Miracles
- Thread starter jmpet
- Start date
It seems rather miraculous that there is somethign rather than nothing.
It seems miraculous to me that portions - if not all - of this something can experience, are aware, conscious.
That something miraculous is going on should be a common position to everyone.
I do not mean that therefore one should believe in God or anything specific, simply that something unbelievably odd is happening, whatever the hell it is.
Why? Are you aware of the "odds" of something existing rather than nothing existing? How did you establish these odds?
Are you also aware of the odds of "awareness" or "conscious" etc arising? Do you even know how many other planets there are on which "life" exists, for example?
Heck, do you even know how many universes there might be?
No it shouldn't - only for those that wish to interpret things that way.
Again, feel free to quote the odds, and the evidence on which they're based?
Would you not consider it presumptuous to see miracles in such things when we still more or less have our eyes closed and the lights turned out on these matters?
Does the fact that there is something rather than nothing strike you as banal and obvious, Sarkus? I mean, hey, I am just a creature in the universe. My reactions are my reactions. That said, I figure other mammals, those capable of focusing on the issue, would have a similar reaction. I would even go so far as to say that if they assert they don't, they are either suppressing their reaction or not really able to focus on the issue and themselves at the same time.
No one is. Yet for some reason other people are blase about it. Why is their blaseness not under the same skeptical scrutiny?
Ibid.
We can talk multiverse if you want.
Everyone is interpreting it some way or a muddle of ways simultaneously. And everyone is reacting as if it is obvious or miraculous or somewhere in the middle, etc. I wonder if they know the odds.
Have you really transcended yourself like this? Can't you simply be a creature in the universe or do all your reactions wait until you hear about the odds from some laboratory?
For someone who thinks he has his eyes closed you seem very certain that thinking it is miraculous is off.
I would also think there being nothing only really strange. Of course if it were the case I would not be able to have this reaction, but that idea seems miraculous also though somehow more likely.
I mean really....I said 'seems' several times.
I suppose to you it does not seem miraculous. How do YOU know the odds?
Last edited:
It certainly strikes me as being the matter in question. If we are discussing whether our existence is a miracle, we surely can not use that existence as the only evidence with which to make the assessment.
But there is no other evidence yet. I therefore have no idea what the odds are, whether we are a "miracle" or whether we a certainty - or somewhere in between.
I'd have thought your participation in this website alone would highlight how varied peoples' thoughts are - especially on such matters as these. And I previously wouldn't have taken you for being so arrogant as to think you know how all people think on such matters.
But if you sincerely think I am merely suppressing my reaction, or not able to to focus... that is your perrogative.
Perhaps next time you should just post my responses for me?
When someone in this thread is blase about it then you may get an answer to that question. Otherwise it's a tad premature.
Would sidetrack this thread somewhat.
A number of people genuinely do say, and are happy to say, "I don't know" on such matters.
I am a creature in the universe - I can and do marvel at the wonders of the universe - some of them rather common things.
But this thread is about miracles.
This may be the issue here - that to you "miracle" is an emotional term / response, whereas to me it is not - it is one where the occurrence in question occurs outside of natural probability. Some might consider winning the lottery a miracle... I wouldn't. But it doesn't stop me reacting emotionally at the occurrence... I can do that with the common place just as well - at sunsets, by looking at the moon on a clear night etc.
A "miracle" to me is not a reaction but an assessment.
Not at all - I'm just waiting some additional information before hurtling off to claim it as a miracle. But without that information - is it a miracle? I would say "I don't know" - and I would ask anyone that says otherwise to put forth their reasoning. I may even learn something from it.
So there could be evidence it was a miracle? Wouldn't any miracle simply be a new natural for scientists et al? Just as anything that is discovered is material regardless of its qualities.
Since you seem to think there are odds there might or might not be a universe, isn't it miraculous that there are odds? How odd?
In a sense I was being ironic. I agree. People think differently. But I think this issue shows something more fundamental than someone's beliefs/epistemology. I have to say I am not sure people are essentially the same kinds of creatures.
Sure. I mean, you assume I am interpreting. Perhaps I am directly noticing.
Well, I think I can draw the conclusion that you do not think it is miraculous, that that is not your reaction. Whatever your reaction is, how did you calculate the odds that supported it?
So they jump to epistemology. Check to see if they know the odds in a conscious way. Have no particular intuitive reactions. Base their reaction on this lack of being able to produce odds and so have no real reaction which they translate into a kind of agnosticism.
To me that means they are fundamentally different from me. Not because of the conclusion (at least not only) but that process is utterly foreign to me.
I can certainly weigh in on discussions of probability. So it is not that I do not have this facility. I am simply not made like something that has that other process.
Um. Wonder - "marvelous thing, marvel, the object of astonishment,"
Why would the universe be this or any part of it?
It just is. Who knows the odds? Is your sense of wonder restricted to anomolies? Wait. No, it is sometimes about common things.
Maybe we are not so different.
I think it is good your raised this issue. I could say that that is part of our difference. At the same time I am reluctant to say that. Let's take an example. If there is a God, well it is natural that there is a God. I know some religious people would dislike connecting God and nature like that, but then many would not. I suppose I would like to black box this issue. To me there everything is natural, including any Gods, spirits, afterlives...whatever, found and unfound.
I think for me as a person in the universe the fact that there is a universe seems miraculous to me. And nothing will ever change that reaction. Meeting God or reading some final scientific theory could not change it. Here's why. Well, if I meet God, that will be miraculous too. That't there's a God, pretty much regardless. If I read this final scientific theory, well, whatever it says that makes it likely or necessary that there is a universe, will be facts about the universe. Potentials are a part of the universe. Or part of whatever includes the universe - a mulitiverse, whatever.
There is no getting around this being miraculous for me.
But you are quite right people are different. But frankly, more different than seems common acknowledged.
The differences are often described - in contexts like this - as differences in epistemology and sometimes in terms, usually pejoratively, of need - this aimed at theists.
Frankly this seems more fundamental than differences in the mental verbal furniture of the mind.
Saying something is a miracle, I assume you mean. Yes, and again, smart to raise this issue, and again I am reluctant to split myself up into two pieces and further to reify language and see it as a container.
Either this is not quite true about you or we are fundamentally different. And I am quite happy to acknowledge the latter as a possibility. I am skeptical about it - see I figure another sentient mammal would be similarly assessing odds and reacting even when certain epistemological guidelines that seem potentially correct as limits are held in high esteem - but we can both probably live with that.
How did you decide that the odds were that NOT hurtling off - as you slightly pejoratively put it - and trusting your intuitive reactions to things was the better lifestyle?
Why are you not agnostic about that?
Is it because some people seem to go off the deep end?
What makes you think you would with your intuition if you trusted it?
Anyway, I suspect I hijacked the thread so I will back off at least for a while.
Last edited:
a progression of really weird spiritual stuff happened to me several years ago, and at first i was going around screaming, "it's a miracle!", but by the end of it i was like, "bah, this is normal." i guess it's all relative. everything's a miracle. and if everything's a miracle, then i guess nothing is a miracle. it's just what's happening.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
If you are going to take a purely scientific view of everything in life, then you are never going to accept anything as a "miracle". This is just a matter of definition. A "miracle" is by definition unexplainable by science, so accepting that it is a miracle is to accept that it cannot, in principle, be explained by science.
If you take the view that everything can be explained by science, then even if you don't have an explanation, you believe an explanation exists and therefore it isn't a miracle.
If you take the view that everything can be explained by science, then even if you don't have an explanation, you believe an explanation exists and therefore it isn't a miracle.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I think I see what you are saying then again what about there being nothing instead of something. That is impossible because nothing means when there isn't anything and there not being anything refers to non-existence, we can only entertain the thought of there being nothing as a concept and even that's misleading.
If you define matter as "that which can be detected" then it only has that one quality that is common to all matter
Miraculous that there are odds? I wouldn't know. You claimed "miracle" so I'd have thought you would know?
Not sure I understand where you are going with this?
You are noticing the specific outward signs that I allow you to notice, sure, that being the words I post on this forum. But that is all you can notice... unless you've actually met me???
That's the point - I have no info to determine the odds... so how can I claim it is a miracle.
"no real reaction"? You do such people an injustice, surely? Do you see a magic trick, gasp in awe and claim it a miracle?
Yet you still seemed to assume (ironically?) that we all thought the same way.
I can not say why I find such things that way... but wonderment is a far cry from "it's a miracle".
(shortened by me)
Worth taking to another thread - as seems more concerned with how people think rather than this topic per se?
I didn't decide based on lifestyle. I don't look at the conclusion and work backwards, which seems to be the implication here. I would like to think I reach conclusions, and everything else follows.
Perhaps the way I think has evolved so that it reaches conclusions that I am subconsciously wanting? That would be interesting... and somewhat unnerving.
Feel free to PM if you want to discuss our differences in more detail?
But yes - back to "miracles".
That is not a quality of the matter. It is a quality of a relationship. (if the universe is subjects perceiving objects. it could also be a quality of phenomena - as in what a phenomenalist might consider reality, which is not the same thing at all as matter 'out there' having a quality.)If you define matter as "that which can be detected" then it only has that one quality that is common to all matter
It is as if you do not have an opinion. I am still skeptical about this. I understand how when you put the idea into what you consider the correct epistemology you come out with the position that you do not know. I am just skeptical that an assessment is not also happening despite your official position.
I meant in relation to the universe.You are noticing the specific outward signs that I allow you to notice, sure, that being the words I post on this forum. But that is all you can notice... unless you've actually met me???
You just agreed that you do not think it is miraculous. How do you know the odds? Note your response in context. Now I know you may say that you responded perhaps hastily and you have not decided it is not miraculous. But, honestly, I doubt this. I think one portion of a mind can have an official position like this, but I think this is only a small portion of the self posing as the whole. I cite your concerns
about 'hurtling off' to my position as evidence. Or do you react with the same concerns to all reactions/assessment about likehood with similar strength?
No. Which is evidence I have at least some ability to distinguish between phenomena.
Actually I just think you claim to. But I admit I may be wrong about this.Yet you still seemed to assume (ironically?) that we all thought the same way.
Well, actually, in context no. That you used the terms wonders, implies that these things have qualities, compared to others things, and compared to some control. Why are they 'wonder' rather than just things? How did you reach that assessment?
It relates to this thread in that you see me 'hurtling off'. To me this is a value judgment. I think there is an implicit and often explicit value judgment, here, made by you and others, that it is better to approach life following scientific methodology when possible and being agnostic when not.
I do not think this value judgment has been reached vis scientific methodology. So you should, by your own system, be agnostic about it. But I do not think you are. As you've said, I can only go by what you write here. Let me know if I am incorrect. At least then I have it in writing that you do not consider having an epistemology like mine, which includes what you have called hurtling off, to be better or worse than your own. IOW you would be agnostic about that.
I am trying to point out that your reactions to me, which I think include assessments, are 'hurtling off' by your standards.
And actually, since your considered me 'hurtling off' I think there was an implicit slippery slope reactions assessment on your part.
(note: I am not feeling insulted by the term 'hurtling off'. I keep repeating
it because I think it is telling and connects me to what is beyond the potentially consistent agnosticism)
Connected to all this is that I consider acts beliefs.
And I would argue it is a quality of matter that it can have such a relationship... i.e. be detected.
An assessment is indeed happening with regard what is practical, given the epistemological position. Given that I have no knowledge of the existence of miracles, my opinion from a practical point of view is one of irrelevance. The same for anything on which I am similarly agnostic.
I did not agree that I think it is miraculous - I said that I can not claim it IS miraculous. Likewise I can not claim it IS NOT miraculous.
i.e. I can make no claim with regard it's status as miracle or not.
Apologies if you felt I considered you to have "hurtled off" to your conclusion... I didn't / don't. The comment was in reference to how I would have to view my actions if, following the thought process I did, I then concluded on "miracle".
I am reasonably sure that you follow a process that concludes "miracle" that requires no hurtling whatsoever, even if I disagree with that process and/or conclusion.
But rereading my comment I do see how such an implication could be made, so apologies.
Because they draw the attention and make me wonder about them. Perhaps it is the scale, the symmetry, the colour, or purely the emotional impact. I don't know. Part of me thinks that if I did find out why it might destroy the mystery I enjoy. But the wonderment is not evidence for anything other than it being a wonder.
In general terms (i.e. on the reaching of a value judgement) I do have evidence of your behaviour, your thought process - being the numerous posts you have made here. Upon that evidence I can make an assessment - perhaps incorrect - but there is no need to be agnostic... the evidence exists. It is then a matter of quality of assessment... poor or otherwise.
You would need to define "better or worse"? Relative to what or who? Are epistemologies objective in this regard?
If there is evidence then there can be an assessment, correct or otherwise. If there is no evidence then what assessment can be made? Therefore agnosticism.
Noted. I don't think I do.
This is because of our knowledge status only. A true miracle is totally based on empirical laws which can be performed by any advanced mind.
Miracles like the parting of the sea is possible if one knows the inner workings of the quarks which make up water, like H and O, and what their attributes are and how they can be made to react against other forces. In ancient times, a gun would be seen as a miracle. But there is no difference between a cell being made to carry blood to the heart, a seed becoming a pineapple and a strong easterly wind making locusts appear when they should not.
What needs to be realised is if the surrounding factors in a described miracle are authentic, like the amazing description of a plague of locusts apearing like a dark cloud and blocking out the sun: many farmers know this as certainly an authentic description.
The advent of spells are also authentic for ancient times, but this is now replaced with science. Humanity would not have survived without spells and voodooism - there was no medicine then, this faculty introduced in the Hebrew bible, which first seperated occultism with scienfically based medicine with the ID, treatment and quarantine of contagious deseases like leprosy.
One day, humans will be able to move Jupiter 5% to the left - which seems like star trek now.
Sarkus,
I has some afterthoughts:
you used the analogy of the magician trick and me potentially falling for it and thinking it is a miracle. I realized after mulling that you have approached my response as if it was some kind of inductive guesstimate. In fact it is more of a deductive intuitive one. Let's place your analogy front and center. If the universe was actually a magician's trick and I found this out would I reliquish my position that the universe is miraculous. No. Not because this would be an amazing feat, but this magician is miraculous - not because of his or her or its tricks, but because it is around. The analogy is remarkably like various theisms actually, with God as magician.
My reaction is not inductive - sloppily arrived at or somehow calculated - and this should be obvious. Let's say there is a 1 in a 100 chance there would be a universe (or this particular one). And then we compare this to the situation where we find out it is a 1 in a googleplex chance there is a universe. To me each of these situations is miraculous - and really weird ta boot. I consider the any
odds
conditions
potentialities
subsumable in what is miraculous. There is not
the universe
and then over here
odds potentialities conditions
Those are a part of everything.
There was a period in physics where physicists spoke - with some consensus - of the Big Bang as the beginning of both space AND TIME. IOW that, however counterintuitive, there is a beginning with no before. Added to this hypothesis was the idea that nothingness is unstable, as it were, and could 'break apart' or sort of borrow on negative particles, etc., and a universe could arise. Any of this would strike me as miraculous.
On the other hand, theories, religious or scientific, it really doesn't matter, that explain things as, basically, turtles all the way down - strike me as
miraculous.
That there always has been something strikes me as miraculous.
It's ironic, but to me theism is also an attempt to make banal this situation. There is a God who made stuff. Whew, now we know. The atheist objection that this just pushes the issue one step back is a valid one in relation to the issue we are dealing with. Why is there a God? Whatever the answer is really strange.
__________________________________________________________________
A second thing is happening when I say it is miraculous. I have been reluctant to approach it from this angle because I have a good guess how this will be dismissed.
However much my beliefs are based on things not currently verifiable by science, I have studied a good deal of science, also at the college level. I can see the world through that peep hole. There is an overriding guideline - if not something stronger - that
stuff doesn't just exist.
There is always a cause.
A universe that has always been here OR a universe that arose out of nothing both strike me as running counter to the underlying spirit of science. I think science has a bias towards non-existence - call it a version of Occam's razor but raised to cosmological heights on this issue. It is best to assume somethign does not exist unless we have proof it does. So we start from this non-existence and then is something exists we assume it is there because of something prior.
There is no possiblity this is the case as far as my deductive intuition goes.
A steady state universe (or a parallel metauniverse with subuniverses that go through Bangs and Chrunches) has no cause for existing, except itself. Which ends up being something like the goofy descriptions of God from theology - without a personality: uncaused causes and the like.
So my reaction/assessment that the universe is miraculous is also an ironic application of what I think are guiding principles in scientific methodology and, only more so, in the minds of scientists, and most of all, in those who are not scientists, but consider all knowledge coming only from science. (not that they live like this)
_________________________________________________________________
Note: none of the above should be seen as me laying out an argument that I think should convince you. I am sharing as much as I can of what is partially a black boxed intuitive process. We have different experiences, strengths and weaknesses. I assume you will continue to be skeptical and agnostic on the issue. On the other hand I do think you should be agnostic about whether my processes are good ones for ME to use.
I could not look at a recently found work of art that is purported to be by Gaughin and have a chance of determining if this was the case - even though I have a pretty good eye for paintings. On the other hand there are people who could in one glance determine such a thing in many, many cases. They might be able to hindsight explain why they are certain. Others, non-professionals, might not be able to do this. And their estimates are not guesses.
In fact I would like to point out that I intuitively felt there was something off about your raising the issue of odds. No matter what the odds are, even if I had some method to calculate them or know them, these would not support a case that it was a miracle. Unless that was your point. But then your statement about learning something comes off as snide and I don't think it was intended that way.
I has some afterthoughts:
you used the analogy of the magician trick and me potentially falling for it and thinking it is a miracle. I realized after mulling that you have approached my response as if it was some kind of inductive guesstimate. In fact it is more of a deductive intuitive one. Let's place your analogy front and center. If the universe was actually a magician's trick and I found this out would I reliquish my position that the universe is miraculous. No. Not because this would be an amazing feat, but this magician is miraculous - not because of his or her or its tricks, but because it is around. The analogy is remarkably like various theisms actually, with God as magician.
My reaction is not inductive - sloppily arrived at or somehow calculated - and this should be obvious. Let's say there is a 1 in a 100 chance there would be a universe (or this particular one). And then we compare this to the situation where we find out it is a 1 in a googleplex chance there is a universe. To me each of these situations is miraculous - and really weird ta boot. I consider the any
odds
conditions
potentialities
subsumable in what is miraculous. There is not
the universe
and then over here
odds potentialities conditions
Those are a part of everything.
There was a period in physics where physicists spoke - with some consensus - of the Big Bang as the beginning of both space AND TIME. IOW that, however counterintuitive, there is a beginning with no before. Added to this hypothesis was the idea that nothingness is unstable, as it were, and could 'break apart' or sort of borrow on negative particles, etc., and a universe could arise. Any of this would strike me as miraculous.
On the other hand, theories, religious or scientific, it really doesn't matter, that explain things as, basically, turtles all the way down - strike me as
miraculous.
That there always has been something strikes me as miraculous.
It's ironic, but to me theism is also an attempt to make banal this situation. There is a God who made stuff. Whew, now we know. The atheist objection that this just pushes the issue one step back is a valid one in relation to the issue we are dealing with. Why is there a God? Whatever the answer is really strange.
__________________________________________________________________
A second thing is happening when I say it is miraculous. I have been reluctant to approach it from this angle because I have a good guess how this will be dismissed.
However much my beliefs are based on things not currently verifiable by science, I have studied a good deal of science, also at the college level. I can see the world through that peep hole. There is an overriding guideline - if not something stronger - that
stuff doesn't just exist.
There is always a cause.
A universe that has always been here OR a universe that arose out of nothing both strike me as running counter to the underlying spirit of science. I think science has a bias towards non-existence - call it a version of Occam's razor but raised to cosmological heights on this issue. It is best to assume somethign does not exist unless we have proof it does. So we start from this non-existence and then is something exists we assume it is there because of something prior.
There is no possiblity this is the case as far as my deductive intuition goes.
A steady state universe (or a parallel metauniverse with subuniverses that go through Bangs and Chrunches) has no cause for existing, except itself. Which ends up being something like the goofy descriptions of God from theology - without a personality: uncaused causes and the like.
So my reaction/assessment that the universe is miraculous is also an ironic application of what I think are guiding principles in scientific methodology and, only more so, in the minds of scientists, and most of all, in those who are not scientists, but consider all knowledge coming only from science. (not that they live like this)
_________________________________________________________________
Note: none of the above should be seen as me laying out an argument that I think should convince you. I am sharing as much as I can of what is partially a black boxed intuitive process. We have different experiences, strengths and weaknesses. I assume you will continue to be skeptical and agnostic on the issue. On the other hand I do think you should be agnostic about whether my processes are good ones for ME to use.
I could not look at a recently found work of art that is purported to be by Gaughin and have a chance of determining if this was the case - even though I have a pretty good eye for paintings. On the other hand there are people who could in one glance determine such a thing in many, many cases. They might be able to hindsight explain why they are certain. Others, non-professionals, might not be able to do this. And their estimates are not guesses.
In fact I would like to point out that I intuitively felt there was something off about your raising the issue of odds. No matter what the odds are, even if I had some method to calculate them or know them, these would not support a case that it was a miracle. Unless that was your point. But then your statement about learning something comes off as snide and I don't think it was intended that way.
Last edited:
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
5% relative to what? It's like you're asking all of us, "What's the difference between a duck?"
<maybe I should add an entry to favorite swansontisms>
who is she??
Again, since detected involved something that detects this is not a quality of matter. And this is granting that subjects and objects are separate - iow not following the more parsimonious phenomenalism which would say we do not know there is an 'out there' that is experienced by an 'in here'. All we know for sure is that there are phenomena. Hence this attribution of 'qualities' such as detectableness to 'something' 'out there' is already running into Occam's Razor and fairing poorly. The whole entity 'out there' - something separated out from phenomena and reified - is an unnecessary entity. We give a name to anything we decide exists. I do not think that is a quality of the 'thing'. Even if subjects and objects are really separate and phenomena are merely a sort of communication between the two.
It also makes these qualities radically contingent. Something noticed by a homo sapien. Or really, a hypothesized portion of a phenomenon that includes the hypothesized homo sapien observer as the other portion. The set is necessarily always incomplete and certainly not objective. Let alone the meaningfulness of any of these qualities in language - iow assertions in language about these qualities being objective. Everyone seems to have this point where they stop applying Occam and rely on their intuitive sense of what is going on.
You do seem to be honing the skills for the use of detectable instead of physical or material as the category. I believe you preferred the terms material/materialism when I had a thread attacking the use of that term. Have I indirectly swayed you?
('Detectablism' really does draw a line between current physics and its metaphysical past.
and avoids all the baggage of the older term. Physicalism, more popular as the term these days, is also similarly problematic.)EDIT: I just noticed that this whole issue is a tangent and your response does not counter my original point even if I grant you that detectable is a quality of things.....
”
The point is that anything that is detected will be called material or physical. The claim that there is only matter or physical things cannot be falsified.
If you and I are similar, and I mean fundamentally, then what you describe is an official opinion arrived at AFTER reactions and assessments. I would guess if we followed the patterns of when you react strongly with this agnositicism and when you do not react, we could make some good estimates of what your assessements are before the creation of an official opinion. But then you may be fundamentally different from me. But I am still skeptical.
OK, I was going by 'that's the point', whose focus I now understand better.
Wonderfully articulated, thank you.
Without knowing my experiences or my process, how can you disagree with it and my conclusion? I liked the previous quote which I complimented above, precisely because it left open agnosticism, it seemed, in relation not simply to the conclusion but to my process. Now it seems you taking that back. I may not be 'hurtling off' but you seem to think there must be some other error. (and again, I was not insulted by 'hurtling off', I just felt it indicated an assessment.)
But you are calling them wonders as if they have certain qualities. You then admit the black box of these qualities - we do not know what they are - but they are in those things. I think you will have a hard time convincing neurophysicists that you are not projections qualia onto objects. If you simply say you feel a sense of wonder when regarding X, that is one thing. But if you refer to them as wonders, that is a different story.
Ah, but 'I don't know' would apply, I assume, which sometimes seemed to be equivalent to an agnostic stance in your responses. I would also find it interesting if you now consider a conclusion about my process and conclusion 'knowable.' Of course one can always weigh in, the issue is whether it is knowable for you. At least that's my sense of 'agnostic'.
Then your own. IOW if you are judging/assessing me to be hurtling off in a particular instance, you are referring to my actions- in thought - and not simply what it would be for you given what you know and are good at and have experienced. I don't think you have any way of determining this. You may be able to evaluate certain kinds of thinking processes I write down here, but the specific act of hurtling off or assessing correctly I made here in this thread, I don't see where you have any sample to go on.
Last edited:
miracles understood in a religious context is erroneous because it doesn't take into account reality. there is some belief that something can come from nothing which is irresponsible.
there was a true story of a couple that prayed for an organ for their child that was dying. a woman who was unrelated to them was driving and her young son strangely said out of the blue that if he dies, he wants to be an organ donor. the mother related later that she sensed it was unusual as well as sad. that week her son died suddenly in an accident and he became the organ donor and the 'miracle' the other couple were seeking. this is not a miracle in the sense, something does not come from nothing.
i heard another story of a man who prayed for a hundred thousand dollars. his son died and collected exactly a hundred thousand dollars in insurance money.
so in conclusion, there are no miracles. there is just cause and effect.
there was a true story of a couple that prayed for an organ for their child that was dying. a woman who was unrelated to them was driving and her young son strangely said out of the blue that if he dies, he wants to be an organ donor. the mother related later that she sensed it was unusual as well as sad. that week her son died suddenly in an accident and he became the organ donor and the 'miracle' the other couple were seeking. this is not a miracle in the sense, something does not come from nothing.
i heard another story of a man who prayed for a hundred thousand dollars. his son died and collected exactly a hundred thousand dollars in insurance money.
so in conclusion, there are no miracles. there is just cause and effect.
Last edited:
I think a miracle is something whose explanation has not yet been understood. All miracles are potentially logical
See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s30b3VDjVuQ
See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s30b3VDjVuQ
Last edited: