Do you believe in miracles?

[Age]

Life hasn't always existed on this planet, and we don't know of life anywhere else.

Here is another example of 'looking at' things from a very small, narrowed, or shallow perspective of things.

I understand the type of life in question to be biological life, so that is the perspective from which I am looking.

So, as I said.

Some say earth, itself, is 'a living thing', so as long as the earth has existed, then 'life' has also existed. Therefore, 'life' has always existed, in regards to this planet and/or 'on this planet'.

Well whatever "some" mean when they say that, it is not what is meant in this instance.

To who?

you maybe.

But, 'in this instance', it is what is meant.

And, once again, only through seeking out 'clarification' can 'what is meant' ever be Truly clarified, understood, and known. Until then, confusion can exist, which can lead to disagreements and/or bickering prevailing.

Neither of 'us' sought out clarification of 'what was meant', 'in this instance'. So, obviously, neither of us can claim to know 'what was meant', 'in this instance'.

And, from even a more OPEN perspective 'life' has existed for even longer, and even forever when one wants to have a Truly 'deep look' and 'delve deep into things' here.

What is the point of broadening my perspective when I am referring to something specific?

But please do not forget that 'you' were responding to what 'I' said and wrote here.

So, now it could be asked, 'What is the point of you narrowing my perspective, when I was referring to something specific?'

Now, if 'I' was replying to what 'you' said and wrote, then it would be a very different situation.

Also, as 'we' can clearly see here this is a prime example of a big reason how and why there was so much confusion, misunderstanding, disagreements, 'arguing', bickering, fighting, and even warring and killing, 'back in the days when this was being written'.

Adults 'see' that the way they, personally, define each and every word is the way that others should be 'seeing' and 'defining' those same words.

So, once again, until full clarification is sought after, obtained, and gained, agreement and acceptance of what the words actually mean and/or are referring to, exactly, within conversations/discussions, and the goal of the conversation/discussion is done first, then peace and harmony will not come to exist.

No one knows what it (consciousness) really is, or how it comes about.

Oh, so you are 'trying to' speak for absolutely EVERY one.

So, how do you know what EVERY one knows or does not know, "harbal"?

I am reasonably certain that no one knows.

Now, here is a prime example of when one speaks the actual and irrefutable Truth of things, then there is absolutely nothing to question, nor challenge.

Even those who formally study the subject of consciousness only seem to be able to arrive at vague opinions of what it might be, and where it might come from.

Once again, I will suggest people come to an agreement and acceptance of what a word means or is referring to, exactly, before they begin 'looking to', 'studying', and/or 'discussing' things. If this is done, first, then finding out what the actual and irrefutable Truth of things is, exactly, can and does follow, and almost instantaneously I will add.

And, to prove this True, would absolutely anyone here like to have a 'discussion' about 'Consciousness', Itself, with the goal being to find out, and thus know what 'Consciousness' really is? And, maybe even discover, and thus also know, how 'Consciousness' also came about. But, 'this' I think will take a bit more work.

Oh, and by the way, please do not forget that absolutely every thing that has come to be 'known', was once never 'known' by any one. Which, obviously, means that although you may well not, yet, 'know' what 'consciousness', itself, is others may well, already, 'know', or will become 'known' by others.

I am not saying we will never understand consciousness; I am only saying that it is not understood now, in the days when etc, etc.

And, let 'us' remind the readers, now, that what may not be understood by 'you', yet, can already be understood by 'another'.

See, there is no rush to present, point out, or explain what has already come to be understood and known. Some things are best left till the right moment and best done in the right place.

If you believe you do know, then you are badly mistaken.

Just in this one little sentence you have made two very False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions.

But, you believe that 'this' could not even be 'possibly true', right?

If you think I have made false assumptions, why not just say what they are, rather than make a song and dance out of it?

Why should I have to keep 'fixing up' continually made up False assumptions and False claims.

Look, if you or anyone wants to believe the assumptions that you or they make up, and then claim them to be true, then, by all means, keep on doing so.

And, what you are trying to say and claim here, is like telling 'the one' who was trying to say and explain how it is the earth that revolves around the sun, 'If you believe you do know, then you are badly mistaken'. And, we know how well that turned out, right?

No, this situation is not remotely like that.

Why, supposedly, not?

[Age]

...

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.

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

- I’m not a biblical scholar, and in my ignorance this indicates that because of the pronoun “our,” that God is not a singular entity.

- Would you agree? If not, why?

*

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And after that spark of life, a world begins.

1. If you would like to have a discussion with me, then would you like to finish and resolve things in a logically followed order?

If yes, then you assumed and claimed one of the most ridiculous things I have seen here 'about me'. (And this is saying a lot, considering some of the absolute absurd things that get said and claimed here 'about me'.)

Now, 'Would you like to explain to the readers how you come to presume, conclude, and/or believe this most outrageous and most idiotic and stupid claim here?'

Once you answer this question, asked for clarification, then we can move along here, properly.

2. Until then, when you, also, discover, come to understand, and know who and what God is, exactly, (or who and what the 'God' word is meaning and referring to, exactly, then you will also understand and know why the 'our' word was used there.

3. How does from, 'Let there be light', and, 'There was light', to you, follow with, 'And after that spark of life, a world begins', logically?

Once again, everything can be and is explained through Nature, Itself.

Life, Itself, exists, always.

There, however, might be an 'argument' for a 'spark of Consciousness', coming to exist. But, Life, Itself, always exists.

[Age]

These days people do not rise from the dead.

They do.

US Woman Declared Clinically Dead Wakes Up After 24 Minutes, Describes Experience

We just don't call it a "miracle" anymore.

Do 'we' call 'clinically dead', 'dead'?

I notice the headline did not state: woman declared 'dead' wakes up after 24 minutes describes experience.

[Age]

Hume was respondiing to his own time in which "miracles" were common place.
These days people do not rise from the dead.
Now you either think that is because there are fewer miracles for some reason, or because we know better what is going on.

So, we have Hume's assessment of how many miracles there were in his time, and you simply repeat your assertion. I know you believe it, you already asserted it.
People report miracles all the time. The Vatican investigates them for those Catholics who report them. People claim miracles, of different kinds, are happening all over the place in the world. People miraculously return from death states still, when doctor's have said there's no chance.

Was there some presumption that the words from human beings with the label "doctors" infallible?

People recover from mortal illnesses', sometimes the medical profession refers to this as spontaneous remission (with cancer, say). A term that has no causal explanation. And note I am not arguing these people are correct or not. I am questioning how you drew the conclusion I asked about.

How do you know they are reported less now?

[Age]

God help you.
"She was resuscitated after nearly half an hour and said she lost the memory of the past week after waking up."
So no, she did not miraclulously rise from the dead.
Its medical science FFS.
Which makes my point exactly.

Idiot-philosopher is an idiot.

A "miracle" is simply an event that it is far more unlikely that it is likely. Anything against the odds is a miracle.

Here is another one 'definition', of many other definitions.

Resuscitation after 30 minutes sounds like a fucking miracle to me. If it were medical science we'd be performing it on the regular with high rates of reproducible success.

The brain, however, appears to accumulate ischemic injury faster than any other organ. Without special treatment after circulation is restarted, full recovery of the brain after more than 3 minutes of clinical death at normal body temperature is rare.Usually brain damage or later brain death results after longer intervals of clinical death even if the heart is restarted and blood circulation is successfully restored. Brain injury is therefore the chief limiting factor for recovery from clinical death.

[Age]

These days people do not rise from the dead.

So no, she did not miraclulously rise from the dead.

She was clinically dead. So, according to medical assessment, it is "inexplicable" that she came back to life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

Lazarus syndrome (the Lazarus heart), also known as autoresuscitation after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation,[1] is the spontaneous return of a normal cardiac rhythm after failed attempts at resuscitation. It is also used to refer to the spontaneous return of cardiac activity after the patient has been pronounced dead.[2] Its occurrence has been noted in medical literature at least 38 times since 1982.

In modern times, we do not call it a "miracle" anymore but the phenomenon is certainly considered "inexplicable".

But it is not 'inexplicable'. It has just 'not been explained', yet.

There is a huge difference, if one has not yet noticed.

All things are 'explainable'.

A patient pronounced "dead" is obviously not deemed to come back to life according to medical theory.

Is there a difference between 'clinically dead' and 'dead'?

If yes, then what is it, exactly?

Has any patient been pronounced 'dead' who so-called 'came back' here?

Otherwise, medical personnel would not pronounce the patient to be dead, to begin with.

Did they?

[Age]

These days people do not rise from the dead.

So no, she did not miraclulously rise from the dead.

She was clinically dead. So, according to medical assessment, it is "inexplicable" that she came back to life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

Lazarus syndrome (the Lazarus heart), also known as autoresuscitation after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation,[1] is the spontaneous return of a normal cardiac rhythm after failed attempts at resuscitation. It is also used to refer to the spontaneous return of cardiac activity after the patient has been pronounced dead.[2] Its occurrence has been noted in medical literature at least 38 times since 1982.

In modern times, we do not call it a "miracle" anymore but the phenomenon is certainly considered "inexplicable". A patient pronounced "dead" is obviously not deemed to come back to life according to medical theory. Otherwise, medical personnel would not pronounce the patient to be dead, to begin with.

I have to say that basing a theory of miracles on THAT link is rather dubious. From the outset the entire thing is full of hols and lack of detail.
You must be really gullible.

Now either I am correct that fewer miracles are reported because of progress, or that something else is true.

The actual irrefutable Truth is that there is no way to find out and know, for sure.

If you really believe that you are correct, and want to keep claiming that you are, then do not be surprised at all that you will keep being questioned, and/or challenged over this claim of yours here.

SO you think that claimed miracles are true, and that there is either more or the same number being reported per capita now that at any time in the past?
Is that the absurd conclusion that you are aiming for?

[godelian]

Fact is People NEVER rise from the dead and never did.

According to medical theory, they do:

Lazarus syndrome
It is also used to refer to the spontaneous return of cardiac activity after the patient has been pronounced dead.[2] Its occurrence has been noted in medical literature at least 38 times since 1982.

The benchmark for "dead" is medical theory, which could be incomplete or wrong, but that does not matter. In the end, it is sufficient for the event to be inexplicable by existing theory, which is itself not required to be perfect.

Are you trying to claim that this syndome is a "miracle" or a medical condition?

As I have indicated already, It is strictly limited to being a response to what you wrote:

These days people do not rise from the dead.

[godelian]

So, again, there is no event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws.

This view is unreasonable, especially in the light of the long list of unsolved problems in physics referenced in my previous answer.

[godelian]

These days people do not rise from the dead.

They do.

US Woman Declared Clinically Dead Wakes Up After 24 Minutes, Describes Experience

We just don't call it a "miracle" anymore.

Do 'we' call 'clinically dead', 'dead'?

I notice the headline did not state: woman declared 'dead' wakes up after 24 minutes describes experience.

There may possibly be flaws in medical theory such as the contemporary benchmark for "clinically dead".

However, this does not detract from the fact that coming back to life after being deemed clinically dead constitutes an inexplicable event to medical theory.

In the end, medical theory is still the yardstick for what is explicable -- and what is not -- in the medical field.

[godelian]

But it is not 'inexplicable'. It has just 'not been explained', yet.
There is a huge difference, if one has not yet noticed.
All things are 'explainable'.

Now you are trying to change the definition for the term "miracle":

A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws ...

The idea that there could be future improvements to natural or scientific laws does not make the event less inexplicable today.

Furthermore, what makes you so sure that science will be able to find an explanation for these inexplicable events in the future? What guarantee do you have for that?

As I have pointed out already, there are fundamentally inexplicable facts/truths in mathematics. There are theorems for which there is proof that there will never be a proof.

Example, the continuum hypothesis (CH)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis

Gödel[6][2] showed that CH cannot be disproved from ZF, even if the axiom of choice (AC) is adopted (making ZFC).

Cohen[4][7] showed that CH cannot be proven from the ZFC axioms, completing the overall independence proof.

Fundamentally undecidable theorems exist in mathematics. What guarantee do you have that they do not exist in science?

Undecidable problems also exist in computability:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-or-no answer. The halting problem is an example.

The blanket statement that 'all things are "explainable"' is misguided because it is provably false in the field of mathematics, where it is in violation of Godel's incompleteness theorem.

[Age]

So, again, there is no event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws.

This view is unreasonable, especially in the light of the long list of unsolved problems in physics referenced in my previous answer.

Here is another example of a very small, narrow, and/or shallow view and perspective of things here.

This one believes that forever more that those things can never ever be resolved.

Also, your use of the 'problem' word here is not working properly and Correctly.

[Age]

They do.

US Woman Declared Clinically Dead Wakes Up After 24 Minutes, Describes Experience

We just don't call it a "miracle" anymore.

Do 'we' call 'clinically dead', 'dead'?

I notice the headline did not state: woman declared 'dead' wakes up after 24 minutes describes experience.

There may possibly be flaws in medical theory such as the contemporary benchmark for "clinically dead".

However, this does not detract from the fact that coming back to life after being deemed clinically dead constitutes an inexplicable event to medical theory.

When you say, 'an explicable event', do you mean forever more, or just for a particular period?

In the end, medical theory is still the yardstick for what is explicable -- and what is not -- in the medical field.

What does the 'theory' word even mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

[Age]

But it is not 'inexplicable'. It has just 'not been explained', yet.
There is a huge difference, if one has not yet noticed.
All things are 'explainable'.

Now you are trying to change the definition for the term "miracle":

I have never tried to change the definition, that you use and have provided here, for the term 'miracle', at all.

A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws ...

The idea that there could be future improvements to natural or scientific laws does not make the event less inexplicable today.

What could have ever made you even begin to start to assume such a totally ridiculous and absurd assumption as this here is?

your clarifying answer here, like always, will be very much appreciated.

All I have been more or less pointing out here is the absurd belief that what is inexplicable 'today' does not mean that it will be inexplicable 'tomorrow'. And, this has absolutely nothing at all to do with so-called 'future improvements' of natural laws, as natural laws are, obviously, the exact same for eternity.

Also, what is inexplicable to one 'today' does not mean that it is inexplicable to another 'today'.

Furthermore, what makes you so sure that science will be able to find an explanation for these inexplicable events in the future?

Some of what you might say are inexplicable 'today', have already been explained, as well as already being well and fully understood. And, this is 'today', let alone 'the future', from 'today'.

Are you under some sort of illusion that an explanation for all of those, seemingly, inexplicable events can never be found in the future?

What guarantee do you have for that?

What guarantee do you have for that?

As I have pointed out already, there are fundamentally inexplicable facts/truths in mathematics.

you have said and claimed this, and even pointed out that this what you believe is absolutely true and right, but I have yet to see an actual example of absolutely any thing in mathematics that cannot be explained through and by natural laws. As I have already shown how the one example you gave can be, and was, explained through and by natural laws.

There are theorems for which there is proof that there will never be a proof.

Okay, if you have already bore witness to this 'proof', then you could show and reveal 'this proof' for 'us' here, now, right?

you claim; 'Inexplicable truths exist in true arithmetic', and you also claim that, 'There are theorems for which there is proof that there will never be a proof', but if a 'theorem' is, a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths., then do you see any contradiction or self-refutation here?

Example, the continuum hypothesis (CH)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis

Gödel[6][2] showed that CH cannot be disproved from ZF, even if the axiom of choice (AC) is adopted (making ZFC).

Cohen[4][7] showed that CH cannot be proven from the ZFC axioms, completing the overall independence proof.

So, are these 'miracles', to you?

Fundamentally undecidable theorems exist in mathematics.

To me, a 'theorem' is just 'a truth established by means of accepted truths'. So, until 'truths' are presented, for acceptance, or not, or proof has been presented that those 'truths' are 'accepted truths', then what is claimed to be 'a general proposition' is just that; 'a claim', only.

What guarantee do you have that they do not exist in science?

What does the word 'science' even mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

To me, these are not 'things' 'in science'. 'Science', itself, is something else.

But, this is how I arrived at obtaining a GUTOE, while others have not yet.

Undecidable problems also exist in computability:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-or-no answer. The halting problem is an example.

And, according to you this will last forever more, right?

The blanket statement that 'all things are "explainable"' is misguided because it is provably false in the field of mathematics,

So, if you did not use 'natural laws' to arrive at this what you claim is an 'absolute and irrefutable truth', then what did you use, exactly?

Also, how can you guarantee for the rest of eternity that the things in the field of mathematics that are inexplicable to you 'today' will be inexplicable forever more?

where it is in violation of Godel's incompleteness theorem.

you speak as though some so-called 'theorem' here is absolute, unchangeable, and complete, 'today', forever more. Is this right and true?

[godelian]

What does the 'theory' word even mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

The term "theory" has three distinctive meanings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In (1) science: a stubborn, observable pattern that has been experimentally tested for counterexamples.

In (2) mathematical logic: the collection of the theorems that can be deduced from a given set of axioms, given a given set of inference rules, i.e. an axiomatic system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system

In mathematics and logic, an axiomatic system is any set of primitive notions and axioms to logically derive theorems. A theory is a consistent, relatively-self-contained body of knowledge which usually contains an axiomatic system and all its derived theorems. An axiomatic system that is completely described is a special kind of formal system. A formal theory is an axiomatic system (usually formulated within model theory) that describes a set of sentences that is closed under logical implication.[1] A formal proof is a complete rendition of a mathematical proof within a formal system.

In (3) general: a body of knowledge. This was the original meaning inherited from Greek philosophy.

So, "medical theory" is a body of knowledge. It is not entirely based on experimental testing and it is also not axiomatic.

It is supposed to be clear from the context in what meaning the term "theory" is being used.

Because of my own research preferences, I mostly, but not always, use the term "theory" according to what it means in mathematical logic, i.e. an axiomatic system.