Do you believe in miracles?

[Age]

This medical condition of which you speak is not "rising from the dead" since these people only appeared to be dead.

They were dead, according to medical theory. The fact that they ultimately turned out not to be dead, is inexplicable by medical theory.

That's not a medical theory, it is just an arbitrary set of criteria set by the medical profession (cessation of heartbeat and breathing, etc.), and probably required by the law, to determine the point at which someone is highly unlikely to be resuscitated.

To me, what you say here "harbal" is correct, but what you say is 'an arbitrary set of criteria set by the medical profession', is probably, exactly, what "godelian" says, calls, or has labelled 'a medical theory'. Correct me if I am wrong here "godelian" but 'a medical body of knowledge' is what you label or name as 'a medical theory', and what is 'an arbitrary set of criteria set by the medical profession' can be included in 'a medical body of knowledge' or 'a medical theory', right?

The point at which living tissue is considered to be dead will be determined by completely different criteria to those that declare a person clinically dead.

Very True.

And, in fact, one actually never 'dies', in one sense, while what the other is made out of also never 'dies' neither. Although the latter obviously changes in form.

Hence, it satisfies the definition of an event inexplicable by natural or scientific laws.

No it doesn't. It simply means there is an absence of arbitrarily agreed upon vital signs, and that a prescribed number of resuscitation attempts have failed. It is probably very rare for someone to recover after being pronounced clinically dead, but it does happen, and I very much doubt that doctors think of it as a miracle when it does.

[Age]

So I made an opening statement which attracted a barrage of bullshit.
Several pages of bollocks later; not one idea; not one sentence has been challenged. WHilst some comments have attacked me, they generally end up bolstering exactly what I said in the first place.
Sometimes (commonly in recent years) this Forum has become a knocking shop for angry stupid idiots which nothing better to do that thrash out like three year old children wanting sweeties, and not being able to get them..
Here is my original comment.
And I would not change ONE word, because it is essentially correct and no one here has made a dent in its clear and obvious truth..

Post by Sculptor » Wed Feb 28, 2024 12:04 pm

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.

If you really would like to be challenged over your sentences, the:

First sentence, I would add the 'one' word between the 'by' word and the 'definition' word. Because there is more than one definition of the miracle word. (Although the one definition for the 'miracle' word that you provided here I do not recall anyone really digressing from that definition much here anyway.)

Second sentence, a) no one 'understands science'. Human beings, however, 'do science', that is; they study 'the world/Universe', to learn and ascertain more about the Universe/world that they have found "themselves" within. b) you have already proven that you do not know, for sure, that the instances of 'report miracles' has declined. you have also said and claimed;
I've studied Hume's period of history at Master's level, And I cannot simply convey all that knoweldge if you are too dumb to see the bleeding obvious. You might as well ask if how I know there are more cars now than them.
Which could also be read and understood as because that I know that there are more people 'now', than before, then it could also be reasonably concluded that 'reported miracles' could have and would have actually increased rather than declined. But, considering the fact that it would be an absolute impossibility to work out and know, for sure, then one wonders why would even want to hold on to and try to fight for 'a belief' either way?

Third sentence, everyday 'now', when this is being written, people 'report miracles', or at least they will exclaim, 'it is a miracle', which is a form or 'reporting', and considering that we all know that there are more people 'now', than 'back then', then it could very easily and very simply 'logically follow' that there are more 'reported instances' of 'miracles' 'now', than then. But, then again, you might be using the 'reporting' word is some very specific way, which you just have not yet informed 'us' of, already.

Fourth sentence, no one can, legitimately, challenge what you do with a so-called "yourself". But, I could challenge you to explain how there exists 'one' who has "their" 'self'? For example, how could there be 'a self' who also has another "your-self"? The word 'your' obviously refers to a first 'self'. Like, for example, the term or phrase 'your car' refers to 'a self' who 'has' 'a car'. But, how can the term or phrase "your self" be True or Accurate? How can 'a self' 'have' another 'self', exactly?

Fifth sentence, there are quite a few things to challenge here, which I will not for 'now'. I shall instead wait to see if you take up the challenges in the first five sentences. And, if you do, then I will challenge you on your sixth sentence here.

Now, if you still would not like to change ONE word, because you still believe that your words are essentially correct and still believe that no one here has made a dent in its clear and obvious truth, then okay.

But, sometimes, some others, like to 'take up the challenge/s', and either back up and support what they have previously said and/or written, of they become aware of something that they had not earlier and/or acknowledge 'that', and do change some words.

[Age]

That's not a medical theory, it is just an arbitrary set of criteria set by the medical profession (cessation of heartbeat and breathing, etc.), and probably required by the law, to determine the point at which someone is highly unlikely to be resuscitated. The point at which living tissue is considered to be dead will be determined by completely different criteria to those that declare a person clinically dead.

Medical theory is just a body of knowledge and rules like every profession has them. For example, accountants also have corpus of rules and knowledge. Some part of medical theory may indeed by arbitrary. I would not be surprised at all. I am not going to try to replace it, however. Choose your battles!

But people either die or not. There is no miracluous coming back to life, as medical science now defines, and as I said in the first place.
It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.

you have been challenged over this last, literally, bold claim of yours here about what actual proof you have for this?

If I recall correctly you have none and thus have not provided any. So, you are, literally, just assuming or believing that this is true only, and solely, right?

Also, why does it seem so very important to you here that this assumption or belief of yours here is heard? In what way would hearing this affect any thing here?

Also, people do not 'understand science', itself. Instead people 'do science' to learn more about the Universe.

And, it is sometimes said, 'The more we learn, the more questions arise', which, in one sense, can be taken as 'more wonderment' arises, which could mean that, actually, more, of course apparent only, 'miracles' are appearing or coming to 'the forefront', to be 'questioned'. Thus, more unresolved questions in 'scientific terms'.

[Age]

Life is the ethical and philosophical measure of worth.

And how do you "walker" 'measure' these things, exactly?

To me anyway, there is not one thing that is more important nor has more worth than any other thing.

A medical authority reveals that in this modern age, pragmatism is the measure of death.

If you think in the days when this is being written is the so-called 'modern age', then you really do have a lot, lot more to learn and understand here.

Nothing actually so-call 'dies', in the 'old fashioned' concept of 'death', which was used hitherto the days when this was being written.

Brain death - too flawed to endure, too ingrained to abandon
Robert D Truog - American bioethicist and pediatrician
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17518853/

Abstract
The concept of brain death has become deeply ingrained in our health care system. It serves as the justification for the removal of vital organs like the heart and liver from patients who still have circulation and respiration while these organs maintain viability. On close examination, however, the concept is seen as incoherent and counterintuitive to our understandings of death. In order to abandon the concept of brain death and yet retain our practices in organ transplantation, we need to either change the definition of death or no longer maintain a commitment to the dead donor rule, which is an implicit prohibition against removing vital organs from individuals before they are declared dead. After exploring these two options, the author argues that while new definitions of death are problematic, alternatives to the dead donor rule are both ethically justifiable and potentially palatable to the public. Even so, the author concludes that neither of these approaches is likely to be adopted and that resolution will most probably come when technological advances in immunology simply make the concept of brain death obsolete.

Or, something else.

[Age]

So I made an opening statement which attracted a barrage of bullshit.

You didn't make an opening statement which "attracted a barrage of bullshit".
You made an opening statement which was bullshit.

A miracles is by definition an instance where the laws of nature are transgressed.

This is called the persuasive definition fallacy.

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

If you are trying to, or want to, claim that the definition "sculptor" provided was an incorrect or uncommon one, then, by all means, please provide the correct or common definition for the 'miracle' word here "skepdick".

Also, could it be said and/or argued as well that providing links to very specific terms or terminologies could be called 'a persuasive terminology fallacy'? Because obviously "sculptor" could have just linked us to 'a definition' for the 'miracle' word, which would have had the exact same wording.

So, 'now', what is 'your' definition for the 'miracle' word here "skepdick", and which will show 'us' how it differs from "sculptor's" definition for the exact same word.

And, who then is the 'arbitrary decider' if it is not actually 'your own definition', which is actually the so-called 'persuasive definition' one here?

Which, also, and again, brings me back to how many of you posters here have considered why, when the, 'Do you believe in miracles?' question comes up, you people start to begin to think about, question, and/or provide, 'defintions' for 'that word', but, when the, 'Do you believe in God?' question comes up, you people rarely, if ever, think about, question, and/or provide, 'definitions' for 'that word'?

A persuasive definition is a form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the true or commonly accepted meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view

If so, so how about you provide the, supposed, one and only true, right, accurate, and correct, alleged, 'common' and/or 'unaltered' definition and use of the 'miracle' word.

To me, what you are trying to allege, claim, and argue for here could be the biggest contradiction, and/or hypocrisy, ever in 'the world' of 'discussing' and/or 'debating'.

Here's the Oxford definition of the term "miracle".

miracle
/ˈmɪrɪkl/
noun
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

So, here is but one definition out of, literally, countless definitions of the 'miracle' word.

Also, does this definition really deviate 'that much' from the definition that "sculptor" provided here?

If yes, then can I pick one of many, many dictionaries, pick one of the few definitions existing definitions for the 'miracle' word, provide 'that one' definition here, and then claim that it is and was your chosen definition is the so-called 'persuasive definition fallacy' one, and then this makes 'me definition' more common, more unaltered, more true, more right, more accurate, and/or more correct over' your own chosen definition' "skepdick"?

Either way, who then is the 'arbitrary decider and chooser' here, exactly?

Congratulations on tripping over your own misunderstanding. Again.

Once again, what has really been occurring and happening here is written down, very clearly, for all to 'look at' and 'see' here.

While you are at it here's a further list of miraculous phenomena - e.g phenomena unexplained by our current scientific understanding:

* Quantum Entanglement
* Quantum Gravity
* Dark matter/Dark energy
* TIme

LOL These things are already well understood, and are also thus resolved, but obviously not by every one, in the days when this is being written.

And, if absolutely any one would like to challenge and/or question 'me' over this claim or any part of it, then, literally, by all means, please do.

By the way, those things, like all things, are not events inexplicable by natural laws, at all. In fact the exact opposite is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

[Age]

No that was not a miracle.

Yes it was.

Semelweiss merely demonstrated that something happens. He couldn't explain why it happens.

This fits the definition of a "miracle".

miracle
/ˈmɪrɪkl/
noun
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

It was a miracle before germ theory.
It stopped being a miracle after germ theory become common knowledge decades after Semelweiss died.

Oh, so some thing 'has to become' 'common knowledge' before the, apparent, 'miracle' ends. Well to "skepdick" anyway.

Now, what makes up 'common knowledge', exactly?

For example, what, exactly, is needed and how many are needed, exactly?