Miracles are non-existent by their very definition

[1137]

I do suppose people can see miracles in different ways. However, normally a miracle is seen as a supernatural act that can only be done by a deity. The idea of supernatural is where the problem is. Nothing that is outside the laws of nature never has or can possibly happen, and the implications of that on the likelihood of God existing is devastating. Now, if we define a miracle simply as something that happens against the odds, or simply one specific outcome happening out of many possibilities, then yes miracles exist. Almost everything can be seen as a miracle in this case, which is a nice way to view life. The disappointing thing is there is still no God involved in such miracles.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

There's another view, one that says that miracles, or the acts themselves, do happen, but they are not events outside the laws of nature, just outside what we know about nature. This is the view I take.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Considering deep time, improbable and even near impossible events happen on a regular basis, and given enough time, even highly improbable events become inevitable.

 

[1137]

But I feel that it defeats the purpose to call naturally occurring events, no matter how unlikely they are to happen, even if we do not know how they happen, a miracle. The fact that I am exactly the way I am right now could be considered a miracle in that case, there are an unfathomable amount of variables that ended up with me being exactly who I am. But, what is the point of calling that a miracle?

 

[Falvlun]

I do suppose people can see miracles in different ways. However, normally a miracle is seen as a supernatural act that can only be done by a deity. The idea of supernatural is where the problem is. Nothing that is outside the laws of nature never has or can possibly happen, and the implications of that on the likelihood of God existing is devastating. Now, if we define a miracle simply as something that happens against the odds, or simply one specific outcome happening out of many possibilities, then yes miracles exist. Almost everything can be seen as a miracle in this case, which is a nice way to view life. The disappointing thing is there is still no God involved in such miracles.

This goes to the crux of why I dislike the term "supernatural". It's a nonsensical word. If it exists, then it's a part of the natural world, the natural order of things. Thus, should ghosts, psychic abilities, demons, or gods exist, they would not be supernatural; they would simply be natural things that we hadn't yet known for sure existed. The only things that can be supernatural are the things that don't exist.

 

[ChristineES]

Miracles, to me, is beating all odds. Not necessarily a "supernatural act" but something that happens although improbable- like someone awakening from a coma that he or she has been in for 9 months or so or someone getting treatment for cancer that cures it- although the person had a very small chance for survival. Sometimes it takes a lot of work, too (scientists are always coming up with new treatments for cancer everyday, for instance and have been working for years).

 

[1137]

This goes to the crux of why I dislike the term "supernatural". It's a nonsensical word. If it exists, then it's a part of the natural world, the natural order of things. Thus, should ghosts, psychic abilities, demons, or gods exist, they would not be supernatural; they would simply be natural things that we hadn't yet known for sure existed. The only things that can be supernatural are the things that don't exist.

I agree, I hate the term. The term miracle itself tends to imply something that cannot happen, at least not without the help of a deity. But, the knowledge that there is no such thing as supernatural, that anything that can possibly exist or happen is natural, seems very damaging to many ideas of God, would you agree?

Miracles, to me, is beating all odds. Not necessarily a "supernatural act" but something that happens although improbable- like someone awakening from a coma that he or she has been in for 9 months or so or someone getting treatment for cancer that cures it- although the person had a very small chance for survival. Sometimes it takes a lot of work, too (scientists are always coming up with new treatments for cancer everyday, for instance and have been working for years).

But if this is the case, events happening although improbable, then miracles are not even very special. As pointed out, it is extremely improbable that the exact person you are today even exists. There are so many variables over the course of pretty much all time that had to work exactly the way they did otherwise the you that you currently are would not exist in any way.

 

[ChristineES]

But if this is the case, events happening although improbable, then miracles are not even very special. As pointed out, it is extremely improbable that the exact person you are today even exists. There are so many variables over the course of pretty much all time that had to work exactly the way they did otherwise the you that you currently are would not exist in any way.

They are special to the people who receive them and their families. Put yourself in their place-- say you had cancer and you had a 10% chance of survival, and against the 90% odds, you completely recover. Or say your loved one was the one in a coma and he or she only had a 5% chance of ever coming out of it- you would be ecstatic (as would I) if he or she beat the 95% odds and came out of it.
That is why they are special.

 

[Super Universe]

You can't disprove God.

It's just never going to happen.

 

[Me Myself]

As long as you cannot explain it by science and someone attributes it to a divine being, it is a miracle:

miracle

Pronunciation: /ˈmɪrək(&#601l/

Definition of miracle
noun
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency:
the miracle of rising from the grave

a remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences:
it was a miracle that more people hadn’t been killed
industries at the heart of the economic miracle

an exceptional product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something:
a machine which was a miracle of design
[as modifier]:
a miracle drug

 

[Me Myself]

supernatural

/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(&#601r(&#601l, ˌsjuː-/
Translate supernatural into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of supernatural
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

For it to be supernatural it only needs to be beyond SCIENTIFICAL UNDERSTANDING of nature and it`s laws.

 

[Falvlun]

supernatural

/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(&#601r(&#601l, ˌsjuː-/
Translate supernatural into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of supernatural
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

For it to be supernatural it only needs to be beyond SCIENTIFICAL UNDERSTANDING of nature and it`s laws.

You don't have to interpret that as "current" scientific understanding, but the ability to ever be understood by science.

Regardless, it's still a dumb word. Something shouldn't be considered supernatural just because we don't understand it.

 

[Me Myself]

you could also go by the "nature" part.


nature

Pronunciation: /ˈneɪtʃə/
Translate nature into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of nature
noun
1 [mass noun] the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations:
the breathtaking beauty of nature
the physical force regarded as causing and regulating the phenomena of the world:
it is impossible to change the laws of nature
See also Mother Nature.

Now, while on this reading we cannot evidence miracles now, we do can say it is not conceptually imposible.

 

[fantome profane]

Miracles, to me, is beating all odds. Not necessarily a "supernatural act" but something that happens although improbable- like someone awakening from a coma that he or she has been in for 9 months or so or someone getting treatment for cancer that cures it- although the person had a very small chance for survival. Sometimes it takes a lot of work, too (scientists are always coming up with new treatments for cancer everyday, for instance and have been working for years).

What does it mean to "beat the odds"? Let's say for example there is a disease that kills 99% of those who contract it. So we survey 100 people with this disease and find that we have one survivor. That one person did not "beat the odds", those are the odds. It one hundred of one hundred people survived, that might be a miracle. But an unlikely event occurring rarely is not miraculous, that is what unlikely events do.

 

[Falvlun]

What does it mean to "beat the odds"? Let's say for example there is a disease that kills 99% of those who contract it. So we survey 100 people with this disease and find that we have one survivor. That one person did not "beat the odds", those are the odds. It one hundred of one hundred people survived, that might be a miracle. But an unlikely event occurring rarely is not miraculous, that is what unlikely events do.

Good point. I think our minds have a hard time intuitively grasping the mathematics of probability.

 

[George-ananda]

I agree the term supernatural should not exist but at this time we have no list of better terms. If it happens, then it's natural.

I take the position that things beyond our understanding do occur and because society has put too tight a restriction on what can be natural the term superntural has come into use.

For example, I think ghosts exist and they are natural not supernatural. There are a myriad of things, planes and dimensions our current science has no instruments to detect. Everyone will agree science has things to learn. I'm saying the scope of what science doesn't currently know is vast. Eventually, things we now call supernatural will get folded into aspects of the natural.

 

[Curious George]

You can't disprove God.

It's just never going to happen.

Don't think he is trying to disprove god with this- Super. I think the point he might have been drumming toward is more in line with what Falvlun was suggesting.

I think that we would all "debate" or discuss much better if we listened more. We can control only the words we type. When we see hidden meanings lurking behind other's posts because of previous threads and consequently jump to conclusions, we do communication a disservice.

 

[Me Myself]

What does it mean to "beat the odds"? Let's say for example there is a disease that kills 99% of those who contract it. So we survey 100 people with this disease and find that we have one survivor. That one person did not "beat the odds", those are the odds. It one hundred of one hundred people survived, that might be a miracle. But an unlikely event occurring rarely is not miraculous, that is what unlikely events do.

The op wants to say are imposible by definition, but what they are by definition is something that happens that science cannot explain or that goes against nature`s laws in some ways.

One thing is to argue miracles don`t exist (say, are not consistent with reality) and another that the concept is not internaly consistent.

Given that the OP wants to argue the latter, I can say it is mistaken, given that there is no conceptual problem with it. I just posted the Oxford, and there is no logical incoherence there in it`s meanings. (again, remenbering I am talking about "as a concept" not as "related to reality". In this latter, it would be a different discussion)

 

[fantome profane]

The op wants to say are imposible by definition, but what they are by definition is something that happens that science cannot explain or that goes against nature`s laws in some ways.

One thing is to argue miracles don`t exist (say, are not consistent with reality) and another that the concept is not internaly consistent.

Given that the OP wants to argue the latter, I can say it is mistaken, given that there is no conceptual problem with it. I just posted the Oxford, and there is no logical incoherence there in it`s meanings. (again, remenbering I am talking about "as a concept" not as "related to reality". In this latter, it would be a different discussion)

What are "natural laws"? Is that the same as "scientific laws"?

 

[Me Myself]

What are "natural laws"? Is that the same as "scientific laws"?

Oxford defines "nature" by it`s physical aspects.

In other words, anything non-physical can be said to be "super"natural according to oxford.