Kevin's Watch

The individual is always wrong, so once you stop being an individual, you , too, can start being right. Only you won't be you...

dw

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Well, as soon as a miracle takes place, we'll see what I think of it. I've never heard of any. Millions and millions of people have video cams in there cell phones. But I've never seen anything posted online, which is very easy to do. And news gets around the world pretty quickly in this day and age. But it doesn't seem that any miracles (or UFOs) are being seen. Are there any you know about that I should be looking into?

That depends entirely upon your definition of "miracle". Something which is a miracle to other people might not seem like a miracle to you but does that make it any less miraculous?

A miracle is something that cannot happen, but does. What do you have in mind? I don't believe in them, not having seen one. This is not evidence that I would not believe in them if I do see one. That is an unreasonable thing to think of me.

Fist and Faith wrote: A miracle is something that cannot happen, but does. What do you have in mind? I don't believe in them, not having seen one. This is not evidence that I would not believe in them if I do see one. That is an unreasonable thing to think of me.

I don't have anything particular in mind and I didn't say that you didn't have the capacity to fully appreciate one, should you see one. I haven't seen any miracles, myself.

I was talking to rus when I said the part about having the capacity to appreciate one.

But I can't know whether or not something that's a miracle to you (or rus, or anybody else) is a miracle to me unless I know what's a miracle to you. Some people will say a plant growing is a miracle, and I should believe in miracles because of that. That's all kinds of poetic, which I appreciate. But a plant growing does not defy the natural laws of the earth or the universe.

I gotta tell ya, Fist, when it comes to miracles and you, I think rus has a point. I have a feeling that if somebody with a halo around his head materialized in front of you and turned water into wine, you'd make yourself crazy looking for the holographic projector.

I agree that some folks toss around the term "miracle" almost indiscriminately these days. Any sort of happy coincidence calls for the "m" word, from finding your lost car keys in an unlikely place to stumbling across the only doctor in a 100-mile radius who could properly diagnose your illness. I agree with you that growing a plant from a seed doesn't qualify as miraculous. Growing a Lexus from a seed, yeah. But a plant sprouting from a seed simply means that the world is proceeding as it should. (Ditto, imho, for two humans mating and producing a baby human. I just can't get all worked up over this so-called "miracle of life". Which is probably a big reason why emotional arguments against abortion don't grab me. But I digress.)

But that said, Fist, I think your definition is a little too strict.

Fist and Faith wrote:A miracle is something that cannot happen, but does.

Hmm. So if you find yourself thinking about a friend all day, somebody you haven't heard from in years, and then that person calls you -- okay, maybe that's a remarkable coincidence. Or maybe it's ESP, or harmonic vibrations in the ether. Or maybe it's a little miracle.

Or what if you're scraping up pennies to take the kids out for a hamburger, and you call the bank to see whether your unemployment check has showed up -- and instead, you find out that a former employer realized it shorted your pay by more than $400, and has direct-deposited it for you. (Which actually happened to me once.) Coincidence? The Universe unfolding as it should? Or a little magic?

Or maybe you're puzzling over a problem, and you happen to notice the same image keeps popping up in front of you -- either in your mind's eye or even in reality -- and you realize that image holds the solution to your problem. Maybe the image even had to whack you upside the head to get your attention. Was your subconscious pointing you toward the solution all along? Or did Something nudge you to finally notice?

You can certainly call these sorts of things coincidences, or luck. But the farther out on the probability spectrum they sit, and the more frequently you notice them happening -- well, you have to begin to wonder whether there's another explanation.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:The individual is always wrong, so once you stop being an individual, you , too, can start being right. Only you won't be you...

dw

Ah, ad hominem...

Well, I think one can be completely oneself while submitting to an authority greater than oneself. So in terms of truth I admit that when I go on my own, I am very likely to be wrong. When I refer to a corporate truth outside and external to myself (Hey, if repetition and synonyms were good enough for the Hebrews, they're good enough for me!) and that can tell me if and when I am wrong, then I can be right, because I know that the source of truth is not me - and I don't cease being me for a minute - no sacrifice of my individual personality at all.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Well, as soon as a miracle takes place, we'll see what I think of it. I've never heard of any. Millions and millions of people have video cams in there cell phones. But I've never seen anything posted online, which is very easy to do. And news gets around the world pretty quickly in this day and age. But it doesn't seem that any miracles (or UFOs) are being seen. Are there any you know about that I should be looking into?

That depends entirely upon your definition of "miracle". Something which is a miracle to other people might not seem like a miracle to you but does that make it any less miraculous?

A miracle is something that cannot happen, but does. What do you have in mind? I don't believe in them, not having seen one. This is not evidence that I would not believe in them if I do see one. That is an unreasonable thing to think of me.

But there's the rub, Fist - how would you know it was a miracle? Is it not possible to explain things away, to rationalize them, even true things? Can not a person do that - if they believe there are no miracles, that everything has an ultimately natural explanation - if your reference is the white European looking at aborigines shivering at thunder and lightning, and he reveling in his own superiority, then that is how you would see any miracle - even an amazing one.

I'm not trying to pigeon hole you and say that you cannot believe in miracles - but IF a person DOES think that all things have natural explanations, then they have a dogma that makes believing in miracles impossible for them. It wouldn't matter what they saw. So what in you enables the acknowledgement of the possibility of miracles?

(Lewis's book on the topic really is great - I believe you started it at one time - might be worth having another go at it?)

aliantha wrote:I gotta tell ya, Fist, when it comes to miracles and you, I think rus has a point. I have a feeling that if somebody with a halo around his head materialized in front of you and turned water into wine, you'd make yourself crazy looking for the holographic projector.

I agree that some folks toss around the term "miracle" almost indiscriminately these days. Any sort of happy coincidence calls for the "m" word, from finding your lost car keys in an unlikely place to stumbling across the only doctor in a 100-mile radius who could properly diagnose your illness. I agree with you that growing a plant from a seed doesn't qualify as miraculous. Growing a Lexus from a seed, yeah. But a plant sprouting from a seed simply means that the world is proceeding as it should. (Ditto, imho, for two humans mating and producing a baby human. I just can't get all worked up over this so-called "miracle of life". Which is probably a big reason why emotional arguments against abortion don't grab me. But I digress.)

But that said, Fist, I think your definition is a little too strict.

Fist and Faith wrote:A miracle is something that cannot happen, but does.

Hmm. So if you find yourself thinking about a friend all day, somebody you haven't heard from in years, and then that person calls you -- okay, maybe that's a remarkable coincidence. Or maybe it's ESP, or harmonic vibrations in the ether. Or maybe it's a little miracle.

Or what if you're scraping up pennies to take the kids out for a hamburger, and you call the bank to see whether your unemployment check has showed up -- and instead, you find out that a former employer realized it shorted your pay by more than $400, and has direct-deposited it for you. (Which actually happened to me once.) Coincidence? The Universe unfolding as it should? Or a little magic?

Or maybe you're puzzling over a problem, and you happen to notice the same image keeps popping up in front of you -- either in your mind's eye or even in reality -- and you realize that image holds the solution to your problem. Maybe the image even had to whack you upside the head to get your attention. Was your subconscious pointing you toward the solution all along? Or did Something nudge you to finally notice?

You can certainly call these sorts of things coincidences, or luck. But the farther out on the probability spectrum they sit, and the more frequently you notice them happening -- well, you have to begin to wonder whether there's another explanation.

Hurray! Ali and I see eye-to-eye on something!!! (Dances with joy)

Yes, a rare occurrence. Now if Cail joined you two... heh

No, ali, you are not talking about miracles. It doesn't matter how far out on the probability spectrum something is. If there's any probability of it happening, it's not a miracle. A miracle isn't something that's improbable; it's something that's impossible. It's impossible for someone to walk on water. It's impossible for someone to turn a jug of water into wine. It's impossible for someone to be dead for three days, then get up and continue living.

Fist and Faith wrote:It doesn't matter how far out on the probability spectrum something is. If there's any probability of it happening, it's not a miracle. A miracle isn't something that's improbable; it's something that's impossible.

Unfortunately, that is a matter of personal opinion. If an event has a probability of occurring of only 10^-25 and some people see it, they might call it a miracle. Some people consider being alive another day as a miracle.

The definition of "miracle" depends upon the individual person.

Fist and Faith wrote: Yes, a rare occurrence. Now if Cail joined you two... heh

No, ali, you are not talking about miracles. It doesn't matter how far out on the probability spectrum something is. If there's any probability of it happening, it's not a miracle. A miracle isn't something that's improbable; it's something that's impossible. It's impossible for someone to walk on water. It's impossible for someone to turn a jug of water into wine. It's impossible for someone to be dead for three days, then get up and continue living.

Well...this would lead [in what I think is a Rus-like argument that would probably be correct] to a few problems. For instance many peeps [and I might be one of them...maybe...I don't think I'll know till I see something that seems truly miraculous] the fact that something "impossible" happened only shows we didn't understand what was possible. If it can't happen, but it does, that only proves it can happen, so we aren't looking at a miracle, we're looking to find out why we were wrong about "can't." [I'm pretty sure I saw, once upon a time, someone claiming that the resurrection was a conspiracy...Jesus wasn't really dead, it was a plot involving some secret herb that simulated death, and paid-off romans. Bad genre work, in other words.]

Fist and Faith wrote: Yes, a rare occurrence. Now if Cail joined you two... heh

No, ali, you are not talking about miracles. It doesn't matter how far out on the probability spectrum something is. If there's any probability of it happening, it's not a miracle. A miracle isn't something that's improbable; it's something that's impossible. It's impossible for someone to walk on water. It's impossible for someone to turn a jug of water into wine. It's impossible for someone to be dead for three days, then get up and continue living.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote: Unfortunately, that is a matter of personal opinion. If an event has a probability of occurring of only 10^-25 and some people see it, they might call it a miracle. Some people consider being alive another day as a miracle.

The definition of "miracle" depends upon the individual person.

Hi Hashi!
I have to say that I think Fist is more right here. Most precise speech would be to say that a miracle is something impossible according to natural laws as we know them - or so improbable that a super-natural explanation is more probable than an extremely probable natural explanation, and that the believer's understanding of miracle is that of super-natural interference into the natural world.

If definitions depend on individual people, then we cannot effectively communicate at all. If my definition of "definition" differs from yours, we are already speaking different languages while appearing to speak the same one. "Most" in English is an adverb. In Russian, "most" is a noun (what we call "a bridge"). So how do I understand "It's the most I can do?" If we don't have a common understanding, I could translate it as "It's the bridge I can make/build" - only that wouldn't be your intent. It would be a translation failure on my part.

Father Brown wrote:‘Not at all,’ replied the priest calmly; ‘it’s not the supernatural part I doubt. It’s the natural part. I’m exactly in the position of the man who said, ‘I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable.’’

‘That’s what you call a paradox, isn’t it?’ asked the other.

‘It’s what I call common sense, properly understood,’ replied Father Brown. ’It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don’t understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it’s only incredible. But I’m much more certain it didn’t happen than that Parnell’s ghost didn’t appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand.

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/chesterton/gk/c52fb/chapter29.html

Fist and Faith wrote:Well, as soon as a miracle takes place, we'll see what I think of it. I've never heard of any. Millions and millions of people have video cams in there cell phones. But I've never seen anything posted online, which is very easy to do. And news gets around the world pretty quickly in this day and age. But it doesn't seem that any miracles (or UFOs) are being seen. Are there any you know about that I should be looking into?

And do you object to attempts to look for fraud? If the movie Stigmata is accurate in at least this one way, the Catholic Church has priests who go around trying to make sure this or that reported miracle is legit. How often do they find it to be a hoax? Or a mistake? Or wishful thinking?

Finally, no, you don't say I fall into the rule because of our interactions over the years. You say it because of your misinterpretation of our interactions. I have never known a reason to believe there is anyting of a religious or supernatural nature. No explanations for the supernatural are more logical - are a better answer - than the explanations for the natural. And, in some cases, the explanation for the supernatural can be applied to the natural just as easily, eliminating the need for the supernatural. None of that is remotely the same as saying I would not believe a resurrection took place if I saw one.

Hmmm. I have heard of a great many miracles. perhaps you're looking in the wrong places? From the Catholic claims of Lourdes, to the holy fire in Jerusalem, we have active claims of recurring miracles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

No objections at all into fraud investigation. I would hope you've gotten sufficient sense of me by now to know that.

I guess the question to pose to you is, are miracles possible or impossible? "I don't know" would imply possibility. If you can acknowledge the possibility of supernatural intervention, with or without proof of it actually having happened, that would be a truly neutral stance. The person who denies the possibility is not neutral. They have taken a dogmatic stand.

rusmeister wrote:No objections at all into fraud investigation. I would hope you've gotten sufficient sense of me by now to know that.

But it's not ok for me to investigate for fraud.

rusmeister wrote:You'd explain it away, whether as a blob of mustard or gravy, like Scrooge did re: Jacob Marley, or as hallucination, or that the person hadn't REALLY died, or God knows what other efforts to explain a miracle away.

I shouldn't look into such possibilities. If I hear a story that someone died a week ago, and came back to life today, I must accept it as a miracle, and proof of the supernatural (or possibly of your worldview). Something's wrong here.

Miracles...

Mom would have loved this conversation. I bet she would have had alot to say.

No, your mother wouldn't usually get involved with us. Can't blame her, either. heh

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:No objections at all into fraud investigation. I would hope you've gotten sufficient sense of me by now to know that.

But it's not ok for me to investigate for fraud.

rusmeister wrote:You'd explain it away, whether as a blob of mustard or gravy, like Scrooge did re: Jacob Marley, or as hallucination, or that the person hadn't REALLY died, or God knows what other efforts to explain a miracle away.

I shouldn't look into such possibilities. If I hear a story that someone died a week ago, and came back to life today, I must accept it as a miracle, and proof of the supernatural (or possibly of your worldview). Something's wrong here.

Obviously, it's not obvious to you that I'm not saying that.

There's a difference between asking whether a miracle could be a hoax or could it be true, and beginning with an assumption that all events MUST have natural explanations. The tendency of the committed materialist unbeliever is to start with the latter. There never is room for allowing that a miracle could actually BE a miracle. (Note my use of "never" in the light of "tendency" - I guess I have to point constantly to the basic principle I take for granted of rules and exceptions.)

Yeah, I have to agree with Fist, here - she wouldn't want to get involved with us - although I'd be coming down squarely on her side. Fist and I are both people who prefer complex answers to the complex questions of an incredibly complex life. It struck me (from my limited exposure to her posting) that your mother was happy seeing things in simpler terms - and that's fine with me - most people in the world are like that - the intellectual debaters are in a minority, both inside and outside believe. Furl's did not come across as a debater at all. Love - her expression of it -was her keynote. (My own manner and perception of loving my neighbor differs considerably here.)

I still think a perusal - a second go - at Lewis's "Miracles" would greatly add to the conversation for us debaters who like exploring the intellectual twists and turns.

rusmeister wrote:There's a difference between asking whether a miracle could be a hoax or could it be true, and beginning with an assumption that all events MUST have natural explanations. The tendency of the committed materialist unbeliever is to start with the latter. There never is room for allowing that a miracle could actually BE a miracle. (Note my use of "never" in the light of "tendency" - I guess I have to point constantly to the basic principle I take for granted of rules and exceptions.)

There's a difference between asking whether a miracle could be a hoax or could it be true, and beginning with an assumption that it almost CERTAINLY is a miracle. And your tendency is that, if someone makes a claim to have witnessed a miracle, they most likely did. And if, in the unlikely event, it turns out that the cause was natural, it was probably all arranged by God anyway, just to demonstrate how quickly I would jump to what turned out the be the correct assumption.


Regarding Miracles, although I don't remember what it is off the top of my head, I disagree with the basic assumption. Is there a point in reading a chain of thoughts that are based on an incorrect assumption? Would you bother? Every conclusion based on it is wrong.


Regarding Tracie... The difference between how you go about expressing your faith and how she did is caused by the foundation of your respective faiths. Tracie saw... Well, Brooke can tell us a lot more specifics than I can. But she saw her brother, and Isaiah, and any number of other other things. Not in any vague way. Not in her dreams. At least not only in her dreams. She talked about what her experiences were. How does one debate such a thing with those who have never experienced it?

Not so with you. Although I don't find your reason and logic to be reasonable and logical, you do. You believe your faith is founded on that; and, so, that's how you present it.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:There's a difference between asking whether a miracle could be a hoax or could it be true, and beginning with an assumption that all events MUST have natural explanations. The tendency of the committed materialist unbeliever is to start with the latter. There never is room for allowing that a miracle could actually BE a miracle. (Note my use of "never" in the light of "tendency" - I guess I have to point constantly to the basic principle I take for granted of rules and exceptions.)

There's a difference between asking whether a miracle could be a hoax or could it be true, and beginning with an assumption that it almost CERTAINLY is a miracle. And your tendency is that, if someone makes a claim to have witnessed a miracle, they most likely did. And if, in the unlikely event, it turns out that the cause was natural, it was probably all arranged by God anyway, just to demonstrate how quickly I would jump to what turned out the be the correct assumption.


Regarding Miracles, although I don't remember what it is off the top of my head, I disagree with the basic assumption. Is there a point in reading a chain of thoughts that are based on an incorrect assumption? Would you bother? Every conclusion based on it is wrong.

On the first, I do think it improbable that of the countless miracles reported (true or false) throughout history were the result of mendacity and hoax. I think reports, even legends,are usually based on a truth, however legendary the story might become in the process. I am agnostic about an enormous number of claims, and give greater credence primarily to those generally accepted by the Orthodox Church. But I certainly do not think all, or even a majority, of reports of miracles to be completely true.

On the second, this is surely proven to your satisfaction but unproven in public debate. It's just like when you refuse to expound on why Chesterton is wrong and insist on only debating me in my own words. Your assertion is no evidence for third parties. My opinion is that a refusal to directly confront the original authors in 'direct combat' is much more easily explained by an inability to defeat the ideas of those authors than by simply accepting a person's word that the writer is wrong. It is the refusal that is the strange thing and suspicious to the honest inquirer, who should always be ready to tackle the ideas of anyone, and not to discriminate against someone's ideas merely because they have died.

So OK, for everyone else except you Lewis's work would offer interesting thought - even if it were only thought they disagreed with, they wouldn't be able to say that the thought and consideration was unintelligent.