Religion Do You believe in Miracles?

[No-name]

Miracle: an amazing or wonderful occurance. A fortuitous coincidence. An event which is unexpected, unexplainable and awe inspiring. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

"There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as though everything is a miracle."

--Albert Einstein

 

[kumo]

"There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as though everything is a miracle."
--Albert Einstein

"A witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire

 

[Maciamo]

Miracle: an amazing or wonderful occurance. A fortuitous coincidence. An event which is unexpected, unexplainable and awe inspiring. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.
"There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as though everything is a miracle."
--Albert Einstein

Did you know that Einstein was a religion-less pantheist, and that his meaning of god or miracle has nothing to do with the Christian concepts ?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

My name is Sabro. After Sabro Hasegawa... it is just the way this man chose to anglicize his name. It is identical to the Romanji: Saburo and is not lacking in any way. Please do not ridicule my name.

Saburo, I can abide by your request. I think it is quite a reasonable one. However, if you recall, you are the one who innitiated the insinuation about "handles." Now, why do you think it is ok for you to start off on something like that and not expect someone to throw it back at you. Asking someone not to is rather hypocritical.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

strongvoicesforward, obviously you misunderstood my meaning behind my example. What I meant was that even though the odds were against a good thing happening, it did, and that would be miraculous. I'm sorry if I made my example to broad for you to comprehend.:sorry:

Clawn, I did not misunderstand. It was quite clear. When a numerical figure is being used it underscores the clarity.

Why do you think all miracles have to be good? If one man with the jaw bone of an ass defeats an army, surely the odds were against him, then that could be viewed as miraculous from his perspective. It could also be viewed as miraculous from the losing army`s side. However, the perception of "good" and "bad" is relative to the one who is viewing the event.

Again, someone may find it miraculous they got home in time with only an 80% chance of getting through traffic so that they could see a porn show on satelite. I don`t think that is miraculous. But this person may, and just by saying something is a miracle because it defys the odds is a flimsy definition of miracle. Also, by just throwing the label "good" on something does not make it any stronger because often "good" depends of perspective.

Why not accept that miracles must go against physics and ALL odds with no explanation of the event. If all Bibles were indestructible, could not be burned without any alteration or application of special chemicals to them, or that when a page was cut out, that page flew back into its original place, or that when a word was erased or blotted out, it reappeared (you know -- something like David Copperfield might be able to pull off -- but on a much larger worldwide scale) then that would be quite miraculous and unexplainable. It would be the miraculous gift of proof that Bible God wanted us to know his word was so holy that it was impossible to corrupt.

 

[No-name]

Did you know that Einstein was a religion-less pantheist, and that his meaning of god or miracle has nothing to do with the Christian concepts ?

Einstein had interesting and unique views on God. I like a lot of what he said and wrote. I like his quote on miracles however.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Obviously some clarification is needed on the use of the word 'miracle'. According to dictionary.com, there are two meanings:

miracle

1: any amazing or wonderful occurrence
2: a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that an 'amazing or wonderful occurence' could be considered synonymous with something that happens 'considerably against the odds'. What we feel to be 'considerably against the odds' is subjective, but I would say 80% is reasonable - if you want it higher, that's just a matter of personal choice.

Since Sabro doesn't specify which definition of miracle he means at the outset, I think it's reasonable to talk about both.

To reiterate, I don't believe in supernatural events. But it will be a miracle if I win the lottery.

 

[Mycernius]

Mycernius, obviously you either didn`t see the comment made by Sabro on my handle name or you are just selectively ignoring it. Which is it of the two? You tell me. I am guessing it was the former since I don`t recall seeing your reply to him in the same vein.

That was on a different thread, not this one. I admit I missed it as I skim over the insults that you and sabro throw at each other. Those posts are not informative or useful to the discussion taking place. Yet you feel the need to drag it out again, Why? So far Sabro san has not responed in kind. All he asked was "Do you believe in miracles?"

About miracles, no one ever did say that Xtianity was the only religion that had miracles. Are you saying someone hinted at that?

How about these couple of line in your own words?

I had only a 20% chance of getting home in time to watch a good porno on a satelite station -- but Thank Jeeeeeeeeesus for 'miracles,' because I made it home and got to see every bit of it!

and especially this one

I am guessing that bookie makers in Vegas and throughout the country are getting rich or poor on all these 80% odds that are defied by miracles. Good thing Bible God is in the miracle business, huh.

You seem to be hinting that it is Christian miracles here. After all you used "Jesus" and "Bible God". You inferred Christian miracle in the context. Other examples of non-christian origin would have probably not made me think you were once again going for christians.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I admit I missed it as I skim over the insults that you and sabro throw at each other. Those posts are not informative or useful to the discussion taking place. Yet you feel the need to drag it out again, Why?

And why do you feel the need to drag it out by criticising me for my addressing Sabro, Mycernius? Admittedly, you have noticed Sabro and I "throwing" back and forth at each other -- but in every incident you have reserved criticism on the topic, when you decide to post on the point, for me only. Why not pointedly spread it around in an egalitarian way?

That is what I mean when I say I am not going to alter my style until eveyone who has been regular visitors of this thread face up to the lopsided way in which criticisms have been launched without taking the beginning source of the problem into honest consideration. Obviously, some of you are stuck on pride, feel good in greater numbers, so much that you will cherish your united stance over me than what could be a bettering tone of the discussion.

You seem to be hinting that it is Christian miracles here. After all you used "Jesus" and "Bible God". You inferred Christian miracle in the context. Other examples of non-christian origin would have probably not made me think you were once again going for christians.

lol. I knew I shouldn`t have used the "first person" tense. But, surely Mycernius, with the large numbers of anti-Xtian/Jesus posts I have here, you knew I was making a point not on Jesus answering my prayers for a miracle, but that 80% odds were beaten and therefore it was considered to be a miracle. I guess I should have put in Allah or Buddha once or twice if that wasn`t clear to you. Sorry for not taking your weak perception into account. You got me on that one technicality.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

miracle

1: any amazing or wonderful occurrence
2: a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that an 'amazing or wonderful occurence' could be considered synonymous with something that happens 'considerably against the odds'.

Yes, but if it is agains the odds, that is being "lucky." I may have only $5,000 but next Monday need to come up with $1,000, 000 for triplet girls who need multiple organ transplants next Monday. Not knowing what to do, I decide to go to Vegas and play the slots. I hit the jackpot, get my million and my daughters get their operations. Yes, it was an "amazing and wonderful occurrence," and the odds of hitting the slot Jackpot are very slim indeed, but it is being lucky.

My dog has never jumped our 6 foot high fence, but if he did so in order to pick up the newspaper to hand it to me, while it would be amazing, and a wonderful occurrence, because I had been training him to try and do that but never successful, it would not be a miracle. Amazing only.

What we feel to be 'considerably against the odds' is subjective, but I would say 80% is reasonable - if you want it higher, that's just a matter of personal choice.

Defying odds is being lucky.

Since Sabro doesn't specify which definition of miracle he means at the outset, I think it's reasonable to talk about both.

Since this is the religion/philosophy category, and he uses the word "believe," I think it is pretty clear he was referring to the second category -- or he should have been (now I know he will respond "rebuking" me for assuming what he meant and stick to the "lose" definition )

My question is then: What is the difference between "lucky" and "miracle" if the first lose definition of miracle is used?

To reiterate, I don't believe in supernatural events. But it will be a miracle if I win the lottery.

lol.

hmmm...It will be a miracle if brother Sabro refrains from praising others when they "rebuke" me.

 

[Clawn]

Clawn, I did not misunderstand. It was quite clear. When a numerical figure is being used it underscores the clarity.
Why do you think all miracles have to be good? If one man with the jaw bone of an ass defeats an army, surely the odds were against him, then that could be viewed as miraculous from his perspective. It could also be viewed as miraculous from the losing army`s side. However, the perception of "good" and "bad" is relative to the one who is viewing the event.
Again, someone may find it miraculous they got home in time with only an 80% chance of getting through traffic so that they could see a porn show on satelite. I don`t think that is miraculous. But this person may, and just by saying something is a miracle because it defys the odds is a flimsy definition of miracle. Also, by just throwing the label "good" on something does not make it any stronger because often "good" depends of perspective.
Why not accept that miracles must go against physics and ALL odds with no explanation of the event. If all Bibles were indestructible, could not be burned without any alteration or application of special chemicals to them, or that when a page was cut out, that page flew back into its original place, or that when a word was erased or blotted out, it reappeared (you know -- something like David Copperfield might be able to pull off -- but on a much larger worldwide scale) then that would be quite miraculous and unexplainable. It would be the miraculous gift of proof that Bible God wanted us to know his word was so holy that it was impossible to corrupt.

A miracle is not a statistical abnormality, strongvoicesforward, you seem to forget that a miracle is, by definition, a "wonderful occurance." I doubt having your army beaten by a single man who has "the jaw bone of an ass" would be wonderful, unless you were looking to be beaten. A miracle is viewed as good by one man while it might be viewed as disaster by the next. This does not mean it has to go against the odds.

I think the rest of your argument, when faced with what a miracle truly is, has no importance.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

A miracle is not a statistical abnormality,...

That`s right, Clawn. We agree. What do you mean by "statistical abnormality?" To me, beating great odds are an abnormality of probability. It would be normal for one man and most probable for one man to lose to an army if he were only armed with the jaw bone of an ass. Even if he did, which is what you are referring to, it still would not be a miracle -- I think it would just be him beating the odds (i.e. lucky).

But, those viewing it may deem it miraculous if they are believers in a version of defying 80% odds as a miracle.

I specifically said earlier that a miracle would have to go against known natural physics. To me, the odds are irrelevant.

strongvoicesforward, you seem to forget that a miracle is, by definition, a "wonderful occurance."

Clawn, that is one definition of it -- and that IS the loser definition of the two. Religion is not of the natural world and in the sense of spirits or spirituality, that essence cannot be observed, therefore, the 2nd definition in the relgio sense, the more strict one, should be used when talking about that which is a miracle and cannot be explained through the natural laws of physics, for Gods realm is not of this world, and if it is being spoken in the spiritual sense, it should therefore be used with the sense that cannot be seen as is God`s realm cannot be seen.

So, what is the difference between "lucky" and "miracle" in the lose sense that you are using? I think it is lucky that I found a parking space so close to the movie theatre entrance when for years I have never been able to. It is a hot day. It is wonderful that I don't have to walk so far to the entrance where the occurance of a cool blast of wind from airconditioning will greet me as I open the door.

Now, is that a miracle or just lucky? Are you watering down the concept of miracle so that they are not so uncommon. What will become of the word "lucky?"

I think it is lucky I found such a good parking space.

I doubt having your army beaten by a single man who has "the jaw bone of an ass" would be wonderful, unless you were looking to be beaten.

Clawn, why would I be "looking for" my army to be beaten, and why would I think it would be "wonderful." I want my army to win! But, if I did believe in miracles based on odds, I would have to honestly say it was miraculous one man beat my whole army. But then that would not necessarily be a "good and wonderful occurance" from my perspective.

A miracle is viewed as good by one man while it might be viewed as disaster by the next. This does not mean it has to go against the odds.
I think the rest of your argument, when faced with what a miracle truly is, has no importance.

For the latter: eeerrrr.... Oh, ok. So convenient for you.

For the former: Like I said, I don`t believe miracles are in the "defying odds" category -- that is for luck or another word coincidences. However, if someone is going to hold to the notion that miracles are based on 80/20 % odds, it is hazy reasoning to see how someone will say miracles occur with the odds and not against them.

It is an 80% chance that the novacain the dentist shot me up with would work as previously researched and tested and allow me to have a pain free filling experience of my tooth with amalgam. The filling has been done and I had experienced no pain just like all the thousands of research and testing had bored out previously, not to mention the millions of other people who had the same thing done. Was my not having any pain a miracle?

You are watering down the meaning and power of the word miracle by reducing it to every day occurrances if you adere to the odds principle of it but then feel you can go with the odds to claim a miracle. That doesn`t make sense to me. Why does it you?

 

[No-name]

The topic of this thread was whether or not you believe in miracles.

I don't regard people of faith as losers. I choose to live in a world where miracles are common and magic is everywhere.

I have enjoyed watching the skill, humor and creativity that bossel, tsuyoiko, reiku, and nurizeko among others have taken in rebuking you. (Rebuke is a rather ordinary word.) If you would like me to stop commending them for their ability to reduce you to an object of utter ridicule, I will promise to no longer congratulate them publicly. I would not want to hurt or offend you.

By the way, almost none of those on that list agree with me the majority of the time. You can check out the lengthy exchange I had with bossel over race being a scientific fact to see that although I have always respected him, our disagreements can get quite heated. Likewise, mars man and tsuyoiko disagree with my beliefs about God.

This thread however concerns a simple question about miracles. I have left it open ended to elicit the widest possible breadth of replies. I like Einstein's definition and quote and I am quite happy to stick with this one. It need not degenerate into an attack on me or my faith.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Yes, it was an "amazing and wonderful occurrence," and the odds of hitting the slot Jackpot are very slim indeed, but it is being lucky.

And under the first definition of 'miracle', it is perfectly acceptable to use that word.

What is the difference between "lucky" and "miracle" if the first lose definition of miracle is used?

No difference. They are near synonyms - the only difference being that one is an adjective and the other a noun.

Since in any situation it is likely to be clear which definition of miracle you mean, I don't see any problem with using the word in either case. Now the word 'theory' has several meanings, and the different uses are much more problematic.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

in every incident you have reserved criticism on the topic, when you decide to post on the point, for me only. Why not pointedly spread it around in an egalitarian way?

It may serve you well to ponder on that point.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I specifically said earlier that a miracle would have to go against known natural physics. To me, the odds are irrelevant.
Clawn, that is one definition of it -- and that IS the loser definition of the two.

(my emphasis)

The topic of this thread was whether or not you believe in miracles... I have left it open ended to elicit the widest possible breadth of replies.

OK SVF, we get it - you only accept the 'strict' definition of miracle. That's your choice. But unless you have the power to rewrite the dictionary, I think you have to accept the fact that there is another definition that is (perhaps more widely) used. Sabro's made it clear that he intentionally left it ambiguous - so there's little point arguing which definition is acceptable. They both are.

 

[Uchite]

Interestingly enough, the song "Miracles" by Jefferson Starship was recorded 31 years ago, yesterday; 2/13/75! :music: Just happened to be listening to it and saw the date it was recorded.