Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Miracle by Definition
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 31 of 38 (372686)
12-29-2006 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by sidelined
12-28-2006 5:31 PM


Re: How about a change in the law?
"wherein it can be shown under the introduction of prayer to the deity of your choice that the resulting data from the two locations changes from the expected result by a factor that can only be the result of said prayer."
said sidelined.
rather i would view this as evidence of something akin to telekenisis, not excluding devine involvement but providing no evidence for devine involvement either. it would infact give credence to the idea that perhaps all miracles could be rooted in such hypothetical human meta-mentation (read ~telekenisis), as it is likely that enstiens theory of a 4 dimensional space time universe is correct.
any action of prayer is by action at a distance, not direct physical involvement. anything that can effect at a distance without physical involvement can also travel though time, as space and time are one and the same.
then, why not miracles being "caused" (more "entangled" since causality has now gone a bit out the window) by the prayers and beliefs of believers in the future? i.e. jesus could walk on water because the combined mental force of everyone who ever did or ever will believe that he did increased the surface tension of said water to to a point where someone could walk on it.
in such a view would not the "seed" (if you will) of such a happening be the holy text, not the believers or jesus.
"in the beginning there was the word ... and the word was god"
p.s. i'm not exactly what most people would call a christian, but john seems preaty apt sometimes.
Edited by meese, : attributed quote to the wrong person...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by sidelined, posted 12-28-2006 5:31 PM sidelined has not replied

  
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 32 of 38 (372689)
12-29-2006 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-26-2006 11:29 PM


snowflake effect
all macroscopic events are of vanishing probability. take for example a snowflake. it is generally accepted (except by some researchers from denver who claim they found tow identicals) that every snowflake is unique. therefor every snowflake, taken individually, is extreamly unlikely to have it's specific form as compared to all other snowflakes that every existed. am i then shoveling miracles in the morning? (some would say yes)
i propose that a miracle needs to be written down, as per my reply to sideline. i.e. caused by the word of god so to speak.
though i think the word is god, and not just in any given holy text

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-26-2006 11:29 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 12-29-2006 4:59 AM meese has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 38 (372700)
12-29-2006 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by meese
12-29-2006 1:57 AM


Not a White Christmas...
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...
i propose that a miracle needs to be written down, as per my reply to sideline. i.e. caused by the word of god so to speak.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by meese, posted 12-29-2006 1:57 AM meese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by meese, posted 12-29-2006 6:30 AM Jon has replied

  
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 34 of 38 (372707)
12-29-2006 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jon
12-29-2006 4:59 AM


Re: Not a White Christmas...
dude, i'm not sure where you read any "anger" in my post, i like snow and think it is pretty cool. if i was a psycologist i might say something about projection, but i am not qualified.
my point was all things are "extraordinary events", except possibly blackbody radiation. snow is enourmously simple, regular hexagonal crystals of molocules consisting of 3 atoms each, and yet can contain such complexity. taken beside something so mundane, yet of vast consiquence to humanity, as snow, compare the human immune system. compare vaccinations...(where do new ideas come from anyway?)
if god has had any involvment with the universe at all (let alone total involvement), would not nearly anything satisfy the conditions of being extrodinary and of the result of devine intervention?
so why would i say such inflamitory and injurious things? to lay a foundation to my reponse to the question of what constitues a miracle, the topic at hand, no? sorry if it offends you, but i like having atleast a misty or meandering trail of something akin to logic when considering any given question.
my premis: all things are fantastical, and can be atributed to god if such is to your liking.
my conclusion: either all things are miracles, or what constitutes a miracle must be something other than the inherent wierdness of the universe.
and as such i put forth the supposition, ripe for critical examination, that miracles could be defined by their realtion to written documents.
i whole heartedly encourage you to point out errancies in this admitadly less than rigorous argument, such that the frontier of knowlage and understand may be expanded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 12-29-2006 4:59 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 12-29-2006 7:14 AM meese has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 38 (372708)
12-29-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by meese
12-29-2006 6:30 AM


Re: Not a White Christmas...
if god has had any involvment with the universe at all (let alone total involvement), would not nearly anything satisfy the conditions of being extrodinary and of the result of devine intervention?
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 .
my premis: all things are fantastical, and can be atributed to god if such is to your liking.
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!
and as such i put forth the supposition, ripe for critical examination, that miracles could be defined by their realtion to written documents.
i whole heartedly encourage you to point out errancies in this admitadly less than rigorous argument, such that the frontier of knowlage and understand may be expanded.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by meese, posted 12-29-2006 6:30 AM meese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by meese, posted 12-30-2006 2:39 AM Jon has replied

  
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 36 of 38 (372918)
12-30-2006 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jon
12-29-2006 7:14 AM


the alpha and the omega
i stick to my position that (nearly) all things are fantasical, the letter A especially. i support this position by suggesting a deffinition of fantastical by reffering back to the orginal post and it's deffinition of miracle, "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs". lets ignore the devine part and say that fantastical="an extrodinary event", and that other synonyms of this same general concept are acceptable.
so what is extraordinary? outside or beyond of the oridinary form our good friends the latins. lets say that ordinary and comprehensible are about the same thing.
i guess i may have gone to far in saying "all" things are fantasticle, (but in my defence all the parenthesis get a bit tireing. i will strive to be more rigourous.) clearly some things can be understood,(which in itself is arguable, what if we are really and actually a bunch of cartesian brains in jars, being fed a perfect artificial reality, thus only being able to know that we think and there for are ) such as very simple physical happenings, generalized systems, and math.
a very simple physical happening: if you have a perfectly inert, very samll jar, with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, you will eventually get one water molocule, plus some photons. why and how can get comlicated, but it is still withing the realm of understanding.
a generalized system: if you have a whole mess of water vapour in the frozen alberta sky, you get snow. this is common sense, and although hard to explain explicitly, generally infallible.
math is a priori (say some), it just kind of exists for us to discover. when we discovered enough of it we could explain and understand snow and a frozen lake and right down to the phase changes of water and even a single molocule of water. things get pretty wierd when they get that small, but as you pointed out, given enough time some stuff just becomes a sure thing. (unless of course one of your atoms sponateously collapses into a pile of quarks, but we got the math for that too)
a conceed the point that snow, in its general "hey look it's snowing" sense is not extraordinary, because it is general and we can understand it in both the common sense and statistical mathmatical kind of way. BUT, any given snowFlake and its specific shape is way beyond our ability to understand commone sense like (who here has an intuitive knowlage of atoms and molocules dancing about by the billions) and our mathmatics. and don't think there haven't been hundreds of undergrad and thesis papers that really gave it a try).
i gave the example of a snowFlake just for that reason, and sorry if i was not clear enough in distinguishing from one flake and all snow that every was or will be. if you still disagree and insist that a snowflake is ordinary, perhaps you could deffine ordinary (and thus extraordinary) or maybe it just isn't worth the bother.
now before i explain way i think the letter A is deffinately way out there, i'd like to adress your concern with my suggestion that miracles are related to written documents. i turn you attention to my first two posts. i highlight the i (although perhap ambigously) did say that any old document will do. that is a bit secondary so we can just concentrate on the bible, which is where i got my example from in my first message. go back and read it, not the one you responded to first, but my reply to sidelined. did you read it? good. ask questions, point out problems... the whole telekenisis thing is pretty unfounded i agree, but as we are talking about miracles lets call it "faith".
now why is A so special? A is rather similar to math, in that it has an existence outside and beyond any one instance of the letter A, what one could call an archetype (not unlike you master snowflake). but unlike math we invented it rather than discovered it inhernet in the universe. in a general sense, maybe archetypes could be call ordinary as they facilitate our understanding as animals exploring our enviroment. nothing is comprehensible without an archetype (even if we don't realize we are using it), and i would suggest that is what socrates ment when he said we remembered things rather than learned them. it is streching common sense to say that archetypes are comprehenisble, but one could say we clearly understand things in novel situations (i.e. though every snowflake is unique, we all know what snow is).
but we Created A. not just in a "i'll smash this rock until it is sharp and hunt moose with it" way, but gave it it's specific and magical form out of a big pile of nothing. maybe not quite nothing if you really press the point because it does represent a sound, but then where did they idea of symbolism come from?
apparently it is inherent, as we do have archetypes and can also teach chimps sign language (or can tell a dog to sit). but do we understand that? no way, not even in the most elastic sense of the common.
so even if three lines put together just so means something related to our vast and complex evolution, we could one day understand it. i would say at this point a letter is deffinately extraordinary, but will ceed the point that maybe, one day... but then the letter A is much more than just a sound written down. it symbolizes much more, primacy, sucess, beginnings, even all the stuff that has an A in it is deeply intertwined in the magic of the letter A.
and since this is about miracles, and jesus is already in the mix, lets take the phrase "the alpha and the omega". have you seen a greek A(alpha)? it looks just like a fish. so the letter a is not only a letter, an important letter, it is also a mystic symbol. jesus is the alpha and the omega, the beggining and the end (and in a clearly stated relation to the ALPHAbet, and thus writing).
that is a part of why A is deffinately extraordianry. a much better example of something that seams simple until you examine it, i thank you.
now as for miracles, i again point you to my foofy primary post about telepathy, as it explains my view of how documents are an essential part of miracles. as it is pretty foofy, i am willing to accept miracle after miracle in my everyday life because i am at a loss to see any way around it, and hold the telekenisis in reserve for when i want to pretend i know what is going on. i do believe in god (though many would call me an athiest) and i do accept the existence of jesus (though i reserve the right to see him as possibly a transdimentional though-being and not necciarily walk the land and the lakes in the "it happened exactly as it was written" way). as such i see your conventional miracles as more than parlor tricks we will soon be able to pull off in the back yard (and by the way, i have no problem walking on the water in my back yard) and more as sign posts to remind us of the every day miracles that some would have us ignore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 12-29-2006 7:14 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 12-30-2006 8:30 AM meese has not replied

  
meese
Junior Member (Idle past 6289 days)
Posts: 12
From: cochrane, alberta, canada
Joined: 12-25-2006


Message 37 of 38 (372929)
12-30-2006 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-26-2006 11:29 PM


the message
after a bit of a think about what i said to jon, i have decided i have something more to say about how to define a miracle.
to me a miracle is something you read about that tells you something about god. the examples you provied are not miracles unless to someone they say, unambiguously and deffinately, that god wanted person A to have a lot of money and person B to not die of cancer. some people may be able to read that, but not me, so they are not miracles to me.
jesus walking on water said to a lot fo people something along the lines of "god is all powerful", which was something useful to some people maybe. But Not to (most) Christians, because they already believed god was all powerful, and thus could not be taught that idea.
i, on the other hand, did learn something, eventually, from that report. some christians did too, no doubt, but i imagine it was something personal and hard to explain and went beyond the raw power of thier god. what i learned is also hard to explain, (though i try sometimes) but in the end easy to learn because i grew up believing that if you thought jesus walked on water you might as well have ground beef where your brain should be.
miracles are for the non-believers. you can't define a miracle in the dictionary because we all believe something different. i would also say you can never see a miracle because they need to be relayed evangelically. those who see what others call a miracle have had a direct experience of the devine, which goes beyond a simlpe miracle.
that said, miracles and devine contact aren't limited to the bible and prophets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-26-2006 11:29 PM Phat has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 38 (372952)
12-30-2006 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by meese
12-30-2006 2:39 AM


Re: the alpha and the omega
have you seen a greek A(alpha)? it looks just like a fish.
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?
jesus is the alpha and the omega, the beggining and the end (and in a clearly stated relation to the ALPHAbet, and thus writing).
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.
it symbolizes much more, primacy, sucess, beginnings, even all the stuff that has an A in it is deeply intertwined in the magic of the letter A.
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.
but we Created A. not just in a "i'll smash this rock until it is sharp and hunt moose with it" way, but gave it it's specific and magical form out of a big pile of nothing. maybe not quite nothing if you really press the point because it does represent a sound, but then where did they idea of symbolism come from?
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.
apparently it is inherent, as we do have archetypes and can also teach chimps sign language (or can tell a dog to sit). but do we understand that? no way, not even in the most elastic sense of the common.
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?
if you still disagree and insist that a snowflake is ordinary, perhaps you could deffine ordinary (and thus extraordinary) or maybe it just isn't worth the bother.
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.
so what is extraordinary? outside or beyond of the oridinary form our good friends the latins. lets say that ordinary and comprehensible are about the same thing.
What the heck does this even mean?
did you read it? good. ask questions, point out problems...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by meese, posted 12-30-2006 2:39 AM meese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024