If You Don't Think Miracles Are Possible.....

a reply to: danielsil18

So people who believe in quantum mechanics but don't understand it don't have faith in the science behind it?

a reply to: danielsil18

Dear danielsil18,

Thank you very much for responding, it will give us a chance to understand each other better. Actually, I'm going to need to understand you better. Unless someone else has earned the title, I've been called Mr. Confusion because of the difficulty I sometimes have understanding simple things.

I never said there is nothing "beyond nature".

Well, now here's your chance. Do you believe that everything is explainable completely by the forces we can observe and measure? (Since the physicists tell me that matter is really energy doing a polka or something in it' orbits or quarks or muons or whatever.)

Or, do you believe that there is something beyond (or outside, or above, or whatever) the forces and particles we can observe and measure?

Or, are you undecided?

My point is that there is no need for beliefs, we don't know what happened yet.

Here, I must disagree. I'm not asking about proof, I'm asking about your belief or opinion. Go back to the three choices I've presented. Since we can't prove any of them, and materialism is still a very disreputable philosophy, you can only have belief in one of the choices, and not proof.

I won't call it a miracle because we don't know what happened and if we never find out then I'll die saying that i don't know what happened.

If it was a miracle, then science will be unable to tell us what happened. Ever. Until the end of time. You have decided that if it really was a miracle, inexplicable by science, you will go to your grave believing that it wasn't a miracle (because we don't know what happened). It seems that you have ruled out the possibility of the miraculous, even when science throws up its hands and says "Got me. Science has no explanation."

At what point do you say "Miracles could be the cause and explanation, Science offers no cause or explanation, the rational thing for me to do is accept the miracle explanation until there is evidence to show otherwise?" Doesn't science demand that? Certainly, look for scientific evidence, but until you find some, why reject miracles? Have you pre-judged them to be impossible?

Lightning? "Hey Og! What makes those flashes? Got me, Oook. Let's see what we can find out. Until then, let's go with what we've got." Of course, now, science should look at ALL possible explanations and try to get evidence to prove or disprove each of the explanations.

Great talking with you.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It's not about believing, it's about understanding it.

A person should be studying about quantum mechanics instead of having "faith" in it.

A person who doesn't understand quantum mechanics should be saying "I don't understand quantum mechanics" instead of "I have faith that it's true".

a reply to: danielsil18

But if they believe it's true without understanding it....



Believing evolution is true is a form of faith because even scientists don't understand how it happens, only that it does. It's a hypothesis based on speculation.

By the way, I believe in evolution and natural selection. I don't believe in a biblical or supernatural god either.

a reply to: charles1952

For your first question. I try not to put beliefs in anything, if I don't know something then I'll just say that I don't know.

Is there something beyond? I don't know.

Is the baby alive by natural or supernatural means? I don't know.

I always try to keep it simple. If I don't know something then I'll just simply say that I don't know. I'm not saying that it wasn't supernatural, I'm just saying what it is, I don't know.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The Theory of Evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a theory.

Not one theory tries to prove something, they all give an explanation for the facts of life.

Edit: Actually I don't want to derail the thread too much.

a reply to: danielsil18

Dear danielsil18,

I'm really happy that you've decide to stick around. It seems like there is much that I can learn, and I applaud your choice to enter medicine. Here's something you can clear up for me.

Let's start with the assumption that life came from dead matter banging around for umpty zillion years. It then grew and developed, again by random activity. More and more randomness followed by a time when things that could get food or protect themselves died off.

Then came brains, thought, and consciousness. (Last I heard, Science was still working on the question of how consciousness arose, but I expect you're up on the newer studies.) These thoughts were created by random activities of, well, whatever is inside brains. Certainly the thoughts weren't made possible by God (says science), they were based in random movements.

How does random movement create non-random thought? How is the effect greater than the cause? if our thoughts are based in randomness, who can say that a particular thought is better than another, except, perhaps, by majority vote? Indeed, if the thought that everything in our brains can be accounted for by random movements, why is that any better explanation than any other?

Where do you get the idea of truth, or the accurate understanding of reality, if even those ideas are based in random molecular collisions?

I'm sure you have the answers, I'm not knowledgeable in this field after all.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Certainly the thoughts weren't made possible by God (says science)

Actually science doesn't say that. Just like the Big Bang Theory doesn't say it all happened naturally.

The brain is very, very complicated. One of the big questions is where does consciousness come from? We don't know yet. The brain still has it's big mysteries.

Where do you get the idea of truth, or the accurate understanding of reality, if even those ideas are based in random molecular collisions?

We get our understanding of reality the best way we can. By seeing, touching, hearing, smelling and tasting.

That's the best we can do, using what we have.


I didn't understand your question about random movement and non random thoughts.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: charles1952

I never said there is nothing "beyond nature".

My point is that there is no need for beliefs, we don't know what happened yet.

I won't call it a miracle because we don't know what happened and if we never find out then I'll die saying that i don't know what happened.

You would have said lightning were miracles too if we didn't know how they are created.

The point Charles was making is that after 3,000 + years of anatomy research, you claim we are still learning about the body and how it functions. Has the last several thousand years of scientific inquiry not sufficient enough that the medical doctors who are not new at this, who went to medical school, finished their residency, who understand what death is, have no natural explanation for a very natural death that comes to life, after that many minutes?

Yes, it has to everything to do with belief, as you believe science has answers but hasn't provided you with any yet, you have faith that it will. Science, to you, holds the keys to life and death, so you wait upon it, hoping it will give you the answer you want. Science isn't doing it this time, so you dismiss faith in miracles, holding fast to faith in science. So it is about belief.

Not everything in the world can be explained by science, but science is not the authority on the world, it simply explains what it thinks is the answer. When you believe science is the authority with the answers, then you have faith in it and it is a belief system.

originally posted by: danielsil18
That's the logic of "I don't know how it happened, therefore a miracle" or "... therefore god".

We are still learning about the human body.

There is no shame in saying that i don't know what actually happened. There is no need for beliefs. But I'm happy for everyone, I can't imagine the happiness the mother must have felt.

There is also no shame in admitting that there are things that will never be explained by "science" and can be attributed to a higher power for those who feel that is the answer. Why do atheists think that a supreme being and science cannot coexist?? Science explains how things work, not how they came to be.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: charles1952

Certainly the thoughts weren't made possible by God (says science)

Actually science doesn't say that. Just like the Big Bang Theory doesn't say it all happened naturally.

The brain is very, very complicated. One of the big questions is where does consciousness come from? We don't know yet. The brain still has it's big mysteries.

Where do you get the idea of truth, or the accurate understanding of reality, if even those ideas are based in random molecular collisions?

We get our understanding of reality the best way we can. By seeing, touching, hearing, smelling and tasting.

That's the best we can do, using what we have.


I didn't understand your question about random movement and non random thoughts.

What do you think about Dr. Leonard Susskind's assertion that this is a holographic world and we are not actually real? We are holograms.

I understand what Charles is asking. He wants to know from you your thoughts on how does randomness create non-random? Kind of like, out of chaos, order.

Do you have random thought processes, or are they non-random. And if they are non-random, then what was the mechanism that compiled and indexed the various parts to make a precise thought?

And your eyes can fool you, and you might not hear what a person is really saying, or you might feel part of something and not the whole thing. Sure, you can observe that gasoline has a certain color, a specific smell, that it feels oily, but then can scientists explain why some people choose to randomly think that huffing gasoline is a good idea?

Scientists can't other than saying they have a mental illness. Is that really the case or were they victims of random thoughts not brought unto non-random order?

a reply to: WarminIndy

The point Charles was making is that after 3,000 + years of anatomy research, you claim we are still learning about the body and how it functions. Has the last several thousand years of scientific inquiry not sufficient enough that the medical doctors who are not new at this, who went to medical school, finished their residency, who understand what death is, have no natural explanation for a very natural death that comes to life, after that many minutes?

We are still learning about the human body. If you think we know everything there is to know about the human body then you are mistaken.

Yes, it has to everything to do with belief, as you believe science has answers but hasn't provided you with any yet, you have faith that it will. Science, to you, holds the keys to life and death, so you wait upon it, hoping it will give you the answer you want. Science isn't doing it this time, so you dismiss faith in miracles, holding fast to faith in science. So it is about belief.

I don't have faith in anything. If I don't know something then I'll tell you that I don't know, i won't make up a belief.

Not everything in the world can be explained by science, but science is not the authority on the world, it simply explains what it thinks is the answer. When you believe science is the authority with the answers, then you have faith in it and it is a belief system.

That's an assumption. How would you know that science won't be able to explain everything?

I'll repeat again, I don't have faith in anything and science doesn't require faith, it's all about understanding it.

What requires faith is religion and other beliefs like miracles, not science since it can be understood by studying it.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

There is also no shame in admitting that there are things that will never be explained by "science" and can be attributed to a higher power for those who feel that is the answer. Why do atheists think that a supreme being and science cannot coexist?? Science explains how things work, not how they came to be.

Come on guys.... How many of you are going to continue with the assumption that "there are things science will Never be able to explain? How would you know that?

Answer me this, where did I say that a supreme being and science can't coexist?

a reply to: WarminIndy

What do you think about Dr. Leonard Susskind's assertion that this is a holographic world and we are not actually real? We are holograms.

I think that it's an assumption.

I understand what Charles is asking. He wants to know from you your thoughts on how does randomness create non-random? Kind of like, out of chaos, order.

I don't know.

Do you have random thought processes, or are they non-random. And if they are non-random, then what was the mechanism that compiled and indexed the various parts to make a precise thought?

I don't know if they are random.

And your eyes can fool you, and you might not hear what a person is really saying, or you might feel part of something and not the whole thing. Sure, you can observe that gasoline has a certain color, a specific smell, that it feels oily, but then can scientists explain why some people choose to randomly think that huffing gasoline is a good idea?

Yes our eyes can fool us, but that's the best thing have for sight. All we can do is use what we have.

People do drugs because they are not mentally healthy.

Scientists can't other than saying they have a mental illness. Is that really the case or were they victims of random thoughts not brought unto non-random order?

That is the case, they are not mentally healthy. No need to add beliefs.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: WarminIndy

What do you think about Dr. Leonard Susskind's assertion that this is a holographic world and we are not actually real? We are holograms.

I think that it's an assumption.

I understand what Charles is asking. He wants to know from you your thoughts on how does randomness create non-random? Kind of like, out of chaos, order.

I don't know.

Do you have random thought processes, or are they non-random. And if they are non-random, then what was the mechanism that compiled and indexed the various parts to make a precise thought?

I don't know if they are random.

And your eyes can fool you, and you might not hear what a person is really saying, or you might feel part of something and not the whole thing. Sure, you can observe that gasoline has a certain color, a specific smell, that it feels oily, but then can scientists explain why some people choose to randomly think that huffing gasoline is a good idea?

Yes our eyes can fool us, but that's the best thing have for sight. All we can do is use what we have.

People do drugs because they are not mentally healthy.

Scientists can't other than saying they have a mental illness. Is that really the case or were they victims of random thoughts not brought unto non-random order?

That is the case, they are not mentally healthy. No need to add beliefs.

Assumptions on your part for every statement. You have never evaluated a single person who huffs gasoline, smokes pot, shoots up heroin, sells meth, jumps off buildings while high on PCP. No, you haven't evaluated them, so you made a Non Sequitur call.

This whole "I don't have faith in anything" is really a misnomer, because you do have faith in something. Everyone does. That's part of human nature. You might not have faith in a supreme being, but you do have faith in authority, even if it is your own authoritative stance on non-faith. Otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to defend your stance. So, you have faith in yourself and your ability to "rationalize" from what you can understand.

That which you don't understand, doesn't meld into your worldview, is summarily dismissed, because it goes against your authority to what you accept as real. Your faith lies in your reality and so therefore, for anyone to have faith in what is real to them, can't be acceptable to you.

You do have faith in the tangible. But do you think that if you tell a blind person the sky is blue, should they have faith that what you are telling them is true? If you do tell a deaf person that music is beautiful, are you asking them to believe you?

Aren't you studying medicine? You will eventually have to tell people to believe you and have faith in you and your skills, even though you can't accept that faith and belief are fundamental?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Assumptions on your part for every statement. You have never evaluated a single person who huffs gasoline, smokes pot, shoots up heroin, sells meth, jumps off buildings while high on PCP. No, you haven't evaluated them, so you made a Non Sequitur call.

I'm studying to be a neurosurgeon, and I'm learning and will learn a lot about our brain in the future. Maybe in the near future I will directly evaluate them, but it's basically going to be a deficiency in their decision making, which is in the brain.

Tell me why you think people start doing drugs so I can better understand the point you are trying to make.

This whole "I don't have faith in anything" is really a misnomer, because you do have faith in something. Everyone does. That's part of human nature. You might not have faith in a supreme being, but you do have faith in authority, even if it is your own authoritative stance on non-faith. Otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to defend your stance. So, you have faith in yourself and your ability to "rationalize" from what you can understand.

I have is confidence on myself, not faith.

You do have faith in the tangible. But do you think that if you tell a blind person the sky is blue, should they have faith that what you are telling them is true? If you do tell a deaf person that music is beautiful, are you asking them to believe you?

A blind person shouldn't have faith in me if I tell him the sky is blue. Instead, he should be saying that he doesn't know what color is the sky since he can't see it.

A deaf person also should be saying that he doesn't know if music is beautiful since he can't hear. No need for beliefs or faith.

Aren't you studying medicine? You will eventually have to tell people to believe you and have faith in you and your skills, even though you can't accept that faith and belief are fundamental?

They will have good reason to know that I studied surgery. I would also have proof if someone ever wanted to be sure.

Right before an operation the patient would see that I was hired by the hospital and that the nurses and other doctors knew me.

If they wanted to see my diploma or license to operate then they could see it.

I would call it confidence or a different type of confident belief, but not faith.

It's different than the belief in miracles or the supernatural.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: WarminIndy

Assumptions on your part for every statement. You have never evaluated a single person who huffs gasoline, smokes pot, shoots up heroin, sells meth, jumps off buildings while high on PCP. No, you haven't evaluated them, so you made a Non Sequitur call.

I'm studying to be a neurosurgeon, and I'm learning and will learn a lot about our brain in the future. Maybe in the near future I will directly evaluate them, but it's basically going to be a deficiency in their decision making, which is in the brain.

Tell me why you think people start doing drugs so I can better understand the point you are trying to make.

This whole "I don't have faith in anything" is really a misnomer, because you do have faith in something. Everyone does. That's part of human nature. You might not have faith in a supreme being, but you do have faith in authority, even if it is your own authoritative stance on non-faith. Otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to defend your stance. So, you have faith in yourself and your ability to "rationalize" from what you can understand.

I have is confidence on myself, not faith.

You do have faith in the tangible. But do you think that if you tell a blind person the sky is blue, should they have faith that what you are telling them is true? If you do tell a deaf person that music is beautiful, are you asking them to believe you?

A blind person shouldn't have faith in me if I tell him the sky is blue. Instead, he should be saying that he doesn't know what color is the sky since he can't see it.

A deaf person also should be saying that he doesn't know if music is beautiful since he can't hear. No need for beliefs or faith.

Aren't you studying medicine? You will eventually have to tell people to believe you and have faith in you and your skills, even though you can't accept that faith and belief are fundamental?

They will have good reason to know that I studied surgery. I would also have proof if someone ever wanted to be sure.

Right before an operation the patient would see that I was hired by the hospital and that the nurses and other doctors knew me.

If they wanted to see my diploma or license to operate then they could see it.

I would call it confidence or a different type of confident belief, but not faith.

It's different than the belief in miracles or the supernatural.

Nope, it's the same thing. People take medications because they believe it will work. That's how placebos do the job, right?

People take the placebo believing it is the fix, and then somehow their symptoms are alleviated. That's kind of a miracle in itself.

Do you have confidence in the medical institution that you are learning from? Or do you have faith that you will become a neurosurgeon, because right now there is no evidence that you will finish to get the degree. Isn't that correct?

Tell me, unequivocally, are you going to be a neurosurgeon, do you believe you are going to be a neurosurgeon or do you hope you will become a neurosurgeon? You don't even know what is going to happen to you tomorrow, but do you have confidence that tomorrow will come, do you have faith that tomorrow will come, or do you hope tomorrow will come?

And what about next week? Is there any evidence of that either?

Next week, if it does come, then you can look back and say "See, it did come", but then you would be showing that you had belief and faith that it would.

But you said "I am going to be a neurosurgeon", how do you know that if there is no evidence yet to support you would still be in existence at that time?

Confidence, faith, hope and belief? Yes, you have all of that, with no evidence to support that you will be, other than you are studying for it now.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Nope, it's the same thing. People take medications because they believe it will work. That's how placebos do the job, right?

That's true. An example is the "energy bracelet" where people believe it works.

People take the placebo believing it is the fix, and then somehow their symptoms are alleviated. That's kind of a miracle in itself.

Depends on what you mean by miracle. If you are trying to say that the something supernatural is involved then we don't share the same view.

Do you have confidence in the medical institution that you are learning from? Or do you have faith that you will become a neurosurgeon, because right now there is no evidence that you will finish to get the degree. Isn't that correct?

I do have confidence in my medical school and I have confidence in myself to finish it with high grades.

Will I finish my degree? It depends. I can say that I intend to finish it but something could happen that could stop me from finishing it. Maybe I'll get in a fatal car accident one day. Unless something unpredictable happens I intend to finish my degree.

Tell me, unequivocally, are you going to be a neurosurgeon, do you believe you are going to be a neurosurgeon or do you hope you will become a neurosurgeon? You don't even know what is going to happen to you tomorrow, but do you have confidence that tomorrow will come, do you have faith that tomorrow will come, or do you hope tomorrow will come?

Just like I answered above. If nothing unpredictable happens, like an accident, then ill likely become a neurosurgeon. I have confidence in myself.

Next week, if it does come, then you can look back and say "See, it did come", but then you would be showing that you had belief and faith that it would.

I would be showing optimism, not faith. Maybe the problem is that we have a different definitions of faith.

But you said "I am going to be a neurosurgeon", how do you know that if there is no evidence yet to support you would still be in existence at that time?

If we go by certainties then I should have just said that I'm studying to be a neurosurgeon. But we don't live life thinking we might die the next day. I'm optimistic that I'll be a neurosurgeon one day.

Confidence, faith, hope and belief? Yes, you have all of that, with no evidence to support that you will be, other than you are studying for it now.

I do have confidence and I do have hope some days, but not faith. As for belief it depends on what type of belief. If a neighbor tells me that he bought a new dog then I'll believe him without seeing the dog and one day could look for the dog if I ever wanted to be sure. There is no need for evidence since it's normal for people to own dogs and it doesn't affect my world view.

But If my neighbor told me that a miracle happened, that an angel talked to him in his head and levitated him for a minute then I won't believe him.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: WarminIndy

I would be showing optimism, not faith. Maybe the problem is that we have a different definitions of faith.

The definition of faith that I trust is this "Faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen"

You might not see right now that you will become a neurosurgeon, but hope is powerful. That's where faith lies, because of our hope. And because we have hope, we then have confidence.

As you cannot imagine the unseen to do a supernatural work, then nothing is manifest for you, so there is no reason for you to have faith, because you have to rely only on what you have confidence in, which may never be manifest for you. But you are optimistic...which means you imagine yourself as a neurosurgeon. That means that you do have faith, because it is the evidence of things not yet seen.

You are not yet, but you imagine that you will be. And when neurosurgery is manifested in your life, then it was the substance of what you hoped for. Right now, the imagination and optimism is supernatural, that is manifesting naturally. And that's what faith is about.

Maybe you have an idea that supernatural only operates in one way?

a reply to: WarminIndy

The definition of faith that I trust is this "Faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen"

You might not see right now that you will become a neurosurgeon, but hope is powerful. That's where faith lies, because of our hope. And because we have hope, we then have confidence.

As you cannot imagine the unseen to do a supernatural work, then nothing is manifest for you, so there is no reason for you to have faith, because you have to rely only on what you have confidence in, which may never be manifest for you. But you are optimistic...which means you imagine yourself as a neurosurgeon. That means that you do have faith, because it is the evidence of things not yet seen.

We use the word faith differently. You see it more as a synonym for hope or trust. You would tell someone "I have faith in you", but I see it more religious as in "I have faith in god" using faith for something supernatural. I see why you told me a patient would need to have faith in my skills, basically another word for trust.

This reminds me of a time when someone told me that I would believe in his god. He told me that love is god, if I feel love then I actually felt god inside my body. Someone else could have told me god is the wind or the sun, etc. Basically, he was playing with words to make me accept that his god is real.

You are not yet, but you imagine that you will be. And when neurosurgery is manifested in your life, then it was the substance of what you hoped for. Right now, the imagination and optimism is supernatural, that is manifesting naturally. And that's what faith is about.

I don't see imagination and optimism as something supernatural, it comes from our brains. We have seen the brain work with the fMRI when we imagine something and optimism is a form of positive thinking.

Maybe you have an idea that supernatural only operates in one way?

Actually I don't believe the supernatural exists. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I don't believe it right now.

It would be like me asking you that maybe you have an idea that Poseidon's house is blue. It wouldn't matter if I told you that it's red or green because you don't believe in it (assuming you don't believe in Poseidon's house).