A Miracle by Definition

It also doesn't mean that anything woo-woo isn't going on either. We cannot discredit God until we find a different explanation. At the same time, all explanations are equally valid which explain the event.What to you would make a satisfactory non-"woo-woo" explaination?J0N

I was under the influence that within a given amount of space there is a given amount of matter. And that the given amount of matter is a finite amount which has a finite number of ways in which it can be aranged.Anyway... So, in your first statement you have two qualifiers for a miracle:1) against odds
2) exceptional or unusual circumstancesA problem I see:It is not against the odds that the Powerball be won by someone, just against the odds that a selected for (special) individual will win. Now, if the Powerball is won (something against the odds), would not the fact that it was won by a special individual qualify as an "exceptional or unusual circumstance"?So, to the rest of the country (meaning here the people who place no importance on you) looking at the Powerball game, they will see you winning as against the odds in the sense of you being selected out for, however, they will not see anything exceptional about it as you are of no importance to the rest of the country. Yet, from your persepective you are a special individual (because you are you, and to you you are special in being yourself).Which means that the two perspectives can give us two answers to the question of whether winning the Powerball is a miracle or not (providing we use your idea of miracle, which seems to centre around probability and odds): (1) Only qualifier one is satisfied, since it was against the odds that you as a particular person would win, however there is nothing unusual about it, because someone was bound to win anyway and you are not special to the particular set of observers, or (2) both qualifiers are satisfied because from your perspective it was still against the odds that you would win, but because you are important to yourself, it makes it (in your eyes) an exceptional circumstance that you should be "chosen" by the system.I think having a definition of "miracle" which allows an event to be both miraculous and non-miraculous at the same time depending on the point of view of the observers is not a very strong definition.A good definition should describe the qualities of something regardless of perspective or involvement in the issue. A great definition should be unarguable. For example, defnining a hat with the qualifier that it is beatiful is a poor definition, since from some perspectives it may not be beautiful and therefore does not meet the qualifiying condition and is no longer a hat. But the definition should allow the defined article to remain itself from all perspectives. Defining the hat with a qualifier such as "red" is a better definition, because all perspectives will see the hat as red (it is an objective quality) and therefore it will remain a hat no matter who views it.On to your second statement:Why is it any less miraculous if it cannot be explained? It is fully possibly to explain how someone may win the Powerball (they buy the winning ticket/find it in the gutter)--so in the Powerball case, an explanation does not demote it from being a miracle; instead, only that it was against odds and unusual. Why then in the case of cancer does the fact that it can be explained suddenly make it less of a miracle? It is still equally as improbable, whether explainable or not. What does whether time is infinite or not have to do with the miraculous/non-miraculous nature of an event happening here and now?J0N

That doesn't follow. We can easily explain how you managed to win the lottery with the Powerball ticket in the gutter. Perhaps Joe Schmoe dropped it on his way to work, or some fool tossed it out their window thinking it was a loser. If we can explain how the ticket is a winner (because it matches the chosen numbers) and how it got in your hands, does that make winning the Powerball for you to be any less of a miracle? But for that to be true, life too would have to be infinite, not just time. Suppose time is infinite, does that give me an infinite probability that I will walk on Mars? Of course it doesn't, because in 70 more years ( ), I will be dead. And after that, the chance of Jon (me) ever standing on Mars becomes impossible despite the infinity of time. And, since we are pretty sure that everyone will die, every mountain will fall, every star will burn out, etc., the question of whether time is infinite or not still has no bearing on the miraculous/non-miraculous nature of an event.J0N

A snowflake? You are arguing against a point that has not been made (at least not by the poster to whom you have replied).There are two different definitions used in the OP:1) "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs"This definition relies on "divine intervention" as a qualifier for miracle--something you agree with when you say: "i propose that a miracle needs to be... caused by the word of god so to speak."So, I cannot see how you'd have any problem with this part of the OP.The second part of the definition:2) "an unusual event, thing, or accomplishment"This simply states the requirement of the event to be unusual. The fact that a snowflake will take a form unlike any other snowflake ever fallen is NOT unusual, nor does the OP attempt to make such an arguement. However, you say, "therefor every snowflake, taken individually, is extreamly unlikely to have it's specific form...", which is, to be put nicely, a crock of shit. ALL snowflakes take a form that is unlike any other snowflake ever fallen. How can you call an event unlikely if it happens 100% of the time!?!What would be unusual would be to find two snowflakes that have taken the same form. If someone found a bank of snow which contained snowflakes that were all identical in every way, and then claimed they were shoveling miracles, THEN you would have an arguement. Otherwise, you're just arguing scarecrows... This was the answer to Phat's question; you really didn't need all that other anger directed at opinions that the poor phella' didn't even express... .J0N

---

Webster's Dictionary, quoted in Message 1 by Phat.

No, because the probability that an event will turn out in "some way" is 100% (events always have endings, even if infinite, their result is infinity). To satisfy such conditions, you must show that there is something significant about the outcome. What is so significant about snowflake 1,789,362,169,514,230 looking like it does? What is so significant about snowflake 1,789,362,169,514,231 looking like it does? Neither form has any significance, so how can you conclude that it is extrodinary when it is simply the playing-out of unavoidable, statistical occurances?Now, if you could show us the snowflake mastermold that sits in the office of father winter, and find for us the one snowflake fitting that mold exactly, well, then you'd have something . Actually, even things that aren't "fantastical" can be attributed to God by anyone who wants to do such things. Secondly--and implied from the first sentence--not all things are "fantastical." Would you call the letter "a" "fantastical"? I mean, some things are pretty simple, rather easy, simply explainable... and are in no way "fantastical." Unless your definition of "fantastical" is different than the one I use which means something like: out-of-this-world extrodinary, tubular, great and wonderful to a degree not easily obtainable.My point: false premise! Now, I do not want to be rude or off-puting, but this makes no sense. What written documents are you relating your miracles to? What in God's green (or snow-covered) Earth makes you think that discussion of your philisophical, "fantagical" mumble is going to expand the frontier of "knowlage and understand"?Do you really think that highly of your barely coherent definition of a miracle?Instead of restating this "in writing" stuff, you should try to explain it in detail. Perhaps then it could be well discussed (at the least better understood!).J0N

Yet, it has nothing to do with fish. It owes its origins to a hieroglyphic symbol which looked like an ox. Give it a couple thousand years, and we get the Greek version. What does a fish have to do with anything? This was all said after the order of letters was established. Jesus was using the Greek alphabet as a metaphor; the alphabet was not established based on Him. Beginning? No. The order of the alphabet, I believe, is arbitrary (coincidental and meaningless). Not only that, its purpose as a letter representing sound has nothing to do with its position in the alphabet. I wish I could remember the names of the civilizations I'm about to talk about, but you'll just have to trust me that they exist, and perhaps someone can come in and fill in my gaps:The A, as I've said, comes from a symbol representing an ox. The most primitive of humans used simple drawings to represent the world around them, and as is natural for humans, associated particular sounds (words) with those things they saw. Now, a long time ago in a desert far far away, there were people drawing these oxes (later to be the letter A), and their particular word for "ox" was "aleph". The connection here is pretty obvious to see. The letter A arose from primitive association with a word and the animal it represented; no smoke and mirrors about it. Inherent? No way. The letter A could just as well look like a ball sack and it would still have the same significance as it does. This "inherency" (is that a word) that you are talking about is mere coincidence, and passing off coincidence as miraculous seems a little to be hasty. No? No bother at all, actually. A snow flake is ordinary because we know that 100% of the time a snowflake will form in a manner unique to all other snowflakes. Now, when a snowflake goes and does just that, how can it be anything other than ordinary? An analogy might help:Every Friday, Jim wears a tie that is different than any tie he has ever worn on Friday (Jim has an impressively extensive collection of ties ). So, one Friday he walks in and is wearing a tie that you have never seen him wear before on Friday. Is this an ordinary event? Yes. Next Friday, however, Jim walks in wearing a tie that he HAS worn before on Friday ! Considering Jim's nature, this IS extradordinary, and one might even conclude that something in Jim's life has changed.Basically, I do not have a solid definition of ordinary, but I do know that when there is 100% probability that something will happen in a given way, and it then happens that way, it is definately ordinary. What the heck does this even mean? You really don't want me to do that. Because I could point out an infinately long list of the problems with believing that the combined mental force of prayer caused an increase in the surface tension of the water upon which Christ supposedly walked. Do you really?Now, you've made a lot of points, but it's getting long to go into detail on each one over and over again. Perhaps we can pick one point to start with, and go from there? You can choose, by all means .J0N