Do you believe in miracles?

[godelian]

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!

[Sculptor]

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.

[Sculptor]

Nope. You are just being ridiculous.

Nope. You are just being dumb.

I have to agree with Sculptor; you are being ridiculous.

Thanks.

[Sculptor]

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.

[Walker]

Life is the ethical and philosophical measure of worth.
A medical authority reveals that in this modern age, pragmatism is the measure of death.

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.

[godelian]

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 still happens:

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

It even happened 38 times since 1982.

[Walker]

It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.

I remember reading that at one time in the history of the world, bona fide doctors used to dissect cadavers to gain medical knowledge to benefit mankind, then without washing their hands would go deliver babies. A doctor hypothesized that it was the stench on the hands that was causing all the instances of problems with the mothers and the infants, so he found something to remove the stench from his hands.

Fewer problems ensued. It was a miracle!

However, the bigwigs of medical “science” were reluctant to accept the evidence. Amazing. Same old story. Turf to protect.

It didn’t turn out well for the fellow.


This must be the one who was punished for truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

[Skepdick]

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

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

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.

Congratulations on tripping over your own misunderstanding. Again.

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

[Sculptor]

It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.

I remember reading that at one time in the history of the world, bona fide doctors used to dissect cadavers to gain medical knowledge to benefit mankind, then without washing their hands would go deliver babies. A doctor hypothesized that it was the stench on the hands that was causing all the instances of problems with the mothers and the infants, so he found something to remove the stench from his hands.

Fewer problems ensued. It was a miracle!

No that was not a miracle.
Semelweiss ended up castigated and died in poverty.
SO much for divine intervention.
What he figured out was SCIENCE you fucking moron

[Walker]

However, the bigwigs of medical “science” were reluctant to accept the evidence. Amazing. Same old story. Turf to protect.

It didn’t turn out well for the fellow.

Like I said, it didn't turn out well for the fellow.

[Skepdick]

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.

[Age]

But what you keep missing, not comprehending, and misunderstanding is that what you are just 'inexplicable' 'today' will be explained one day.

I repeat my previous answer: scientific progress is not guaranteed. Moreover, no amount of progress in mathematics will ever make its provably inexplicable truths explicable.

As absolutely every thing you have listed and provided by example are explained with, by, and through 'natural laws'.

No, you keep ignoring the list of unsolved problems in physics.

You do not seem to be able to comprehend and understand that absolutely everything you have listed and provided, and more, are explained by and through natural laws, and this is just for the very simple fact that there is absolutely no thing that is above, beyond, nor apart from Nature, Itself.

[Age]

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

My answer is strictly limited to the following context:

- "People no longer rise from the dead"
- They still do. (Cfr. Lazarus syndrome)

When they do, it constitutes an event that is inexplicable according to medical theory.

In this context, I am not interested in trying to figure out if such event is the result of supranatural intervention.

How do you define 'supranatural'?

Once you are clear about this, then it will also become clear if any event is the result of some so-called 'supranatural intervention', or not.

Until then, to me anyway, there is absolutely nothing that is beyond Nature, Itself, or what some refer to as the 'supernatural'?

you say that you are, 'trying to figure out' something here, but until you make your definitions clear, you could be 'trying to figure things out' for the rest of your life. To me, finding out the answer to what you are, still, 'trying to figure out' here, is really a Truly very simple, easy, and quick process.

That kind of discussion always degenerates into the question if God exists or not.

Well this here has, also, already been figured out', answered, and thus resolved. And, for some this is so surprising, to them, that that is, literally, 'unbelievable', to them.

And, are you sure that it 'always' so-called 'degenerates' into the question if God exists or not?

Oh, and by the way, when the question, 'If God exists or not?' arises do people then wonder and/or define the 'God' word, like some have with the 'miracle' word here?

In my experience, that discussion is uninteresting. Personally, I am religious, but I won't do any effort whatsoever to convince unbelievers.

But you have been trying your hardest here to convince the so-called "unbelievers", already.

Had you really not yet noticed the actual amount of effort that you have put in so far? Or, are you just saying what you did here to try to deceive some here?

[Age]

Is this proof of something supernatural? No.

Yes. It is.

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

But they are not beyond, actual, so-called 'scientific understanding', although they may well be beyond some human beings understanding, at a particular time in human history.

Also, there is no 'force' beyond neither 'scientific understanding', nor beyond the laws of nature.

To imagine that there is any thing beyond Nature, Itself/laws of nature is to imagine the absurd, as well as the impossible.

does it mean we won't one day understand what is happening in those situations? No.

But here we are.

It's just a game of moving things between categories. Maybe we will understand it. Maybe we won't.

Until we understand it - it remains supernatural.

But what is beyond some human beings understanding, at any particular time or moment, is not necessarily beyond 'scientific understanding', at all.

There is also absolutely nothing beyond the 'laws of nature'/'Nature', so according to your, chosen, definition here, there is nothing so-called 'supernatural'.

Will it remain supernatural forever? I don't know.
When will it stop being supernatural? Maybe tomorrow. Maybe never.

Can you name one 'force' now that is beyond the 'laws of nature'?

Time is a fundamental resource to the would-be knower. Some phenomena are too complex to understand given the finite time we are given.

Like 'what', exactly, for example, is or would be so-called 'too complex' to understand?

Also, where is this presumed 'given the finite time we are given' perception coming from, exactly?

[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.

Has the previous 'medical body of knowledge' been Wrong, in the past?

Could the 'current' 'medical body of knowledge' be Wrong, 'now', or in the future?

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

Again, is the 'medical body of knowledge' as it 'currently' stands fallible?

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

But, again, it is not 'an event' inexplicable by natural laws. Although, some events, to some, might appear 'inexplicable', with only the 'current' 'body of knowledge', which they are 'currently' aware of 'today'.

But, for others, they know, for sure, that there is absolutely nothing above, beyond, nor apart from what is just 'Nature', and/or 'natural', Itself.