Miracles are logical

[Sublimating]

Miracles are simply those events or occurrences which supersede the known physical laws. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and who believes that we actually exist should believe in miracles. The existence of our world is unintelligible, impossible to bring about through the application of known physical laws. These laws must then have been superseded.

 

[PeterS]

Miracles are simply those events or occurrences which supersede the known physical laws. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and who believes that we actually exist should believe in miracles. The existence of our world is unintelligible, impossible to bring about through the application of known physical laws. These laws must then have been superseded.

Huh? And here all the time I thought gravity explained how our world came into existence. Silly me.

 

[amrchaos]

Here are some truths to compare with the op

1)Man is born into ignorance

2)Man has science, but the science is not complete. For the religious, this means that man does not know everything about the world.

3)Religion is considered justifiable when we consider knowledge in areas that man does not know scientifically.



Using the op and the above truths, I can conclude how religion will survive forever. It will keep creating new subject areas and reign supreme in those areas! Anyone disagree?

 

[Sublimating]

Here are some truths to compare with the op

1)Man is born into ignorance

2)Man has science, but the science is not complete. For the religious, this means that man does not know everything about the world.

3)Religion is considered justifiable when we consider knowledge in areas that man does not know scientifically.



Using the op and the above truths, I can conclude how religion will survive forever. It will keep creating new subject areas and reign supreme in those areas! Anyone disagree?

There are no above truths.
1)Children, not men are born ignorant. Science cannot say what the first man knew.
2)"Science is not complete" The concept is vague and meaningless.
3)Religion requires no justification. Man's knowledge is not quantifiable. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Sublimating]

Here are some truths to compare with the op

1)Man is born into ignorance

2)Man has science, but the science is not complete. For the religious, this means that man does not know everything about the world.

3)Religion is considered justifiable when we consider knowledge in areas that man does not know scientifically.



Using the op and the above truths, I can conclude how religion will survive forever. It will keep creating new subject areas and reign supreme in those areas! Anyone disagree?

There are no above truths.
1)Children, not men are born ignorant. Science cannot say what the first man knew.
2)"Science is not complete" The concept is vague and meaningless.
3)Religion requires no justification. Man's knowledge is not quantifiable. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

 

[waltky]

Was prob'ly ulcerative colitis, a progressive condition that doesn't just 'clear up' of itself...

Vatican declares Colorado boy's recovery a miracle
April 15, 2013 - A Colorado mom whose son became gravely ill as a little boy has always figured his prayer-aided recovery was miraculous, but now the Vatican has made it official.

Luke Burgie was just four in 1998, when he developed a severe gastrointestinal condition his doctors couldn't diagnose, much less cure, according to The Denver Post. For six months, he suffered stomach pain and unrelenting diarrhea and even stopped growing. But the illness went away on Feb. 22, 1999, just as two members of the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration finished praying a novena.

The nuns had recited a series of prayers over nine straight days asking Mother Theresia Bonzel, who founded the order in Germany in 1863, to cure the boy. Since then, the Vatican has investigated the case and has now scheduled Bonzel for beatification in November — a step toward sainthood. Just before Easter, Pope Francis affirmed that Bonzel was responsible for the miracle. Two miracles are required for canonization, or sainthood.

Luke, now 18, doesn't remember being ill or suddenly getting well. He doesn't like to talk about any of it, his mother told the newspaper. The Vatican did not pronounce Luke’s recovery a miracle lightly. Journalist Bill Briggs, who wrote "The Third Miracle," told the post the process is "rigorous." Typically, the church interviews doctors in the case, and then has a team of independent medical experts review all relevant records.

Read more: Vatican declares Colorado boy's recovery a miracle | Fox News

 

[AVG-JOE]

mir·a·cle
/ˈmirikəl/
Noun

A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment.

Google Search: Definition Miracle

When I Google the definition of 'Miracle', most of the entries have a primary definition that includes some sort of Divine intervention in human events.

Since God is NOT logical and MUST be considered on faith and faith alone, 'logic' and 'miracle' are mutually exclusive.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have seen miracles, and they all seemed to happen in a perfectly logical way. A very natural way. That's why so many doctors believe in miracles.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yup. Divine intervention: A logical explanation for the unexplainable.

​

 

[PaulS1950]

Belief in a creator requires faith - believing without proof. A miracle is that faith modifying reality.
It happens everyday all over the world. It is not limited to one religion or even religions.
Man carries three attributes of the Creator;
1. Faith
2. Hope
3. Charity (love)
"...of these, the greatest is love..." Without love faith can move mountains but to what end? Hope is the wellspring of eternal wellbeing but without love you have nothing. When you combine the three in one act you get miracles. We can be the interaction of the divine on earth.

 

[BreezeWood]

Miracles are simply those events or occurrences which supersede the known physical laws. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and who believes that we actually exist should believe in miracles. The existence of our world is unintelligible, impossible to bring about through the application of known physical laws. These laws must then have been superseded.

Miracles are simply those events or occurrences which supersede the known physical laws.

or is it when the extremes of physical law perform contrary to the law as it is designed and there is an unknown occurrence.

such as the Fauna and Flora on earth.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Here are some truths to compare with the op

1)Man is born into ignorance

2)Man has science, but the science is not complete. For the religious, this means that man does not know everything about the world.

3)Religion is considered justifiable when we consider knowledge in areas that man does not know scientifically.



Using the op and the above truths, I can conclude how religion will survive forever. It will keep creating new subject areas and reign supreme in those areas! Anyone disagree?

I do. I do. Pick me! I can't speak for all religions, but I know the Christian viewpoint:

1. We are born into God's family...... 1 John 3:9, not ignorance.


2. Seculars have science, lacking tho it is. Christians have Biblical science that is farther advanced, from the beginning, than our most modern science is now.
(refer to the scientific content that Nachmanides was able to deduce by understanding the science Genesis provides. "Modern science" has not caught up to the 1400's yet.)

Christians need not rely on secular science except to confirm Biblical science. We already know what secular science is just finding out.

3. Christianity isn't an alternative for, or a quantum response to, a lack of knowledge, scientific or otherwise.
No justification is necessary, and Christian religion wasn't born out of a need to fill in the gaps of what man hasn't yet discovered.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Here are some truths to compare with the op

1)Man is born into ignorance

2)Man has science, but the science is not complete. For the religious, this means that man does not know everything about the world.

3)Religion is considered justifiable when we consider knowledge in areas that man does not know scientifically.



Using the op and the above truths, I can conclude how religion will survive forever. It will keep creating new subject areas and reign supreme in those areas! Anyone disagree?

I do. I do. Pick me! I can't speak for all religions, but I know the Christian viewpoint:

1. We are born into God's family...... 1 John 3:9, not ignorance.


2. Seculars have science, lacking tho it is. Christians have Biblical science that is farther advanced, from the beginning, than our most modern science is now.
(refer to the scientific content that Nachmanides was able to deduce by understanding the science Genesis provides. "Modern science" has not caught up to the 1400's yet.)

Christians need not rely on secular science except to confirm Biblical science. We already know what secular science is just finding out.

3. Christianity isn't an alternative for, or a quantum response to, a lack of knowledge, scientific or otherwise.
No justification is necessary, and Christian religion wasn't born out of a need to fill in the gaps of what man hasn't yet discovered.

I have to say I am a little familiar with Nachmanides and hold some fascination for him. Then again I've always found myself more drawn to Jewish thinking than that of Christianity, gentile that I am. Jews are more steadfast and strict in their beliefs, while Christians tend to take from scripture and history and science what serves their agenda and ignore what does not.

Here a quote from Nachmanides that is beneficial to the Christian worldview is presented, yet I feel confident that his quotes about Christian belief would be rejected altogether, as he largely considered the Christian narratives to be hogwash.

If there is any one complaint about Christianity that I hold above all others it is probably the seemingly inherent tendency amongst believers to pick and choose what suits them and reject what does not. This behavior was demonstrated at the first Council of Nicaea and has been going on ever since.

I always appreciate Ram's heart and earnestness. I suspect he will take my criticism like a man.

 

[whitehall]

I think you have a skewed perception about the term "logic". Just because you imagine that something supersedes physical law it doesn't mean it's logical.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Thank you Jimmy. (And even though I am a little girl, I can certainly take your criticism like a man).

Nachmanides was a Jewish Rabbi and most Jews reject Christian teachings.
I'm not sure what you think Christians have ignored in any of the areas you mentioned. If the men at Nicaea had included every book of antiquity into the Bible, it would be to heavy to pick up. But what was not included isn't rejected and is often used by Christians to corroborate what was included.

As far as science is concerned the Bible doesn't change to conform to the latest human scientific discovery. It patiently waits for science to catch up:

That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Ephesians 3:16-19

^
There's 4 dimensions. Einstein had to include length to his theory with the help of Hubble who showed Einstein that time elongates, before he could catch up to Paul. He ignored 3 others dimensions that the Bible refers to. Hawking just found those. Modern science is now trying to figure out the properties of our "newly found dimensions". Soon they will catch up to the Bible and "discover" that dimensions can be torn, rolled up, burnt, etc.

Jews are more steadfast and strict because they continue under the Law. Being the type of person that has always liked to defy the rules, I prefer being under grace and forgiveness. For me it's a necessity.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Thank you Jimmy. (And even though I am a little girl, I can certainly take your criticism like a man).

Nachmanides was a Jewish Rabbi and most Jews reject Christian teachings.
I'm not sure what you think Christians have ignored in any of the areas you mentioned. If the men at Nicaea had included every book of antiquity into the Bible, it would be to heavy to pick up. But what was not included isn't rejected and is often used by Christians to corroborate what was included.

As far as science is concerned the Bible doesn't change to conform to the latest human scientific discovery. It patiently waits for science to catch up:

That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Ephesians 3:16-19

^
There's 4 dimensions. Einstein had to include length to his theory with the help of Hubble who showed Einstein that time elongates, before he could catch up to Paul. He ignored 3 others dimensions that the Bible refers to. Hawking just found those. Modern science is now trying to figure out the properties of our "newly found dimensions". Soon they will catch up to the Bible and "discover" that dimensions can be torn, rolled up, burnt, etc.

Jews are more steadfast and strict because they continue under the Law. Being the type of person that has always liked to defy the rules, I prefer being under grace and forgiveness. For me it's a necessity.

Fair enough, but I hold that Christians tend to ignore or reject that which does not support their world view in general, and this varies from sect to sect. Science does not always coincide with the Bible, and depending on one's interpretation of the Bible, one must either accept or reject secular information based on whether or not it fits their particular Biblical world view.

The diversity, behavior, rate at which life on Earth mutates and develops does not support a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark. But if one takes it more figuratively or metaphorically, then fine.

If one is a Young Earth creationist who takes the Genesis narrative literally, or close to it, then the Universe, or "the heavens," as described in scripture, were created first, and this was somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. The speed at which light travels, and that objects in the Universe have been observed that are billions of light years away pretty much invalidates that notion without even considering anything else. YE creationists have come up with a number of theories to incorporate this massive inconsistency, including that the speed of light changes speed exponentially as it travels to and from Earth. Now, while the speed of light can certainly change, and circumstances in the Universe make it possible for light to change direction and do things that we are now beginning to understand, it takes a stretch beyond comprehension to make the behavior of the Universe match a 10,000 year time line. As a figurative narrative, Genesis works just fine.

Christians tend to be very good at explaining away anything that does not support a Biblical world view. They incorporate everything around them into Biblical terms. I am sure that there are Christians out there that are taking the discovery of Gobekli Tepe, the oldest archeological discovery to date, and incorporating it into a Biblical context, and discounting, discrediting, rejecting any explanation that does not support it. It is a part of the Christian condition.

Your points are taken. I simply don't trust the validity of most Christian viewpoints that must incorporate everything around into a Biblical context. Bias exists everywhere, but seldom is it so fierce as what I see amongst fundamentalists, Christian or otherwise. I trust God, or whatever higher power my life and soul depends upon. What I don't trust is religious people and their agendas.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Thank you Jimmy. (And even though I am a little girl, I can certainly take your criticism like a man).

Oh, and yes. Ooops. My bad. You obviously took the comment in the spirit intended.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Miracles are logical.

Miracles are Luck. Plain and simple.

I'm one of the luckiest little bastards to have been lucky enough to live a semi-Sentient Monkey life on Planet Earth and that luck hasn't changed one iota as my existence has ridden it's carnal wave of Time from youthful freedom, through Bible thumpin' Jesus Freak, to Monkey who sees the bigger picture and smiles.

If God is, She doesn't seem to care about what a Monkey worships when she doles out the Luck. Both good and bad...

And if God is, as described in the ancient story commonly referred to as 'The Bible', I see Him as impotent. Considering my luck and my outspoken thoughts about ancient story religion in general, and the 'God' who 'revealed Himself' to some ancient desert nomad Monkey named Abraham in particular, if such a self-described 'vengeful God' existed, I'd be an average weather headline and a lightning statistic.

The sooner the Monkeys realize that the only thing that separates Jewish Monkeys from the rest of the Monkeys is that they have the longest surviving written record of their Monkey bloodline, the better.

Was that a miracle, or one lucky Monkey?

 

[Mr. H.]

I received a miracle that was given to me on several occasions. I had no idea what was happening or why until years later I discussed it with someone familiar with such occurrence. Only then did it make sense. Kinda cool actually.

 

[AVG-JOE]

One lucky little bastard to another, Mr. H.! Cheers!