Do you believe in miracles?

[Iwannaplato]

I have no particular attachment to dark matter, and if science changes its mind about it, I'm quite happy to change mine.

Ah, what a relief; I had you pegged as dark matter acolyte. But then I'm paranoid and labile.

[godelian]

The fact that a claim is true, is not enough for the purpose of understanding.

So, in your opinion, 'understanding', in this context, is equivalent to 'knowledge', which is just a so-called 'justified true belief', however, when 'a claim is true', then it is not enough for the purpose of 'understanding/knowledge/justified true belief', correct?

If yes, then when 'a claim is true', then what is this enough for, exactly?

The standard view in epistemology is that the truth of a claim is insufficient to turn it into knowledge. There must also be a justification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_knowledge

One definition that many philosophers consider to be standard, and that has been discussed since ancient Greek philosophy, is justified true belief (JTB). This implies that knowledge is a mental state and that it is not possible to know something false. There is widespread agreement among analytic philosophers that knowledge is a form of true belief. The idea that justification is an additionally required component is due to the intuition that true beliefs based on superstition, lucky guesses, or erroneous reasoning do not constitute knowledge. In this regard, knowledge is more than just being right about something. The source of most disagreements regarding the nature of knowledge concerns what more is needed. According to the standard philosophical definition, it is justification.

The argument that a particular true claim necessarily follows from a particular theory, is considered a legitimate justification for the claim. Of course, this requires a theory to be available for this purpose in the first place. Hence, the usefulness of theories.

[Age]

The fact that a claim is true, is not enough for the purpose of understanding.

So, in your opinion, 'understanding', in this context, is equivalent to 'knowledge', which is just a so-called 'justified true belief', however, when 'a claim is true', then it is not enough for the purpose of 'understanding/knowledge/justified true belief', correct?

If yes, then when 'a claim is true', then what is this enough for, exactly?

The standard view in epistemology is that the truth of a claim is insufficient to turn it into knowledge. There must also be a justification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_knowledge

One definition that many philosophers consider to be standard, and that has been discussed since ancient Greek philosophy, is justified true belief (JTB). This implies that knowledge is a mental state and that it is not possible to know something false. There is widespread agreement among analytic philosophers that knowledge is a form of true belief. The idea that justification is an additionally required component is due to the intuition that true beliefs based on superstition, lucky guesses, or erroneous reasoning do not constitute knowledge. In this regard, knowledge is more than just being right about something. The source of most disagreements regarding the nature of knowledge concerns what more is needed. According to the standard philosophical definition, it is justification.

The argument that a particular true claim necessarily follows from a particular theory, is considered a legitimate justification for the claim.

Has anyone even mentioned or talked about 'true claims', or 'truth claims' here, besides you of course?

What 'justifies' 'a claim' irrefutably, or legitimately, is actual proof and/or logical necessity.

Any claim can be 'legitimately justified' with 'actual proof' or through 'logical reasoning'. And, all the time with absolutely no 'theory' whatsoever ever being introduced.

Of course, this requires a theory to be available for this purpose in the first place. Hence, the usefulness of theories.

Absolutely no one has to have, need, nor provide a 'theory', first, in order to just 'a claim', which is and/or can be or is proved true.

For example, the claim, 'The Universe is infinite and eternal' is just 'a claim', for now. But, I certainly did not, and do not, need 'a theory' prior nor after making 'that claim', in order for me to prove that 'that claim' is not just True, but is also Right, Accurate, and Correct as well.

Once again, make up 'theories', or even making available 'theories' can slow down and even prevent and stop the actual and irrefutable Truths from being 'shown', 'seen', and proved True.

[godelian]

What 'justifies' 'a claim' irrefutably, or legitimately, is actual proof and/or logical necessity. Any claim can be 'legitimately justified' with 'actual proof' or through 'logical reasoning'. And, all the time with absolutely no 'theory' whatsoever ever being introduced. Absolutely no one has to have, need, nor provide a 'theory', first, in order to just 'a claim', which is and/or can be or is proved true.

In logical deduction, there is always a collection of implicit assumptions, if only, the rules of logic itself.
The rules of 'logical reasoning', i.e. propositional calculus, are themselves an axiomatic system, i.e. a theory.

The following outlines a standard propositional calculus. Many different formulations exist which are all more or less equivalent, but differ in the details of:
- their language (i.e., the particular collection of primitive symbols and operator symbols),
- the set of axioms, or distinguished formulas, and
- the set of inference rules.

Moreover, any claim that assumes that basic arithmetic is possible, implicitly assumes the rules of arithmetic theory.

Proof is a mathematical term. There is no proof outside mathematics. Other fields provide evidence as justification but never proof. A proof demonstrates that a particular claim necessarily follows from a collection of basic statements which effectively constitute the theoretical context of the proof. This context must always be stated explicitly. You always "prove from". Context-free proof does not even exist.

For example, the claim, 'The Universe is infinite and eternal' is just 'a claim', for now. But, I certainly did not, and do not, need 'a theory' prior nor after making 'that claim', in order for me to prove that 'that claim' is not just True, but is also Right, Accurate, and Correct as well.

Claims about he physical universe are tested empirically. It is not possible to produce proof about the physical universe because we do not know its theory.

[Age]

What 'justifies' 'a claim' irrefutably, or legitimately, is actual proof and/or logical necessity. Any claim can be 'legitimately justified' with 'actual proof' or through 'logical reasoning'. And, all the time with absolutely no 'theory' whatsoever ever being introduced. Absolutely no one has to have, need, nor provide a 'theory', first, in order to just 'a claim', which is and/or can be or is proved true.

In logical deduction, there is always a collection of implicit assumptions, if only, the rules of logic itself.

If, for example, one already knows that, actually, it is the earth revolving around the sun, for example, and not the other way around, then no 'assumptions' at all are needed nor are absolutely any 'theories' at all necessary.

Now, the one who already knows 'this actual Truth' here either;

Expresses what they have come to learn, understand, and know, the best way they can. Or,

They just express that they already know what the actual Truth is, and just wait for those who are Truly interested in learning and knowing, as well, to come forward.

The rules of 'logical reasoning', i.e. propositional calculus, are themselves an axiomatic system, i.e. a theory.

Not necessarily so at all.

'Logical reasoning' can happen and occur on what is already known to be irrefutably True and Right, and progress from there, without any assumption nor theory ever entering in 'the discussion'.

The following outlines a standard propositional calculus. Many different formulations exist which are all more or less equivalent, but differ in the details of:
- their language (i.e., the particular collection of primitive symbols and operator symbols),
- the set of axioms, or distinguished formulas, and
- the set of inference rules.

In other words, logic itself is a theory.

'Logic' is logic. Whereas, 'theory' is theory.

Theory, itself, is not logic, itself, and, logic, itself, is not theory, itself.

If in addition to logic, a claim assumes that basic arithmetic is possible, then it assumes the rules of arithmetic theory.

Talk about absolutely over-complicating and making hard what is absolutely simple and easy.

Proof is a mathematical term.

So, what 'math' do you use and show as proof of and for 'your identity'?

The word 'proof' can be used as a 'mathematical term' and in 'mathematical terms', but not always and not necessarily so neither.

There is no proof outside mathematics.

If you say and believe so, but other see and say things differently here.

So, who is 100% True and Right here?

Who has the 'proof' in 'mathematical terms' here?

Other fields provide evidence as justification but never proof.

Who cares?

Also, going by how the words 'evidence' and 'proof' are defined, one outweighs or overrides the other one completely.

But, considering the 'cult'/ure you have been raised up in, and are following, then there is no wonder the way you are 'looking at' and 'seeing' things here.

A proof demonstrates that a particular claim necessarily follows from a collection of basic statements which form the theoretical context of the proof. This context must always be stated explicitly. You always "prove from". Context-free proof does not even exist.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

But, to be totally Honest with you here, I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to why you have been bringing any of this up, nor what you are even trying to get at here.

For example, the claim, 'The Universe is infinite and eternal' is just 'a claim', for now. But, I certainly did not, and do not, need 'a theory' prior nor after making 'that claim', in order for me to prove that 'that claim' is not just True, but is also Right, Accurate, and Correct as well.

Claims about he physical universe are tested empirically.

Okay. But so what?

As I have been saying here, all I have been really saying, and asking, here is:

Why when the question, 'Do you believe in miracles?', comes up, there is a bit of inquiry into, 'It depends on what is meant by the 'miracle' word, it depends on the definition of the word 'miracle', or similar'. However when the question, 'Do you believe in God?', for example, comes up, there is hardly as much inquiry into what does the word 'God' even mean or could be referring to, nor into what is the definition of the 'God' word here.

Why do you people think this is so?

And,

All perceived 'miracles' can be very easily and simply understood and explained.

For example, even the so-called 'end times' and/or 'end of the world' is very, very simple and easy to understand, and explain. Why some people have not yet understood what 'these things' actually are and are referring to, exactly, is just simply because of they are 'looking at' them, and thus 'seeing' them, from misinterpretations or misunderstandings.

Discovering, and/or learning, and understanding, the True and Right intentions, interpretations, and definitions, then one 'sees' how things are not actual 'miracles' but how things actually happen, and occur.

And, this is just because all, perceived, 'miracles' can be very easily and very simply explained by what actually, physically, happens and occurs.

It is not possible to produce proof about the physical universe because we do not know its theory.

But 'things', "themselves", do not have 'their theory'.

Human beings 'make up' 'theories' about what they just assume or guess what did, does, or could occur and happen.

However, as you do not, yet, seem to be comprehending and grasping, one can find out, discover, learn, see, comprehend, and understand what has, is, or will happen and occur without absolutely any assuming or guessing having to have to take place.

Learn and understand this irrefutable Fact, then you might see things differently here.

By the way, it is impossible for human beings to provide 'empirical tested proof' of the whole Universe, Itself, not because there is not yet 'a theory', but because it is impossible for human beings to replicate the whole Universe, Itself.

But, 'proof' about the whole Universe, Itself, does not come from 'empirical tests' like you assume and/or believe they do.

Proof for these sorts of things comes from and through 'logical reasoning'. Which can and only do come about, properly, Correctly, and successfully, through and from absolute irrefutable Truths, only. And, from the very start/beginning/commencement, and all the way throughout to the very end/finish/completion.

And, if absolutely anyone would like to actually try 'this', as well, to 'see' if 'this' actually does work, then please let us do so.

I have already done 'this'. So, I know that 'this' works, absolutely, irrefutably, properly, and Correctly.

[Walker]

... it would have to defy the laws of nature in such a way that, to the best of our knowledge, it really should not be possible.

Logically, anything is possible if the conditions are right.
Discerning the elements in their proper combination that comprise the conditions is limited by the best of our knowledge.

Scientists already know how to deal with insufficient maths.
It's as simple as theorizing a new element to make the maths work.
Presto ... Call the element, Dark Matter.

As it is with maths, if the knowledge to explain a perceptual phenomenon of unknown duration is insufficient, then call the phenomenon a miracle.

Based on that view, the spark of Life itself is the unknown miracle element that science can't explain.

New T-Shirt Idea: "Dark Energies and Matter!" in dark letters on a white T-shirt, or vice-versa. Reformat for smaller chests.

[Age]

... it would have to defy the laws of nature in such a way that, to the best of our knowledge, it really should not be possible.

Logically, anything is possible if the conditions are right.
Discerning the elements in their proper combination that comprise the conditions is limited by the best of our knowledge.

Scientists already know how to deal with insufficient maths.
It's as simple as theorizing a new element to make the maths work.
Presto ... Call the element, Dark Matter.

As it is with maths, if the knowledge to explain a perceptual phenomenon of unknown duration is insufficient, then call the phenomenon a miracle.

Based on that view, the spark of Life itself is the unknown miracle element that science can't explain.

But, there was no 'spark of Life, Itself', which is explicable, accounted for, and understood through and by science.

New T-Shirt Idea: "Dark Energies and Matter!" in dark letters on a white T-shirt, or vice-versa. Reformat for smaller chests.

[Walker]

Something to think about, how 'bout it there age.

[Walker]

(continued)
As Jiddu Krishnamurti said in that video, he does not believe in God that is created by man because man’s conception of God can only be limited, a limitation implied by the absurdity of encapsulating the greater within the lesser of a word, although JK didn’t use all those words.

The counter to that is: the Holy Bible is divinely inspired.
I think that is more than belief.
It's evidenced by the Holy Bible itself.
Ipso Facto.

That makes religion just as subjective as science.

(It's big, because it's big.)

[Age]

(continued)
As Jiddu Krishnamurti said in that video, he does not believe in God that is created by man because man’s conception of God can only be limited, a limitation implied by the absurdity of encapsulating the greater within the lesser of a word, although JK didn’t use all those words.

The counter to that is: the Holy Bible is divinely inspired.
I think that is more than belief.
It's evidenced by the Holy Bible itself.
Ipso Facto.

That makes religion just as subjective as science.

(It's big, because it's big.)

I am not sure what any of this has to do with me, if it does. I was just saying that there was no 'spark of Life, Itself', and this is just because Life exists, always.

[Walker]

I am not sure what any of this has to do with me, if it does. I was just saying that there was no 'spark of Life, Itself', and this is just because Life exists, always.

Age, science has shown that there actually is a spark when life begins.

[Harbal]

... it would have to defy the laws of nature in such a way that, to the best of our knowledge, it really should not be possible.

Logically, anything is possible if the conditions are right.
Discerning the elements in their proper combination that comprise the conditions is limited by the best of our knowledge.

Scientists already know how to deal with insufficient maths.
It's as simple as theorizing a new element to make the maths work.
Presto ... Call the element, Dark Matter.

As it is with maths, if the knowledge to explain a perceptual phenomenon of unknown duration is insufficient, then call the phenomenon a miracle.

The problem with calling things miracles is that it stops us from looking for an actual explanation.

Based on that view, the spark of Life itself is the unknown miracle element that science can't explain.

But that doesn't seem unsolvable; I think it will be explained eventually. Consciousness is the nut we will have the most trouble cracking, I would say.

[Walker]

I am not sure what any of this has to do with me, if it does. I was just saying that there was no 'spark of Life, Itself', and this is just because Life exists, always.

Age, something else to think about.
You often say that God is a she. Or, a her.
How could God be a she or a her, when the Holy Bible says that God is an our?

Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:”

[Walker]

Some folks are more curious than others, some folks just don’t care, some folks have no choice.

[Sculptor]

A miracles is by definition an instance where the laws of nature are transgressed.
It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.
In Hume's time miracles seemed to be reported as happening everyday.

When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.... If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion

There are no miracles. Simple as.