(November 19, 2012 at 5:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So...what sort of thing qualifies on those grounds? This definition of a miracle also seems to make the the whole "miracle" bit suspiciously close to a naked appeal to ignorance. Do we have any examples that might help us further explore the subject? Would something like plant growth hormones, inhibitors, and behavior (or any other mystery of botany - just as one area of interest) be a miracle then? Similarly....wouldn't this suggest that anything we can't explain is miraculous? Surely this can't be the case...

(important, to me at least, since without an example of anything like this how can we say that this is what a miracle actually is?)

Well, I've never actually seen any miracles in my lifetime, so I can't give any examples.

A lot of things may appear mysterious and amazing to us at first, but they can be explained by science, thus they are not miracles.

Well neither have I Rayaan, I was just wondering if you knew of any examples that would fit the short definition offered. I didn't realize that personal experience was also a requirement.

Indeed, many things once miraculous are now mundane (but why is this so..maybe all of those things are miracles after all..and we just got the definition of a miracle wrong...).

By a "miracle," I was referring to the idea of physical miracles only such as the belief in the splitting of the moon, turning water into wine, being born of virgin (having no father), humans being resurrected from the grave, and all these other seemingly impossible physical phenomenons that are mentioned in the Scriptures.

Of course, there are many miraculous things that happened in peoples' lives as you may agree with, but those are not physical miracles, but more like coincidences or something that happened to them at the right time, at the right moment, and in the right way that benefited them or removed them from a great danger in one way or another. A miracle could also be some kind of an amazing skill that someone developed one day.

Still, there is a lower level of "miracle-ness" to those miracles than the physical miracles that I mentioned above. That's the difference.

(November 19, 2012 at 6:28 pm)Rayaan Wrote: By a "miracle," I was referring to the idea of physical miracles only such as the belief in the splitting of the moon, turning water into wine, being born of virgin (having no father), humans being resurrected from the grave, and all these other seemingly impossible physical phenomenons that are mentioned in the Scriptures.

The phenomena, in each of these cases, is the belief. A phenomena is an observable occurrence, none of these things qualify as such, since their occurrence has not been established at all. Surely there must be some example of a miracle that isn't wholly comprised of a belief in miracles? In any case (just to be thorough), I don't think the belief in any of these things is inexplicable...and it has been reproduced many times.

Quote:Of course, there are many miraculous things that happened in peoples' lives as you may agree with, but those are not physical miracles, but more like coincidences or something that happened to them at the right time, at the right moment, and in the right way that benefited them or removed them from a great danger in one way or another. A miracle could also be some kind of an amazing skill that someone developed one day.

How can you make a determination between their experiences and the "genuine article"? If a modern pistol were transported into the very distant past and fired once as a demonstration...no one would be able to reproduce that event, and no one would be able to explain that event with the laws of nature, at least those known to them. Why is this not a miracle (like the "physical miracles" above), and how might it even differ from the contents of those beliefs in miracles you mentioned above. You seem to be using some other (as-yet unspoken) criteria besides reproducibility and the understanding gained by reference to the laws of nature.

Quote:Still, there is a lower level of "miracle-ness" to those miracles than the physical miracles that I mentioned above. That's the difference.

I don't think you've actually given me much to weigh in on with regards to a difference between either the beliefs or the "lesser miracles" that follow. If the only difference being referenced is our varying level of knowledge with regards to natural law (which would seem to be the case here) then I think that the "difference" between these two types of things is much more a difference in our ability to explain any given thing...I haven;t seen a difference between the events themselves established, and aren't we being very generous with words like "event" to begin with?

Between two inexplicable things, how do we determine that one is a miracle and the other is not? Or, is everything a miracle until it is explained. Then, once explained, how can it cease to be a miracle if it ever was a miracle? All of this again assumes that a "miracle" is more than an appeal to ignorance....an assumption I'm starting to question.

(November 19, 2012 at 5:25 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(November 19, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Watch the video embedded in the article, extremely impressive -it's a "miracle".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20365355

I merged your thread with this one, NAC, because both are about the same topic and were created on the same day.

PS: That is impressive indeed, but not a miracle.

There are no miracles, Rayaan. Never were.

(November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The phenomena, in each of these cases, is the belief. A phenomena is an observable occurrence, none of these things qualify as such, since their occurrence has not been established at all.

Yeah, none of those things have been established to be true empirically as of yet, hence they are just beliefs. There were at least eye-witnesses to some of those miracles, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the miracles are genuine.

(November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Surely there must be some example of a miracle that isn't wholly comprised of a belief in miracles?

If a miracle was not wholly comprised of a belief, then it would have to fall under the area of science and observational methods.

However, again, miracles - physical miracles, that is - are thought to be separate from science.

(November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: In any case (just to be thorough), I don't think the belief in any of these things is inexplicable...and it has been reproduced many times.

And which of those things have been reproduced exactly? And how?

(November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How can you make a determination between their experiences and the "genuine article"?

That is simply determined by my faith in the Quran as the word of God, but I have no evidence for that. I also trust the accounts of people who claimed to witness the said miracles even though I do not believe that they are necessarily 100% infallible/truthful in whatever they say.

(November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If a modern pistol were transported into the very distant past and fired once as a demonstration...no one would be able to reproduce that event, and no one would be able to explain that event with the laws of nature, at least those known to them. Why is this not a miracle, and how might it even differ from the contents of those beliefs in miracles you mentioned above.

But that's an "if" scenario, and there weren't any eye-witnesses for the pistol being transported into a very distant past either.

(November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're seem to be using some other (as-yet unspoken) criteria besides reproducibility and the understanding gained by reference to the laws of nature.

As I said just now, the other criteria is the information presented in the Quran, just like Christians use the Bible as their criteria.

The reason for that is because I'm talking about "miracles" from a religious point of view.

(November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I don't think you've actually given me much to weigh in on with regards to a difference between either the beliefs or the "lesser miracles" that follow. If the only difference being referenced is our varying level of knowledge with regards to natural law (which would seem to be the case here) then I think that the "difference" between these two types of things is much more a difference in our ability to explain any given thing...I haven;t seen a difference between the events themselves established, and aren't we being very generous with words like "event" to begin with?

The difference is that one of the types of miracle defy physical limitations, while the others are just "unexplained," but are not necessarily violating the (known) laws of nature.

(November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Between two inexplicable things, how do we determine that one is a miracle and the other is not?

To me, something is regarded as a "miracle" when it is:

1. Based on Quranic teachings
2. Has documentation from others (though not always necessary)
3. Physically irreproducible
4. Does not conform to our scientific understanding of reality
5. And are not magic tricks, hehe.

I could also say to myself, "Phew, I passed the hardest exam which I didn't even study for. That was a miracle!"

But there, I used the word "miracle" in a secular context, not from a religious point of view.

(November 19, 2012 at 10:15 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Yeah, none of those things have been established to be true empirically as of yet, hence they are just beliefs. There were at least eye-witnesses to some of those miracles, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the miracles are genuine.

Miraculous things have simply not been explained by science "as-of yet". It's a goose and gander issue if you choose to couch it in such language isn't it? I can imply that they will be as easily as you can imply that one day evidence of a miracle will materialize. That's what I'm wondering about. I don't actually expect you to establish the existence of miracles amigo. I was just wondering how, when presented with a possible miracle..one might decide...should that event ever occur. Consider the rest an unrelated aside. I'm a meander-er

Quote:If a miracle was not wholly comprised of a belief, then it would have to fall under the area of science and observational methods.

Wouldn't any miracle that were an event...not just the belief that an event happen, also fall under the same? Otherwise how would we even know that it couldn't be explained? There has to be more than belief even in the case of miracles, or so it seems to me.

Quote:However, again, miracles - physical miracles, that is - are thought to be separate from science.

Why do we think that, that was another question I had. Also, if that were so...then what of the above? What sort of evidence might we one day find that a miracle actually occurred that is "separate from science"?

Quote:And which of those things have been reproduced exactly? And how?

The belief that a god could control the heavens, trans-mutate substances, resurrect the dead, etc. All of these beliefs have occurred more than once. They're reproducible beliefs by brute force of our reproducing them (many, many times).

Quote:That is simply determined by my faith in the Quran as the word of God, but I have no evidence for that. I also trust the accounts of people who claimed to witness the said miracles even though I do not believe that they are necessarily 100% infallible/truthful in whatever they say.

Then why all the fuss about science or what can be reproduced? If the Quran is the arbitrator then why invoke another?

Quote:But that's an "if" scenario, and there weren't any eye-witnesses for the pistol being transported into a very distant past either.

Absolutely, it is an if scenario. But I didn't offer it as proof that such a miracle occurred, only to show that at any given moment we (and those in the past) may be in a situation where we witness an event that is not miraculous, but fits the criteria you mentioned before deferring to a holy book. Did our ability to mis-attribute or misunderstand things stop at some undefined point? Is it no longer possible for us to be ignorant of natural law?

Quote:As I said just now, the other criteria is the information presented in the Quran, just like Christians use the Bible as their criteria.

The reason for that is because I'm talking about "miracles" from a religious point of view.

In what way is this book supposed to be able to make a determination between two inexplicable (at least to us) things? How is this supposed to be accomplished? I think even here, again, you may be leveraging something else, some other criteria.

Quote:The difference is that one of the types of miracle defy physical limitations, while the others are just "unexplained," but are not necessarily violating the (known) laws of nature.

How do you know whether or not something is violating known laws of nature if it;s unexplained...this is precisely what I'm asking you. You assume that the one..though you cannot explain it, is not violating any natural law...and simultaneously assume that the other, that you cannot present, does. Why? Are you sure you're not the peasant staring at my pistol in wonder?

Quote:To me, something is regarded as a "miracle" when it is:

1. Based on Quranic teachings
2. Has documentation from others (though not always necessary)
3. Physically irreproducible
4. Does not conform to our scientific understanding of reality
5. And are not magic tricks, hehe.

I could also say to myself, "Phew, I passed the hardest exam which I didn't even study for. That was a miracle!"

But there, I used the word "miracle" in a secular context, not from a religious point of view.

Wouldn't the first make all the rest superfluous? If the Quran describes a miracle that is in no way miraculous..then wouldn't you be obliged to continue considering it as such anyway? If the quran described something which we never explained but did not declare it a miracle then it could never be thought of as such, could it? I'm surprised that you have found such an easy distinction between "secular miracles" and the ones espoused in your narrative. I can't say that this looks so cut and dry to me. I don't see how "Quranic teachings" are going to prepare us to weigh in on every miraculous thing that may occur (even if we just grant them the authority to weigh in on their own contents for the sake of discussion) Rayaan.

2 is unneccessary, to you even, so why include it?
3 can just as easily be presented for things which are not miraculous (but in the context of the discussion who are we to say that everything isn;t miraculous...maybe every single thing that happens at every scale is a miracle, even the explicable things)
4 is an appeal to ignorance

Meh.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the acceptance of the testimony of the Quran depend on it itself already, without evidence, being considered a miracle. If Mohammed receiving the suras and such by Angelic messenger, him flying to heaven or the moon — if all these were natural events, the Angel was just some scary homeless guy, and the vision an epileptic seizure — then this robs all other testimony in the Quran of any authority. The miracles in the Quran are deemed miracles, because somewhere along the line before that, you assigned something to the miracle category without that testimony or authority — because unless you do so, none of it has any support as truly miraculous. But note, those first miracles, those miracles that give others the status of testified miracle, are not themselves testified.

I asked Daniel the same question and got no answer. How do you go from, "I have this book," and "others say this book is holy," to, "this book is therefore definitely holy." Aside from the willingness of emotionally compromised people, whether children or adults, to accept truths if those truths lead to food, shelter, and love, regardless of the content, to embrace any truth. I'm sure it's all been said before, so I don't want to get off into a proving the Quran thread, but it seems, as is often the case, the cart is once more before the horse.

There's a similar paradox, I think, about apologetics in general. Apologists think up clever ways to rescue this or that bit of doctrine or text. Yet, they believed that segment before they had this clever argument in support of it. They believed on the basis of something else. If that something else truly was good enough to engender belief in a reasonable person, why do we need the clever ways? I suspect that if you ask them what originally convinced them of the truth of this or that passage, they either won't know, or it will be something wholly unrelated to their then present apologetic. Or it will be turtles all the way down. A miracle is testified to by the Quran, which is testified to by its own miracles, which are testified to, by what?

What is the most foundational cornerstone of your faith, Rayaan? What is the miracle upon which the belief in all the other miracles depends?

An amazing accomplishment. I hope they can do the same for some humans soon.