Do you believe in miracles?

[Walker]

I think the maths says dark matter has to be there, but only the Bible says God has to be there. It's not really much of a comparison.

There's a pretty high probability, based on what I know of the world, that a scientist would likely officially agree with that, in this day and age of coerced mind control that gets to be a habit of the mindful and careful so no shock collars become necessary for reminders when tempted to speak of God, and then the habit makes it reality through the repetition. Better to not rock the boat and drown. Just look at climate change. They stopped laughing around the water cooler when they realized the consequences.

[Harbal]

I think the maths says dark matter has to be there, but only the Bible says God has to be there. It's not really much of a comparison.

There's a pretty high probability, based on what I know of the world, that a scientist would likely officially agree with that, in this day and age of coerced mind control that gets to be a habit of the mindful and careful so no shock collars necessary become necessary for reminders when tempted to speak of God, and then the habit makes it reality through the repetition. Better to not rock the boat and drown. Just look at climate change. They stopped laughing around the water cooler when they realized the consequences.

I don't really know what that means, but I rarely do with you. I can only assume you don't want to be understood.

[Walker]

I think the maths says dark matter has to be there, but only the Bible says God has to be there. It's not really much of a comparison.

There's a pretty high probability, based on what I know of the world, that a scientist would likely officially agree with that, in this day and age of coerced mind control that gets to be a habit of the mindful and careful so no shock collars necessary become necessary for reminders when tempted to speak of God, and then the habit makes it reality through the repetition. Better to not rock the boat and drown. Just look at climate change. They stopped laughing around the water cooler when they realized the consequences.

I don't really know what that means, but I rarely do with you. I can only assume you don't want to be understood.

- Naw, it’s not that. I was just listening to some music.
- Harbal. You seem to care. Interesting. Because of your caring interest, I’ll endeavour to clarify. I have a bit of time and as an American, I’m feeling generous with it. Who knows how that may change.

- There's a pretty high probability, based on what I know of the world
(This is a present tense expression of a key concept that I personally use as a measure of knowledge. Namely: All we know for sure is, I Am. All else is inference. It’s been mentioned here and likely found by googling, however if not, feel free to inquire.)
- that a scientist would likely officially agree with that
(A scientist with responsibilities might not want it gettin’ around that he’s a God-botherer.)
- in this day and age of coerced mind control that gets to be a habit of the mindful and careful
(technology has made surveillance more convenient in all kinds of ways, and companies that employ scientists want a team player and not some religious fanatic … as God-botherers have been characterized for so often and so long that it’s becoming common knowledge, that is, that those who personally believe in God are political fanatics, clinging to the guns and bibles.)
- so no shock collars necessary become necessary for reminders when tempted to speak of God
(a bit of dark of humour, but don’t be surprised when it happens at some future re-education camp)
- and then the habit makes it reality through the repetition.
(this could stand alone outside of context, because it applies to any habit. Thus it possibly qualifies as a philosophical statement. Eureka!)
- Better to not rock the boat and drown.
(better for a scientist to keep any personal beliefs private. In the extreme of hyperbole, citizen Winston Smith was outed by the thought police and had a rat cage strapped to his face as a reward for his need to be free. A lesser punishment would be gee, it’s time for layoffs again since we got the new employee tracer)
- Just look at climate change. They stopped laughing around the water cooler when they realized the consequences.
(One consequence is McCarthyism exercised at various levels of society: employment, social, deplorable.)

If nothing else, it's colorful. Time's up. Quid pro quo. Folks expect an equitable reply, which should not be taken as an invitation for brevity, purely on request.

[Harbal]

There's a pretty high probability, based on what I know of the world, that a scientist would likely officially agree with that, in this day and age of coerced mind control that gets to be a habit of the mindful and careful so no shock collars necessary become necessary for reminders when tempted to speak of God, and then the habit makes it reality through the repetition. Better to not rock the boat and drown. Just look at climate change. They stopped laughing around the water cooler when they realized the consequences.

I don't really know what that means, but I rarely do with you. I can only assume you don't want to be understood.

- Naw, it’s not that. I was just listening to some music.
- Harbal. You seem to care. Interesting. Because of your caring interest, I’ll endeavour to clarify. I have a bit of time and as an American, I’m feeling generous with it. Who knows how that may change.

- There's a pretty high probability, based on what I know of the world
(This is a present tense expression of a key concept that I personally use as a measure of knowledge. Namely: All we know for sure is, I Am. All else is inference. It’s been mentioned here and likely found by googling, however if not, feel free to inquire.)
- that a scientist would likely officially agree with that
(A scientist with responsibilities might not want it gettin’ around that he’s a God-botherer.)
- in this day and age of coerced mind control that gets to be a habit of the mindful and careful
(technology has made surveillance more convenient in all kinds of ways, and companies that employ scientists want a team player and not some religious fanatic … as God-botherers have been characterized for so often and so long that it’s becoming common knowledge, that is, that those who personally believe in God are political fanatics, clinging to the guns and bibles.)
- so no shock collars necessary become necessary for reminders when tempted to speak of God
(a bit of dark of humour, but don’t be surprised when it happens at some future re-education camp)
- and then the habit makes it reality through the repetition.
(this could stand alone outside of context, because it applies to any habit. Thus it possibly qualifies as a philosophical statement. Eureka!)
- Better to not rock the boat and drown.
(better for a scientist to keep any personal beliefs private. In the extreme of hyperbole, citizen Winston Smith was outed by the thought police and had a rat cage strapped to his face as a reward for his need to be free. A lesser punishment would be gee, it’s time for layoffs again since we got the new employee tracer)
- Just look at climate change. They stopped laughing around the water cooler when they realized the consequences.
(One consequence is McCarthyism exercised at various levels of society: employment, social, deplorable.)

Thank you for going to the trouble.

I don't really see why a religious scientist is unable to keep his spiritual beliefs and work separate. Science is about understanding how the physical world works, but I thought religion was about something else altogether. You can't use science to explain the Kingdom of God, and you can't (shouldn't) use the Bible to explore nature.

[Walker]

No trouble, Harbal. I enjoy your postings, you deserve the time.

Logical hypothesis: Under the right conditions, anything can happen.
Miracles can happen.

The reasoning, as proof.
- A condition, or situation, is comprised of elements.
- For example, the condition of reading this now, is comprised of many elements that make the reading possible.
- If one witnesses and participates in a miracle, that means something inexplicable has happened.
- An inexplicable happening is caused by unknown elements in combination with known elements to create a situation in which the inexplicable happens.
- The inexplicable happening is called a miracle because scientific attempts to repeat the miracle fail, because the unknown element cannot be introduced. It’s unknown.
- According to the Holy Bible, this unknown can be introduced in combination with the known if conditions are right, although the element itself is ineffable.

[Iwannaplato]

I think the maths says dark matter has to be there, but only the Bible says God has to be there. It's not really much of a comparison.

https://scitechdaily.com/dark-matter-ma ... xplanation

[Harbal]

No trouble, Harbal. I enjoy your postings, you deserve the time.

Logical hypothesis: Under the right conditions, anything can happen.
Miracles can happen.

The reasoning, as proof.
- A condition, or situation, is comprised of elements.
- For example, the condition of reading this now, is comprised of many elements that make the reading possible.
- If one witnesses and participates in a miracle, that means something inexplicable has happened.
- An inexplicable happening is caused by unknown elements in combination with known elements to create a situation in which the inexplicable happens.
- The inexplicable happening is called a miracle because scientific attempts to repeat the miracle fail, because the unknown element cannot be introduced. It’s unknown.
- According to the Holy Bible, this unknown can be introduced in combination with the known if conditions are right, although the element itself is ineffable.

I would be very reluctant to call anything a miracle, no matter how fantastic it seemed. What someone else might call a miracle, I would probably just call an inexplicable event. I don't like the word, if I'm honest, but I'll go along with it for the purpose of the thread. In order to be called a miracle, I would say something would have to be more than just unexplainable, 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.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you believe in miracles?
And what is a miracle?
A kind of anomaly. LIke...a universe. Well, no, that...makes sense.
Like...subjectivity arises in matter. Well, no that...makes sense, we'll get to it.
Most people seem to have a base from which they can label something miraculous.
For me, it seems like something miraculous is going on.
The universe has always been here: woh!
The universe started: woh!
I can't see how there could not be a miracle. Not saying this means there's God. Just...something wild is going on.
I do see pockets of habit in this miracle.

[Harbal]

I think the maths says dark matter has to be there, but only the Bible says God has to be there. It's not really much of a comparison.

https://scitechdaily.com/dark-matter-ma ... xplanation

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

[Age]

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?

[Age]

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.

[godelian]

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?

I also believe that it is better to leave out the notion of divine action and to limit the problem to the question:

Is the physical universe entirely explicable from its (otherwise unknown) theory?

The answer to this question is still highly problematic because we do not have access to the theory of the physical universe.

We do know, however, that inexplicable truths do occur in the universe of the natural numbers.

[Age]

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?

I also believe that it is better to leave out the notion of divine action and to limit the problem to the question:

Is the physical universe entirely explicable from its (otherwise unknown) theory?

The Universe is entirely able to be explained, and understood, from what It 'actually' is/made up of, and from how It actually works/exists.

'Theories' can get in the way and confuse things. Thus, they can slow down, prevent, and stop explanations and understandings.

The answer to this question is still highly problematic because we do not have access to the theory of the physical universe.

Forget the 'theory/ies'.

What the Universe is made up of, and, how the Universe actually exists and works has already been accounted for, thus is already known, and understood, and therefore can be explained, and understood, very simply and very easily I will add.

We do know, however, that inexplicable truths do occur in the universe of the natural numbers.

[godelian]

'Theories' can get in the way and confuse things. Thus, they can slow down, prevent, and stop explanations and understandings.
Forget the 'theory/ies'.

The first problem in your point of view is that the very definition of "miracle" refers to a collection of laws, i.e. a theory:

an extraordinary event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws

So, the benchmark for miracle status is a given theory.

What the Universe is made up of, and, how the Universe actually exists and works has already been accounted for, thus is already known, and understood, and therefore can be explained, and understood, very simply and very easily I will add.

In my opinion, the term "understanding" is in this context equivalent to "knowledge", i.e. a justified true belief. The fact that a claim is true, is not enough for the purpose of understanding. In order to understand a true claim we also need to provide a justification for it. A theory is very useful in that regard because it allows us to provide justification by demonstrating that the true claim necessarily follows from such theory.

[Age]

'Theories' can get in the way and confuse things. Thus, they can slow down, prevent, and stop explanations and understandings.
Forget the 'theory/ies'.

The first problem in your point of view is that the very definition of "miracle" refers to a collection of laws, i.e. a theory: an extraordinary event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws
So, the benchmark for miracle status is a given theory.

What do you think or believe 'my point of view' here is, exactly?

What you say saying and claiming here does not seem to align with my views much, if at all.

What the Universe is made up of, and, how the Universe actually exists and works has already been accounted for, thus is already known, and understood, and therefore can be explained, and understood, very simply and very easily I will add.

In my opinion, the term "understanding" is in this context equivalent to "knowledge", i.e. a justified true belief.

Okay.

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?

In order to understand a true claim we also need to provide a justification for it.

If one already knows whether 'a claim' is true, then this indicates of having already obtained an understanding, or the knowledge of it.

Any and all claims, remain 'just that', 'a claim' only. Until it is either proved false or true and/or verified or refuted.

A theory is very useful in that regard because it allows us to provide justification by demonstrating that the true claim necessarily follows from such theory.

Why are you, already, calling 'it' a 'true claim'?

Also, what is even 'it' what you are trying to say or establish here?