Miracles ?

[wmjbyatt]

If you're gonna ride your confirmation bias high and tight and write off all the miracles that have been recorded in various holy texts as fictitious or non-miraculous, if you're going to ignore such things as the appearance of the Holy Mother at Fatima and other such miraculous "apparitions," even then there are still secular miracles left over.

I'll grant that what is taken as miracle in the ancient holy texts is probably the sort of event that we would deny or take in stride today. Were these events to happen today, we would examine the issue and find some latent theoretical causal action that explained away the miracle of the situation. And in this sense, these petty miracles are, indeed, a little weak.

But the LAWS OF NATURE THEMSELVES cannot POSSIBLY be the product of the laws of nature. Now, I'm not a theist, so I don't take this as an argument for God but rather as an argument for a bigger metaphysics than that with which we usually concern ourselves. Nevertheless, the fact that nature HAPPENS is infinitely miraculous, the fact that STUFF EXISTS is even more so.

We're starting to understand, very slowly, how it is that motivity and matter originate out of the vast, chaotic quantum underpinnings, but we still don't understand why it is that the fundamental quantum laws hold. And even if we do figure THAT out, these quantum laws would be theoretically governed by a more fundamental set of laws, which would in their own turn be without explanation. At some point, we'd be dealing with fundamental structural law that cannot possibly be explained, and THAT would, without question, be miracle unexplained by the laws of nature.

 

[AxisMundi]

don't you fear from Allah(GOD) who has created you and the whole universe such a vast universe, what this universe means to you is it self sustainable or some one is holding it with his power
and answer is Allah Almighty is holding all the universe with his power.
Now returning to Your Miracle question
Dear friend In the world the biggest miracle stands today is the book HOLY(NOBEL) QUR'AN
Qur'an is not a book of myths it is full of Allah's Signs, Miracles God Given To His Messengers To Make Humans Beleive, Our purpose of creation, Our purpose of presence in this world.

My parents created me thank you.

Not a deity whose demiurgey is unsupported by simple scientific observation.

 

[McBell]

As far as I am aware there has never been a recorded Miracle.

Will there ever be one ?

And if 'God' is so mighty why hasn't there been a proven recorded Miracle ?

Prove me wrong... please !

Seems to me it might be prudent to define "miracle"...

 

[AxisMundi]

If you're gonna ride your confirmation bias high and tight and write off all the miracles that have been recorded in various holy texts as fictitious or non-miraculous, if you're going to ignore such things as the appearance of the Holy Mother at Fatima and other such miraculous "apparitions," even then there are still secular miracles left over.

I'll grant that what is taken as miracle in the ancient holy texts is probably the sort of event that we would deny or take in stride today. Were these events to happen today, we would examine the issue and find some latent theoretical causal action that explained away the miracle of the situation. And in this sense, these petty miracles are, indeed, a little weak.

But the LAWS OF NATURE THEMSELVES cannot POSSIBLY be the product of the laws of nature. Now, I'm not a theist, so I don't take this as an argument for God but rather as an argument for a bigger metaphysics than that with which we usually concern ourselves. Nevertheless, the fact that nature HAPPENS is infinitely miraculous, the fact that STUFF EXISTS is even more so.

We're starting to understand, very slowly, how it is that motivity and matter originate out of the vast, chaotic quantum underpinnings, but we still don't understand why it is that the fundamental quantum laws hold. And even if we do figure THAT out, these quantum laws would be theoretically governed by a more fundamental set of laws, which would in their own turn be without explanation. At some point, we'd be dealing with fundamental structural law that cannot possibly be explained, and THAT would, without question, be miracle unexplained by the laws of nature.

Firstly, Fatima has been proven long ago a hoax.

Secondly, you posite several argument fallacies above, from "begging the question" to quite circular shaped arguments.

The laws of nature can quite easily be a product of themselves.

 

[Dan4reason]

Slow down!!

First, I never suggested that miracles or anything else 'prove' God.
Second, my point was that your defintion was too narrow for me. I take it that you concede that miraculous can extend beyond your narrow definition?
Third, I am a Christian and once again I find myself in the ironic position of being instructed by an atheist as to the nature of my beliefs. In this Christian's religious sense there is no sense to a definition which suggests transcendence of the laws of nature = for who would claim to know the laws of nature?

As far as I am aware there has never been a recorded Miracle.

Will there ever be one ?

And if 'God' is so mighty why hasn't there been a proven recorded Miracle ?

Prove me wrong... please !

The information in bold is the OP and was made by an atheist. I can tell you that when an atheist is looking for recorded miracles, opening an eyelid was not on his mind. Amazing and awesome events have nothing to do with recorded miracles which are feats which defy nature.

When an atheist asks for miracles, she is specifically looking for miracles that prove religion. Things that inspire awe do not prove God at all and are irrelevant to the OP. What we as atheists and agnostics are asking for is proof for God by miracles. A miracle in this sense is an event that defies the laws of nature.

 

[Dan4reason]

a judeo-Christian or their God?:cover:

I am talking about a Judeo-Christian God.

 

[Dan4reason]

I agree with you, however if a Christian grew a limb back, wouldn't we just consider that a natural phenomenon for which we did not yet have an explanation?

I do not require 100% evidence to believe in Christianity. If Christians were to pray over someone who had lost a limb and that person suddenly grew it back, that would be convincing to me. If a random Christian grew back a limb without prayer, there is no way of knowing that a Christian God did it.

Another requirement is that the miracle must be well documented. I do not want to hear about some story in Tubuku Africa 200 years ago where there are stories that a person regrew a limb.

 

[Dan4reason]

I think science can answer everything.
The reason we still have unexplained phenomena?
We don't have all the science yet.

To assume that all unexplained things are explained by science is a form of faith. This is just like when a religious person thinks that all unexplained events must be supernatural.

 

[jarofthoughts]

To assume that all unexplained things are explained by science is a form of faith. This is just like when a religious person thinks that all unexplained events must be supernatural.

Well, the comment was intended somewhat tongue in cheek, but so far every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic, and rather that it has a natural explanation whose understanding is available through science.
So I wouldn't call it too much of a stretch to assume that like everything else we have discovered, the world is a result of natural causes that, at least in theory can be explained and understood. This is not faith. This is what our current level of knowledge tells us.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Well, the comment was intended somewhat tongue in cheek, but so far every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic, and rather that it has a natural explanation whose understanding is available through science.
So I wouldn't call it too much of a stretch to assume that like everything else we have discovered, the world is a result of natural causes that, at least in theory can be explained and understood. This is not faith. This is what our current level of knowledge tells us.

Science, like any other way of knowing, has foundational axioms, but it annoys me when religious people claim that accepting those axioms constitutes "faith" as though believing that effects are reproducible with the the same causes is at all similar to believing in the existence of a logically impossible being.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Science, like any other way of knowing, has foundational axioms, but it annoys me when religious people claim that accepting those axioms constitutes "faith" as though believing that effects are reproducible with the the same causes is at all similar to believing in the existence of a logically impossible being.

That is true and the axioms of science can be easily summed up in one sentence:

The Observable Universe is Real.

Everything else springs from that simple assumption, which, I think, is a reasonable assumption if there ever was one.

 

[wmjbyatt]

That is true and the axioms of science can be easily summed up in one sentence:

The Observable Universe is Real.

Everything else springs from that simple assumption, which, I think, is a reasonable assumption if there ever was one.

That's not the ONLY axiom of science... or if it is, it's a crappy axiom, because you can't deduce too much from one axiom. There's also the assumption that the observable universe is measurable. And then the vast majority of scientists accept certain other axioms. For example, the assumption that the universe works the same way everywhere is pretty prevalent. Science also usually subsumes deductive logic. That way we can figure out stuff about the unobservable/indirectly observable universe.

 

[sandandfoam]

There's also the assumption that the observable universe is measurable.

And science also shows that the act of measuring affects that being measured. I believe this again points to the observer observing themself.

 

[sojourner]

I agree with you, however if a Christian grew a limb back, wouldn't we just consider that a natural phenomenon for which we did not yet have an explanation?

Conjoined twins, the Elephant Man, the woman with the horn on her head, hermaphrodites: All would have, at one time, been considered to be miracles, no?

 

[sojourner]

I think science can answer everything.
The reason we still have unexplained phenomena?
We don't have all the science yet.

Science can't answer why I might love someone. Don't think it ever will, either.

 

[sojourner]

Right, but if it did happen, then there would be an observable instance of it doing so. It would be an observable phenomenon for which we did not have an explanation.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[sojourner]

I am talking about a Judeo-Christian God.

Not entirely sure God has a religion. I don't think God could be classified as "Judeo-Christian" any more than God could be classified as an atheist...

 

[sojourner]

Science, like any other way of knowing, has foundational axioms, but it annoys me when religious people claim that accepting those axioms constitutes "faith" as though believing that effects are reproducible with the the same causes is at all similar to believing in the existence of a logically impossible being.

Fred Phelps exists, doesn't he...?

 

[HonestJoe]

Science can't answer why I might love someone. Don't think it ever will, either.

Hasn't it already to some extent? Our social/pack instincts cause our brains to create the chemical and electrical reactions to cause positive feelings when we're are with those we recognise as part of our social group (and negative ones when we're not). We don't (yet) understand all of the details but the fundamental principals are core mechanisms are fairly well defined.

 

[sojourner]

Hasn't it already to some extent? Our social/pack instincts cause our brains to create the chemical and electrical reactions to cause positive feelings when we're are with those we recognise as part of our social group (and negative ones when we're not). We don't (yet) understand all of the details but the fundamental principals are core mechanisms are fairly well defined.

That explains attraction. It also explains family. It doesn't begin to explain the orientation of the soul to someone.