believe.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Knowing that I'm a Mormon, you should already know that "we" think we will one day be Gods ourselves...creating our own universes/realities. It should not shock you that a Mormon thinks God is just "super-science". In fact, that's a motif that is often discussed at church and a topic we talked about at church, Sunday: the secular and God are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, they are one in the same. We just haven't progressed far enough as a species.

Seems like a very large leap in logic to think that. What makes you believe we'll be gods?

Originally posted by dadudemon
For example, imo, occam's razor says that the universe/multiverse was created by "God" because that's a far simpler concept than a baseless creation that results in an infinite number of configurations with an infinite number of sets of physics.

I'd disagree here. It seems more logical to you, but you're not evaluating all the known facts. We know how the planets and galaxies formed, we know how life formed, and we have mathematically viable models of how the universe came to be from nothingness...the creation point seems to be the only major thing we haven't yet proven, but we have reasonable hypotheses. The "God" scenario does not have such viable models or hypotheses, and thus would require further evidence to be on equal footing. Since Occam's Razor points us to the simpler of two possibilities, the choice is clear.

Otherwise, this seems like a fancy disguise on invoking the Anthropic Principle as evidence for God, which has long been a discredited argument.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Meh. As inimalist loves to say, it's all anthropic in the end. Everything becomes arbitrary the deeper you philosophically consider things. It is we humans that have decided to symbolically represent everything around us. I'm perfectly accepting of there not being a God and there is no literal point to life other than the subjective labels/constructs that people create.

That's...progressive, coming from one who espouses a particular religion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Have you ever read Simmons' Hyperion?

I have not but I heard about it years ago. I should read it as it's some good sci-fi.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The razor is more "make things as simple as possibly but no simpler" than "always pick the simplest explanation no matter what".

I know you don't, but you agree with me based on those words.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The argument behind it is basically nonsense if you've learned about this new thing called evolution.

"behind it"


What is "it"?

And evolution only supports my belief in God. That should be obvious based on my previous statements about God being required to interact with the universe through "rational" means and me calling some ideas about God/miracles as "immature magic things".

I'm not sure if plausible explanations apply to occams razor.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm not sure if plausible explanations apply to occams razor.

I'm not sure occam's razor legitimately applies to anything related the origins of the universe or God. Much too complex and too many variables that are related to oversimplify.


Occam's razor is also not how we are using it. It's selecting, out of two competing ideas, the one that uses the fewest new assumptions.


That's very fallacious in many regards.

Digi does Occams razor apply to plausible explanations? It didn't think it did.

Well ok, there's two aspects to consider in the use of Occam's Razor:
- Explanatory power
- Simplicity

It's usually used when two options are of roughly equal explanatory power, and it states we should lean toward the one that makes the fewest assumptions or is least complex.

You're somewhat right in stating that it's being applied incorrectly, but it was purposeful on my part (explained below):

So in using Occam's Razor originally, I was actually giving dudemon the benefit of the doubt by presupposing that the two explanations (God or science, respectively) had equal explanatory value. They don't. Clearly science has higher explanatory power, so it trumps a God hypothesis even outside Occam's razor.

But complex equations and processes are still simpler and make less assumptions than an infinitely complex God. So even if we're assuming that they're equivalent in explanatory power, God still loses on the basis of Occam's Razor.

Cliff's Notes: Take the simplest explanation unless a more complex one explains the phenomenon better. In this case, science has both. So I didn't need to be using Occam's razor, and maybe even muddied the discussion with its use, but I did to prove that even uninformed analysis of the scientific processes that exist in the universe don't make them less likely than God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have not but I heard about it years ago. I should read it as it's some good sci-fi.

With really neat religious philosophy in it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What is "it"?

The anthropic principle

The thing you were talking about

Were things tailored to cause our existence? No, it's pretty much the exact opposite.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have not but I heard about it years ago. I should read it as it's some good sci-fi. It's terrific: the setting, the concepts, and best of all (IMO), the characters and their individual stories. Simmons really did a great job.

Also, if you're not already familiar with it, check out the website "Orion's Arm." AI Gods galore.

www.orionsarm.com

Originally posted by Digi

So in using Occam's Razor originally, I was actually giving dudemon the benefit of the doubt by presupposing that the two explanations (God or science, respectively) had equal explanatory value. They don't. Clearly science has higher explanatory power, so it trumps a God hypothesis even outside Occam's razor.



Thing is I don't think science stating that the universe created the big bang even contradicts that god could have created it. So really we shouldn't even neccesarily be talking about occams razor in the first place.

If you use forensic evidence to prove that a building was blown up it's not occams razor to think it could have been an accident or done unpurpose. All you know is that the building was blown up.

Also the existance of god is compatible with science so we really shouldn't be seperating the two. So stating that science has better explanatory value is faulty logic.

Originally posted by Deadline
Thing is I don't think science stating that the universe created the big bang even contradicts that god could have created it. So really we shouldn't even neccesarily be talking about occams razor in the first place.

So if God isn't needed for the creation of the universe, how is it more logical to suppose that an infinitely complex being just happens to exist? You're also talking about a God that just made everything and hasn't intervened since then. If someone wants to believe in that sort of God, fine, I can't actually refute it other than to say there's no evidence for it. But such a God leaves us no reason to believe in him, nor would require belief since he's clearly not intervening in a way that suggests he wants us to believe in him.

Anyway, the conversation I was having was with a person who was refuting the idea that science can sufficiently explain existence. That's the argument these comments are directed toward, and especially when he states something like "God is the simpler explanation of the universe's existence," (paraphrased) Occam's razor is very applicable to such a claim.

Originally posted by Deadline
Also the existance of god is compatible with science

Maybe your idea of God. The vast, vast majority of peoples' ideas of God aren't, and that's what we've been talking about. God, in and of itself, isn't necessarily incompatible with science (though it would still require one hell of an explanation). The Gods of pretty much every world religion, however, are. When we talk about God, that's usually what we mean. It's not even worth talking about a God who may exist but has no direct contact with the universe. Such a God would have no bearing on our beliefs, lives, etc. because of a complete lack of interaction or doctrine.

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, the conversation I was having was with a person who was refuting the idea that science can sufficiently explain existence. That's the argument these comments are directed toward, and especially when he states something like "God is the simpler explanation of the universe's existence," (paraphrased) Occam's razor is very applicable to such a claim.

I disagree: my system requires two assumptions:

Assume you have a multiverse.

Assume you have a seemingly all-power Creator.


Conclusion: that creator created the universe.





The other version:

Assume you have a multivese.

Assume *insert the entirety of the theories of self creation which requires dozens or even hundreds of assumptions from our body of both theortical and "natural" physics*

Conclusion: the universe created itself.




You WANT my system to assume something more about God. But those assumptions are external to the thought problem and not necessary.



Additionally, I never presented a God that didn't interact with his creation (I directly contradicted that 2 times and one time indirectly in this very thread alone) so I'm not sure why you have presented that idea twice, now, about my perspective. You may be confusing/injecting/projectiing theistic thoughts from others onto me because of the dozens to hundreds of other such conversations you've had. I understand that: it becomes a blur after a while.




Originally posted by Deadline
Also the existance of god is compatible with science.

I agree. When Christians/Muslims/theists in general finally learn that God and his "science" are infinitely more beautiful than the immature "magic" god/s they believe in, we may see greatly increased social and scientific progress.


I've said it once in the religion forums, but I'll say it again: I prefer a "human population" without religion (yes, I am aware religion doesn't mean "god" and the various iterations of that, but that's what I mean so don't take it out of context) compared to one with religion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You WANT my system to assume something more about God. But those assumptions are external to the thought problem and not necessary.

"God did it." doesn't tell us how the universe was created, which is the question that the pages of calculations are answering. If science answers the same question that you are ("who or what" then both are equally simple: physics did it vs God did it. Both only need one word.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"God did it." doesn't tell us how the universe was created,

Yes it does: God did it.

"What methods did God use?" is what you're looking for.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
which is the question that the pages of calculations are answering.

You mean speculating, not answering.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If science answers the same question that you are ("who or what" then both are equally simple: physics did it vs God did it. Both only need one word.

No, saying "physics did it" is applying a sentience to it that is improper and convolutes how it is done. You might as well say "God did it" when using such a phrase.

But if we take it how you intended, simplifying it to just "physics did it" is very disingenuous and very insulting to the large body of theoretical work.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes it does: God did it.

"What methods did God use?" is what you're looking for.

How did God do it, is the natural question when presented with such a vague answer. Given what you wrote in the GDF a few minutes ago I'm guessing your answer is "via physics" in which case occam's razor fails you.

Obviously physics thus universe is simpler than god thus physics thus universe.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean speculating, not answering.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, saying "physics did it" is applying a sentience to it that is improper and convolutes how it is done. You might as well say "God did it" when using such a phrase.

Exactly, which is why "god did it" is to vague to be an acceptable answer to the question. Its simplicity is superficial.

Alot of miracles happen in these days too. I have no idea why someone say they don't.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Alot of miracles happen in these days too. I have no idea why someone say they don't.

*sigh* Got any examples?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*sigh* Got any examples?

I could just re-quote myself from earlier in the thread and be done with this portion of the conversation. awesome



Edit - But I really do like this line of reasoning:

"Events planned by God
In rabbinic Judaism, many rabbis mentioned in the Talmud held that the laws of nature were inviolable. The idea of miracles that contravened the laws of nature were hard to accept; however, at the same time they affirmed the truth of the accounts in the Tanakh. Therefore some explained that miracles were in fact natural events that had been set up by God at the beginning of time.
In this view, when the walls of Jericho fell, it was not because God directly brought them down. Rather, God planned that there would be an earthquake (or some such other natural disaster) at that place and time, so that the city would fall to the Israelites. Instances where rabbinic writings say that God made miracles a part of creation include Midrash Genesis Rabbah 5:45; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 21:6; and Ethics of the Fathers/Pirkei Avot 5:6."


For me, that rings truer of the "super duper smart" God that I believe in than the "immature magic" miracle worker God.

Those aren't very impressive miracles.

Even the Great God Athe, Lord of Atheism is more dramatic!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those aren't very impressive miracles.

Even the Great God Athe, Lord of Atheism is more dramatic!

No no, that's not the point of me posting that. The point is that those "miracles" were natural events planned loooooooooooong before the earth was even created: before the universe was even created. I like the idea of a "smart God".


But I like Hume's logical test to miracles:

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish."


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/davidhume405337.html

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*sigh* Got any examples?

Yes and do you have any reason of something happening in your life that is a Miracle like one of you love ones getting better from a life threating sickness or someone not dieing from a very bad car crash?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
love ones getting better from a life threating sickness or someone not dieing from a very bad car crash?

medical science?

for instance:

I was born a month premature, with no blood platelets. I wasn't expected to live, but, the hard working staff at North York General made it happen. Why would I thank God when the people who are actually responsible for me being alive today worked at the hospital? That would be very rude, imho

Originally posted by inimalist
medical science?

for instance:

I was born a month premature, with no blood platelets. I wasn't expected to live, but, the hard working staff at North York General made it happen. Why would I thank God when the people who are actually responsible for me being alive today worked at the hospital? That would be very rude, imho

It would be rude.


However, some would call that a miracle.


Even in my most liberal attribution, I still would not call that a miracle.

A miracle would be the total lack of platelets and then you get an adequate amount of platelets in less than 2 days: impossible with biological processes. This assumes that you were adequately tested and quite the bleeder...meaning you really didn't have platelets. THAT...would be a miracle.

idk, I'd still think something like that is a medical and way more plausible thing than "miraculous"

considering, idk, its GOD, I'd really want something that is inarguably miraculous, like parting the sea, or a talking bush that never consumed itself... (though, ive read the former might actually be possible, but, not on command)

EDIT: i am pretty sure i was born, for sure, with no platelets. my mother's immune system had started attacking me, and they accused her afterward of being a drug addict.... she didnt even take tylenol. They had me in an incubator for weeks.

Originally posted by inimalist
considering, idk, its GOD, I'd really want something that is inarguably miraculous, like parting the sea, or a talking bush that never consumed itself... I wouldn't call those inarguable. I'd like to see a loved one brought back from the dead, all healthier and happier for the experience. Even then, I'd first question my perceptions; hell, I'd probably consider ETs before I jumped to the Ultimate. I really don't know what I'd consider an inarguable empirical miracle.

EDIT: i am pretty sure i was born, for sure, with no platelets. my mother's immune system had started attacking me, and they accused her afterward of being a drug addict.... she didnt even take tylenol. They had me in an incubator for weeks. Glad ya made it.

Originally posted by Mindship
I wouldn't call those inarguable. I'd like to see a loved one brought back from the dead, all healthier and happier for the experience. Even then, I'd first question my perceptions; hell, I'd probably consider ETs before I jumped to the Ultimate. I really don't know what I'd consider an inarguable empirical miracle.

thats pretty much what im trying to say though

this is the G-O-D. conceivably, it should be able to produce a type of miracle that defies even advanced technology. It may be a high standard, but that is sort of what I am holding out for.

Originally posted by Mindship
Glad ya made it.

lol, me too

Originally posted by inimalist
idk, I'd still think something like that is a medical and way more plausible thing than "miraculous"

considering, idk, its GOD, I'd really want something that is inarguably miraculous, like parting the sea, or a talking bush that never consumed itself... (though, ive read the former might actually be possible, but, not on command)

EDIT: i am pretty sure i was born, for sure, with no platelets. my mother's immune system had started attacking me, and they accused her afterward of being a drug addict.... she didnt even take tylenol. They had me in an incubator for weeks.

In my scenario, if your body produced an acceptable level of platelets in no more than 2 days, that's more of a miracle than parting the Red Sea. For me, scale does not equal more miraculous, it's the possibility of something happening. Maybe an earth quake or some event could partially and temporarily produce the parting of waters by a significant margin....but it is very much impossible for your body to produce "homeostatic levels" of platelets in 2 days.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A miracle would be the total lack of platelets and then you get an adequate amount of platelets in less than 2 days: impossible with biological processes. This assumes that you were adequately tested and quite the bleeder...meaning you really didn't have platelets. THAT...would be a miracle.

I imagine doctors can move quicker than biological processes. Blood transfusions seem like a good bet.

Originally posted by inimalist
medical science?

for instance:

I was born a month premature, with no blood platelets. I wasn't expected to live, but, the hard working staff at North York General made it happen. Why would I thank God when the people who are actually responsible for me being alive today worked at the hospital? That would be very rude, imho

God could had decided reather to have you live or die and he works through people to help. So yes you can thank him and the hard working doctors for keeping you alive.

I'm away from my main cpu this week. The conversations I was having in this thread will likely need to wait, but I'll try to update them at some point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I imagine doctors can move quicker than biological processes. Blood transfusions seem like a good bet.

That, my friend, is definitely not the point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In my scenario, if your body produced an acceptable level of platelets in no more than 2 days, that's more of a miracle than parting the Red Sea. For me, scale does not equal more miraculous, it's the possibility of something happening. Maybe an earth quake or some event could partially and temporarily produce the parting of waters by a significant margin....but it is very much impossible for your body to produce "homeostatic levels" of platelets in 2 days.

/shrug

biological processes are so variable that it seems more like something nature could produce, whereas the deliberate parting of a sea, or a fire that never consumes what it is burning, neither are really interpreted as "outliers"

Originally posted by inimalist
/shrug

biological processes are so variable that it seems more like something nature could produce, whereas the deliberate parting of a sea, or a fire that never consumes what it is burning, neither are really interpreted as "outliers"

But, you see, nature is the same for both situations.

Producing platelets or parting the Red Sea waters...both "nature."

What's far more improbable is your body going from none to "good" levels of platelets in 2 days. In fact, it's so improbable that it really can't happen even under extreme disease conditions (like cancer) that result in massive amounts of megakaryocytes (the bone-marrow cells that produce platelets) in "over-drive". I takes a few days for the platelets to from and then another 7 or so to die. Speeding up the process with, say, cancer, would not result in functional platelets that can be found and deemed "well, his platelet count is good, now". Considering such a mutation that allowed for super platelet counts...it would require too dramatic of a change in your underlying genetics to allow for you to even survive womb maturation (you would die in the womb, basically). Even evolution cannot make such a radical genetic jump and create a "surviving" super-platelet producing organism. Too much radical mutation results in death. It has to be slow and gradual (assuming macroevolution is legit).

Fundamentalists are highly important because they are trying to destroy science in the US, such as preventing evolution from being taught. Obviously, some zoroastrian in India is not going to attract quite the ire.

. oh forget it too much heat.