It appears within various religions, that they signify the last days. The Bible forewarns the end of the world, as a time of conflict and tribulation.
The object of this poll is not to agree or disagree with either the truth or falsity of what has seemingly been conveyed by the Bible, but to apprehend the messages which come through on a personal level. Questions as to personal experience of miracles, or belief in them through reading liturgical sources have been primary in belief in the end of the world.
My own progressing thoughts come from reading and opinion, feeling and apprehension of what others’ feeling is.
Do you believe in miracles?
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
First you need to define miracle. In common use, it means improbable. Or highly improbable. Religions tend toward impossible.meno_ wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:29 pm It appears within various religions, that they signify the last days. The Bible forewarns the end of the world, as a time of conflict and tribulation.
The object of this poll is not to agree or disagree with either the truth or falsity of what has seemingly been conveyed by the Bible, but to apprehend the messages which come through on a personal level. Questions as to personal experience of miracles, or belief in them through reading liturgical sources have been primary in belief in the end of the world.
My own progressing thoughts come from reading and opinion, feeling and apprehension of what others’ feeling is.
-
Self-Lightening
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:21 pm
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 10014
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
A definition of what you mean by miracles would have been good. The options provided to vote on are rather poorly thought out, I could have selected more than one. If you are going to allow only one option selection then options should mutually exclude others.
Also, as it stands I should have been given the option to vote "Do you KNOW miracles are possible?"
As yes, "miracles" occur and I have been witness to countless since 1997. In that very year the most pro_found miracle (I hate that word since there must be a rational explanation for God's existence and "miracles") I have thus far witnessed occurred after writing "Deliver us from evil" (Lords prayer) backwards "Live morf su reviled" ---> I rewrote as "Live morph soon revealed". I saw a boy morph into an old man while walking through a carpark.
As I have often said on this forum, my only question re Christ and the turning of water to wine is what type of wine was it turned into - perhaps a Shiraz or Pinot Gris.
REALITY IS A CONVOLUTED APPARITION OF THE TRUTH.
www.androcies.com
Also, as it stands I should have been given the option to vote "Do you KNOW miracles are possible?"
As yes, "miracles" occur and I have been witness to countless since 1997. In that very year the most pro_found miracle (I hate that word since there must be a rational explanation for God's existence and "miracles") I have thus far witnessed occurred after writing "Deliver us from evil" (Lords prayer) backwards "Live morf su reviled" ---> I rewrote as "Live morph soon revealed". I saw a boy morph into an old man while walking through a carpark.
As I have often said on this forum, my only question re Christ and the turning of water to wine is what type of wine was it turned into - perhaps a Shiraz or Pinot Gris.
REALITY IS A CONVOLUTED APPARITION OF THE TRUTH.
www.androcies.com
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
I do not, sorrily have the posting, and quoting processes , so that may explain why and what reason I am out of order, surely not intending to derail or de-signify over those underlying posts.
However , recalling your observations, I agree to most in part, others need clarification.
I believe there are minor and major miracles, minor ones could subscribe by means mentioned above in the immediate post, that is, any out or ordinary event experienced day to day could qualify as a miraculous event, where unusual ‘gaps’ are perceived that may or may not garner very similar content- ‘sense data’.
The major miracles I mean to imply, on account of the unfillable, widened gap, indicate a reduced singular comprehension between what can be sensed immediately, against that which can not be sensed.
The sensible, needs a singular comprehension that can give only two options: that is in terms of having faith in order to experience a miracle or not.
I don’t believe one can say, that there appears more probability to believe in them then not, now days of age, whereas back in the Middle Ages such probabilities made good sense, as arguments for the existence of god went, for then , singular sense was relegated mostly to absolute representatives of opinions, such as passed by edicts, nihil obstats.
The grey areas developing throughout religious history show grey areas growing wider between the absolutists and the relativists who did start to raise questions, beginning with Saint Enselm.
I know you do know all this, but I am learning to substantiate the second kind of miracle that developed alongside the conscious realization, of the resourcing of representation of literal scripture to its wider dissemination.
Therefore the conclusion to legitimize major miracles embody the question of how man’s interpretation of the will of god relating to his intention/ intentionality to create the world accords with man’s recreation of his understanding, as iteration rise from illiterate believers ; and how such a development reflected the change within and without Christianity, as Lutheranism mirrored the conceptual fragmentation of those who probably though that the definition of God’s good graces could not have included less then absolute qualities.
Sorry for the perhaps over-extended belated response, into a general framework .
However , recalling your observations, I agree to most in part, others need clarification.
I believe there are minor and major miracles, minor ones could subscribe by means mentioned above in the immediate post, that is, any out or ordinary event experienced day to day could qualify as a miraculous event, where unusual ‘gaps’ are perceived that may or may not garner very similar content- ‘sense data’.
The major miracles I mean to imply, on account of the unfillable, widened gap, indicate a reduced singular comprehension between what can be sensed immediately, against that which can not be sensed.
The sensible, needs a singular comprehension that can give only two options: that is in terms of having faith in order to experience a miracle or not.
I don’t believe one can say, that there appears more probability to believe in them then not, now days of age, whereas back in the Middle Ages such probabilities made good sense, as arguments for the existence of god went, for then , singular sense was relegated mostly to absolute representatives of opinions, such as passed by edicts, nihil obstats.
The grey areas developing throughout religious history show grey areas growing wider between the absolutists and the relativists who did start to raise questions, beginning with Saint Enselm.
I know you do know all this, but I am learning to substantiate the second kind of miracle that developed alongside the conscious realization, of the resourcing of representation of literal scripture to its wider dissemination.
Therefore the conclusion to legitimize major miracles embody the question of how man’s interpretation of the will of god relating to his intention/ intentionality to create the world accords with man’s recreation of his understanding, as iteration rise from illiterate believers ; and how such a development reflected the change within and without Christianity, as Lutheranism mirrored the conceptual fragmentation of those who probably though that the definition of God’s good graces could not have included less then absolute qualities.
Sorry for the perhaps over-extended belated response, into a general framework .
-
Flannel Jesus
- Posts: 2599
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
The poll was open very briefly so I missed it. Please accept my belated "no".
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
Accepted. Thanks, wish somehow I could reopen it, I really did not understand the “1” indicated only a single day, I meant to leave it open indefinitely!
-
Impenitent
- Posts: 4373
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
I believe in Smokey Robinson
-Imp
-Imp
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5059
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
It all depends on how much of your own nonsense you throw into (mis)interpreting the common English notion of "miracle".
Queue the special pleading with "That's not a real miracle." followed by attempts to make miracles far more miraculous than they really are.
There's a whole lot of stuff science can't explain - so plenty of miracles all around you. You shouldn't even have to look that hard to find them. Starting with your own consciousness.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.
Queue the special pleading with "That's not a real miracle." followed by attempts to make miracles far more miraculous than they really are.
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
The thing is, the idea of miracles derive from levels of meaning, combining phonetics, structure and the way the shared use of what is intended to express.
We do not have to sink into the whole structural efficacy to seek meaning, however, a topical glance could suffice, and we need only to see what the word ‘uncover’ signifies, to attain an inducement of meaning.
The point is that science is based on discovery, and discovery the word comes from the Latin, meaning to ‘uncover’
The uncovering of something hidden, does have etymological connection to something that has not been sensible to conscious awareness prior to the uncovering, so discovery is getting conscious of something hidden, therefore science does not create, it merely uncovers things, facts, already ‘there’
This topical explanation does in fact signals the hidden dynsmics of the manifested energy which through natural processes, later on as science progressed, validates the theoretical ‘covers’ within which the simultaneous growth of human awareness grapples with.
We do not have to sink into the whole structural efficacy to seek meaning, however, a topical glance could suffice, and we need only to see what the word ‘uncover’ signifies, to attain an inducement of meaning.
The point is that science is based on discovery, and discovery the word comes from the Latin, meaning to ‘uncover’
The uncovering of something hidden, does have etymological connection to something that has not been sensible to conscious awareness prior to the uncovering, so discovery is getting conscious of something hidden, therefore science does not create, it merely uncovers things, facts, already ‘there’
This topical explanation does in fact signals the hidden dynsmics of the manifested energy which through natural processes, later on as science progressed, validates the theoretical ‘covers’ within which the simultaneous growth of human awareness grapples with.
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
The process of recovery of the ‘essential’ nature of what is going on in early formulation of the processes which can in fact be uncovered, is an assumption which can best be described as miraculous.
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
It depends on the definition of "miracle". Say that we accept a fragment of the following definition for the term "miracle":
I will simplify it to the following fragment:
I do not see why it needs to be a "welcome" event. The notion of "welcome event" depends too much on the interpretation by the observer to be useful in our analysis. To the one observer the event could be welcome but to the other, it is possibly not.
I will also not discuss what the final origin or cause is for this event, because it does not contribute much to the analysis either.
Let us first use the natural numbers as our model instead of using the physical universe. We will be able to extrapolate back to the physical universe later on. The question then becomes: Are there true statements about the natural numbers that cannot be explained (or "proven") from the laws that govern them, i.e. proven from arithmetic theory?
Yes, because that is exactly what Kurt Gödel proved in his first incompleteness theorem:
The main problem in this question is that we do not have a copy of the Theory of Everything (ToE) which the physical universe would interpret as a model. We cannot prove the incompleteness theorem from an unknown theory. The late Stephen Hawking, however, believed that incompleteness does apply to the physical universe:
.an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency
I will simplify it to the following fragment:
.an extraordinary event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws
I do not see why it needs to be a "welcome" event. The notion of "welcome event" depends too much on the interpretation by the observer to be useful in our analysis. To the one observer the event could be welcome but to the other, it is possibly not.
I will also not discuss what the final origin or cause is for this event, because it does not contribute much to the analysis either.
Let us first use the natural numbers as our model instead of using the physical universe. We will be able to extrapolate back to the physical universe later on. The question then becomes: Are there true statements about the natural numbers that cannot be explained (or "proven") from the laws that govern them, i.e. proven from arithmetic theory?
Yes, because that is exactly what Kurt Gödel proved in his first incompleteness theorem:
So, now the next question is of course: Does Gödel's incompleteness theorem apply to the physical universe?There exist true statements about the natural numbers that are not provable from (Peano) arithmetic theory or there exist false statements that are provable (or both).
The main problem in this question is that we do not have a copy of the Theory of Everything (ToE) which the physical universe would interpret as a model. We cannot prove the incompleteness theorem from an unknown theory. The late Stephen Hawking, however, believed that incompleteness does apply to the physical universe:
From this fragment, it is clear that that Stephen Hawking technically believed in miracles. So, we can conclude as following: If you believe that Gödel's incompleteness theorem is provable from the Theory of Everything (ToE), then you effectively believe in miracles. By the way, this is equivalent to claiming that the ToE contains a copy of Robinson's Q fragment of arithmetic theory. It is actually quite likely that it does. So, if you believe this, then you effectively believe in miracles.Godel and the End of Physics
What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted.
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
- Dark Matter is everywhere. It’s most of everything that is.
- It’s never been seen, touched, smelled, heard or tasted.
- This is accepted, but God is not?
- It must be a miracle!
- It’s never been seen, touched, smelled, heard or tasted.
- This is accepted, but God is not?
- It must be a miracle!
Re: Do you believe in miracles?
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.