It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Miracles: Can you help me understand?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Overcoming your fears by facing it.
If you afraid of the hights - go do bungy jump or sky diving. And so on.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax

See my signature. Try to understand it, unlike that other fellow who mishandled the point so badly he ended up impaling himself on it.

Impaled myself? Wow, I must have missed that part. I distinctly remember posting the following in my last post to you:

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Peace, and feel free to take the last word.

Now I posted that for three reasons. One, I understand you are so sure you have all the answers to life and that nothing is left to discover, you will never accept anything that is not familiar to you. Secondly, I figured this little exchange between us was getting off track of the thread subject. And thirdly, I had made my point, which was that you tend to continually prove your own closed-mindedness with every post... no title needed.

But now you use that final word to tell me I have impaled myself? Well, if that is impalement, it feels pretty good. So here we go again...


Nobody can, nor has ever been able to, perform miracles. Miracles are a self-serving figment of superstitious people's imaginations.

Ah, and I suppose you are adept at proving this negative? Just as at one time the idea that time was fluid and relative was considered the ramblings of a madman... the concept of black holes was simply fantastic gibberish... the very idea that someone could change their gender was incredulous... and the thought that a man could stand on the surface of that flat disc called the 'moon' was futuristic hogwash; it was obviously made of green cheese and not big enough to stand on.

In every case I just mentioned, there were the skeptics, the nay-sayers, those who literally stood in the way of scientific progress. They poked fun at the likes of Einstein, Tesla, Leonardo, Bohr... so you have some very good company in your skepticism. The problem is that while I can rattle off names of those who actually contributed to the progress of our understanding, I can't seem to recall the naysayers. No matter; I'm sure they were important people.



Not at all. Miracles are more than the 'manipulation of energy'. Miracles are traductions of the laws of physics.

Not necessarily. The laws of physics are indeed fixed and cannot be manipulated, but our knowledge of those laws is subject to correction. Newton had the laws of motion correct... within a certain range and within a certain margin of error. But outside of that range, Einstein's equations provide a much more exact description of motion.

Beyond Einstein, we have the ingenious Dr. Stephen Hawking. Einstein's work explained the existence of black holes, but fell short of describing their actions. For that, we needed more knowledge of how physics actually works. Someday, Dr. Hawking's work will be superseded by someone new, with new theories and new insight. Just as today, scientists are still looking for quantum particles only theorized thus far and even the elusive 'dark matter' which exists to date as no more than a correction between prediction and observation of total universal mass.

None of this should be taken as a condemnation of science; rather, it is an acceptance of the shortcomings of human knowledge.

Now, based on all this uncertainty, you stand and announce that a 'miracle' must transcend the laws of physics. I say a miracle may appear to transcend the laws of physics as we know them, without necessarily violating the true laws as they exist. After all, if there is a God (as I know there is), He would be more than a part of physics... He would be the Creator. We are more like retarded observers.



Yes, but it never actually happens, does it? It's all just bluff and blague. Prayers are never answered except by coincidence. Amputees never re-grow their limbs. Auntie Myrtle gets healed by the tentshow pastor and walks, next morning she's back in the wheelchair again.

Oh, it happens. But not in your observations.

As I stated before, you have obviously never witnessed anything you could not explain. I have. Now, as someone who is apparently trying to present themselves as logical and scientific, which response is the more logical and the more scientific? To ignore reports of unexplained phenomena, or to investigate said reports?

No need to answer. It's rather obvious.


Again I ask - do you, presumably an adult with some powers of intellect and discrimination, actually believe this stuff? Seriously?

*snip*

I blow my gnosis and all kinds of whatziz come out. But I wash it all away with Sophia and water. It makes a nice bubbly Sephiroth.



TheRedneck


[edit on 8/15/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I dunno

I have been told now 3 times by medical people in my life,


"You/He will never......again"


"Has a 10% chance of surviving and IF he does well, a) b) c) will be the problems later on"

"By the time you are 30 you will ......."


Lol all by hard nosed scientists and with their PROOF and FACTUAL (often based on historical repeated results, this is a FACT as described in science) evidense to go on...


Well therefore I am A MIRACLE to even write this never mind drive, work and such like......


There again I have also experienced things before they happened and such like....

So

Just for anyones, especially skeptics info, I am proof you are wrong, and secondly lack of you seeing, experiencing evidense is not proof of no evidense.

Otherwise the world would still be flat and thunder to would be an God shouting lol.

Elf

[edit on 15-8-2009 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Greenize
 

Perhaps they are on a mission from God without knowing it. They will either make your belief in something stronger or they will shake what little faith and belief you have. You either know if you are on the right track when it comes to belief and faith or if you need to reaccess and find your weakness.

There is a purpose for everything we encounter in life.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Hello Greenize.

Interesting topic. Jesus said he would prefer us hot or cold. If we are luke warm he will spew us out of his mouth. What does that mean? Hmmm....
Well its like this. First you ask is there a God. Choose. Once you have made your choice go about your business with that choice. If you chose no....well the conversation is over. If you chose yes then the conversation has just begun. You see by choosing yes you now have an all access pass to all the knowledge that you can handle. Pray for wisdom first, and all else will be added.

Now comes the fun part. Ask Jesus. Since you chose him he will let you know everything you need to know. If you do not get an answer at first keep asking, like a small child who really wants a drink of water. You see the more you talk, pray, meditate, with Jesus the more he answers you. The more he answers you the stronger your faith will become. The stronger your faith becomes the more miracles you will observe.

Everything starts with a choice and ends with a result. Once you start listening and accepting his choices for you, then you are aligned with his will. Once you are aligned with his will then you are liberated for his will is RIGHTeous. I capitalized the important letters of the word.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic23
 

There's really nothing for us to discuss, Majestic. As Dr. Johnson said of the quarrelling neighbours, 'they shall never agree, for they argue from different premises'. You stick with your ideas and I'll stick with mine. That is, unless you have anything to say about the point I raised in my first post.

Edit to add: The flying Father I had in mind was St. Joseph of Copertino. Pardon the error. He wasn't an old man when he took to the air, by the way: he was only thirty-three when he


was questioned in the presence of the Pope, Urban VIII, and such was (his) joy to find himself before the Vicar of Christ that he went into ecstasy and flew high over the heads of the Pope and the united cardinals. Source



reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I distinctly remember posting the following in my last post to you:


Peace, and feel free to take the last word.

Knowing you, Redneck, I knew better than to take that seriously. Especially the 'peace' bit.



Now I posted that for three reasons. One... two... three...

A rather noteworthy absentee from that list seems to be 'because I meant it'.

Look, mate: there's really no reason for our discussion to be conducted in this tone. It did not originate with me. I presented a valid philosophical objection to miracles in my first post. Not an atheistic objection but one that has been articulated by liberal theologians such as James Keller. It was a perfectly reasonable contribution to the thread.

It is also, I might add, an objection that no-one on the thread has yet addressed, far less refuted.

Your response to it was to get personal,


Perhaps it would be more appropriate if you had written: "Miracles don't happen to me".

accuse me of prejudice and confusion


It is extremely difficult to see something you refuse to believe in.


Methinks you be a bit confused.

and even write me a prescription!


May I suggest some meditation?

However, you failed to address my argument and chose, instead, to take offence at me on the first flimsy grounds you could find. It is plain to see it is not my post you objected to, but me. If I make you so irate, why not just push the Ignore button under my avatar?

Back on topic, after a fashion, you may be amused to learn that your attempt to redefine the word 'miracle' dealt with here is a manifestation of something known as Littlewood's Law.

[edit on 16/8/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
There's really nothing for us to discuss, Majestic. As Dr. Johnson said of the quarrelling neighbours, 'they shall never agree, for they argue from different premises'. You stick with your ideas and I'll stick with mine. That is, unless you have anything to say about the point I raised in my



No, you are right, we have nothing to discuss. I just feel very sorry for people such as you. You are not like the sheeple because you are too inquisitive and smart but you are not like the enlightened because you are convinced you know enough.

I will say this though. Life will put the very strange onto you at sometime or another, even if the path of enlightenment is not your mission in this incarnation.

Its hard to describe a state of mind that is direct contact with god. Its more real than anything on this plane.

If you really want to know why people like me believe in miracles its because we have useually experienced things that cannot be explained or even imagined by modern academics (not just one incident,usueally many). Things that measure 10 on the scale of mind bending terror. Its more real than anything else in this illusion of our waking reality.

If you want to know why people like me believe in miracles then you must experience more than what is presented and easily available. Knowledge of self.

You are like someone who is afraid of roller coasters, when all the people who are getting off it looking exhilarated and smiling you are asking them "why are you so happy"?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax

Hmmm, it appears I have somehow offended you, Astyanax. I assure you that was not my intentions.

Your initial post (and your posts since) was very adamant about your belief that miracles cannot happen, have never happened, and never will happen. I rebutted that with what I believed to be an appropriate disagreement.

So far, you have repeated over and over a belief, not a fact as defined by any scientific or logical thought process. You attempt to prove a negative. I will challenge such attempts. If that offends you, well, I'm sorry, but you can "go scratch your mad spot" as they used to say.


Look, mate: there's really no reason for our discussion to be conducted in this tone. It did not originate with me. I presented a valid philosophical objection to miracles in my first post. Not an atheistic objection but one that has been articulated by liberal theologians such as James Keller. It was a perfectly reasonable contribution to the thread.

You know, I just wrote out four long paragraphs detailing our discussion here. I deleted them in favor of this, because in the end they were irrelevant. You are free to believe what you will; I as well claim that freedom for myself.

That said, you are correct: there is no need to make this personal. I did not wittingly do so, but rather used a bit of sarcasm to allow you to disprove your points. If you wish to take that as a personal attack, there is little I can do to change that perception.


However, you failed to address my argument and chose, instead, to take offence at me on the first flimsy grounds you could find. It is plain to see it is not my post you objected to, but me. If I make you so irate, why not just push the Ignore button under my avatar?

Actually, I believe I addressed your argument quite thoroughly. You are attempting to prove a negative by making sweeping statements based on your opinions and experiences. That is clearly impossible by any form of logic I am familiar with. The fact that a thing has not happened to you does not mean it has not and cannot happen to others. I have never personally known anyone who has had a sex change operation; does it then follow that such a thing has never happened and can never happen?

You also base this denial on the 'laws of physics', which as I pointed out are not fully understood at this time. Again, this is no condemnation of science; we're getting better every day.


A quick address of the ignore button issue: I personally have never used that link, and expect I never will. It seems to me to be a coward's way out of an argument they are losing, and ignorance is not something I came to ATS for, be it ignorance of knowledge or ignorance of others. I am able to step back and admit fault should I lose an argument (as I have done many times on here). I need no button to sooth my ego.


Back on topic, after a fashion, you may be amused to learn that your attempt to redefine the word 'miracle' dealt with here is a manifestation of something known as Littlewood's Law.

I redefine nothing. I simply state that common usage may be different from dictionary definitions, and at this point in the debate I believe that may be the single largest issue of disagreement we have. What you define as a miracle and what I define as a miracle may be differing concepts, due to the common usage of the word. I am frankly a bit amazed that you did not take that olive branch, as doing so would have allowed you to maintain some dignity in the eyes of those who define a miracle as I do.

For the purpose of clarity, let me reiterate: This is not a personal attack on you. I argue that miracles, as defined by common usage, are indeed possible and in fact can occur on a fairly regular basis. I define a miracle based on such common usage as an event that has a lasting benefit to the one experiencing it, occurs in conjunction with a specific need, and can be attributed to divine intervention through manipulation of the known laws of physics or statistical expectations. I also argue that since it is impossible to prove conclusively that miracles as per your definition cannot and never have occurred, it is impossible to state that those miracles based on a deviation from physical laws cannot occur and must therefore be considered as possible, even if highly unlikely. And finally, I argue that any deviation from physical laws as we understand them is not necessarily a deviation from physical laws as they truly exist, since our knowledge of such is limited.

If that argument offends you, sorry.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic23
 


Ha you really do make me laugh. You say my response of a random chance is childish in comparison to "god done it". Riiight...so we look at the Greek understanding of the heavens, zeus being responsible for lightening and then look at our modern day understanding through science, charges and so on. Now of the two which is a 'childish' or for use of a better word, 'immature', 'naive' belief?

Chance is very real. God however still remains in a cloud of mystery.

Secondly! "Nothing is pot luck and everything happens for a reason"...please show me where you got this CONCLUSION. You cannot seriously use that as a premise for your argument!

Thirdly. im not going to go through the rest of your argument and break it down, but there are a lot of statements that you make which quite honestly, you cannot back up without anecdotal evidence. Please show me cold hard logical arguments, otherwise i will pick them apart all day long.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


"In my view, a miracle is any happening or circumstance which is so highly unlikely as to be incapable of being ascribed to simple chance without stretching the bounds of reasonable thinking"

So under this definition. The Big Bang is a miracle. Yet, this is still debated. The definition for miracle here is certainly flawed.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Greenize
 


Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

We are trying to debate with you so that you can appreciate your belief has logical flaws. If you said to me 1+1 = 2 i wouldnt argue because there is no flaw in your logic. However, in this instance, we are trying to show you that you approach the topic with a bias.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by napayshni57
 


Is there really a purpose in everything you see in life or is it that you IMPOSE purpose on everything you see in life?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv

So under this definition. The Big Bang is a miracle. Yet, this is still debated. The definition for miracle here is certainly flawed.

Yes, under the definition I have put forth, the Big Bang could be considered a miracle. It could be argued that since there was noi one to benefit from it or ask for it at the time, it was not, but it could also be countered that an omnipresent God could have easily understood it would be beneficial in the future.

I fail to see how that makes my definition flawed. Care to explain?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


TWO reasons why it is flawed. Firstly:


any happening or circumstance which is so highly unlikely as to be incapable of being ascribed to simple chance without stretching the bounds of reasonable thinking


Right, you would firstly have to say that the Big Bang is incapable of being ascribed to 'simple chance'...which I dont believe you can do...OTHERWISE i will simply say that GOD is a MIRACLE.


and which has a lasting beneficial effect on someone who was anticipating a divine intervention in line with said event.


You where quite right in saying that an omniscient God would have known that it would of been beneficial

(beneficial still remains to be debated),

but who was anticipating divine intervention? How can one intervene with something that does not exist.

Cheers,

Brad



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
Ha you really do make me laugh.


Please get on with it.


Originally posted by ToughivYou say my response of a random chance is childish in comparison to "god done it".


.....no, its just the same.


Originally posted by ToughivRiiight...so we look at the Greek understanding of the heavens, zeus being responsible for lightening and then look at our modern day understanding through science, charges and so on. Now of the two which is a 'childish' or for use of a better word, 'immature', 'naive' belief?


You think you know how the Greeks looked at stuff? Have tptb convinced you people hundreds of years ago were near enough backward?
Must be why our modern philosophers are so advanced in comparison to theirs.

How do you know thats what Greeks at the time thougt? You dont, maybe Zeus was an interdimensional alien with a ray gun that looked like it fired lightning. But no, nearly all cultures spanning the globe had groups of gods just to explain things that they didnt understand (even though they had advanced knowledge of sacred geometry that modern academics are still trying to get their heads around).


Originally posted by ToughivChance is very real. God however still remains in a cloud of mystery".


Why does it work one way and not the other? You are being a hypocrite. You think chance is not in a cloud of mystery. Its clear you are only looking at things from one angle.


Originally posted by ToughivSecondly! "Nothing is pot luck and everything happens for a reason"...please show me where you got this CONCLUSION. You cannot seriously use that as a premise for your argument!".


I cant, why dont you spend some time trying to know yourself and spend a lot of time in intense meditation about your life and review all the instances in your life in retrospect and see how much of it you can reasonably describe to "pot luck". Iam not talking about musing it over in your head, really try to understand and comprehend and hold in your mind that everything is interconnected.


Originally posted by ToughivThirdly. im not going to go through the rest of your argument and break it down,


Thats a bit lazy.


Originally posted by Toughivbut there are a lot of statements that you make which quite honestly, you cannot back up without anecdotal evidence. Please show me cold hard logical arguments, otherwise i will pick them apart all day long.


Heres the problem, you have been brainwashed into thinking "cold hard" logic somehow translates into "what academic and prevailing public thought thinks is right". When in fact both academia and prevailing majority of opinion has been shown throughout history to be incorrect time and time again.

Your idea of cold hard logic being the be all and end all is laughable to someone who has been in contact with god, who has been to hell and heaven, seen creatures that should not exist, experienced split consciousness, experienced existence without a concept of time, been shown a frame by frame slideshow of their lives that is fully interactive, someone who has not only been shown but fully experienced the meaning of "we are all one".

What empirical evidence could compare to that?

But, like all skeptics, you think you are in the strong position and can demand empirical proof, well where is you proof that chance exists?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Majestic23]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic23
 


Sorry let me change my wording, im not entirely sure about chance since I havent studied maths enough to know the difference between chance and probability.

Probability exists, if i flip a coin, it has 50/50 probability to land on heads.

I have been brainwashed, how ironic, since I am the one talking of heaven and hell. Tell me, where does dualism come into the grand scheme of things, if you were never introduced to the concepts of heaven and hell, i can almost guarantee you wouldnt have said "been to heaven and hell". So please dont try and tell me i am brainwashed. I spend most of my free time analysing my premises, my values, my ethics to make sure im not.

Cold hard logic proves itself. 1+1 = 2. There is no brainwashing to that. With logic, you cannot be decieved, only if your logic is flawed.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic23
 




Originally posted by ToughivYou say my response of a random chance is childish in comparison to "god done it".

.....no, its just the same.



The same? Ha. One implies a creator, one implies life is life, no more, no less. Here is an example of flawed logic. Probability (after i corrected myself in previous post) is not equal to "god done it".



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
Sorry let me change my wording, im not entirely sure about chance since I havent studied maths enough to know the difference between chance and probability.


..........


Originally posted by ToughivProbability exists, if i flip a coin, it has 50/50 probability to land on heads.


Its nowhere near as simple as that, I know you are taking an example but lets say the coin dissapeared into thin air, or a low flying seagull ate it. Thats why simple western matehmatics doesant help us here, there are patterns and repetitions all throughout the universe but these are part of the world of duality and so are like an illusion that helps us to make sense of things and basically be translated to our conscious awareness. In effect trying to answer a question like "can miracles occour" with matematics is like trying to answer "does god exist" with biology. Its from a human perspective, human rules, human preconceptions. Humans didnt make the system though they are just trying to understand it from their point of view which is flawed at best.


Originally posted by ToughivI have been brainwashed, how ironic, since I am the one talking of heaven and hell. Tell me, where does dualism come into the grand scheme of things, if you were never introduced to the concepts of heaven and hell, i can almost guarantee you wouldnt have said "been to heaven and hell". So please dont try and tell me i am brainwashed. I spend most of my free time analysing my premises, my values, my ethics to make sure im not.


Duality exists at every level of existance until you reach the godhead source of all things as I can tell. It is an artificial construct that allows us to experience emotions, physical reality etc...

This is why the illuminatists etc... have to main goal of transcending duality in order to gain more control over it.

Heaven and Hell do exist in various forms but they are more of our making than anything else as far as I can tell.

In terms of the idea of being brainwashed dont take it to heart, we are all brainwashed at some level, we have not have much of a choice in our unbringing and society and at the top tptb. But anyone can see that we are pushed in certain directions, such directions that stop us from learning, the whole skeptical viewpoint is one of these. It inhibits learning through preconcieved ideas that we are correct. The mind does not only transmit info it recieves it, and we only recieve a very small amount so that we can continue to function in our waking reality without perishing.


Originally posted by ToughivCold hard logic proves itself. 1+1 = 2. There is no brainwashing to that. With logic, you cannot be decieved, only if your logic is flawed.


And gnosis of things like "we are all one" and "subtle energy forces bind us and manipulation of these can effect miracles" is also self evident if we think about it. Go on, come up with a reasonable argument to counter "we are all one". Its impossible because it is the way things are and it cannot be looked at in any other way once such a concept is understood.

1+1= 2 works for simple mathematics but you are trying to apply a human concept to the whole of existance and it just doesant work. Thats why humans can come up with 1+1=2 and god can come up with to opposing forces and create the multiverse.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Majestic23]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Majestic23
 




Originally posted by ToughivYou say my response of a random chance is childish in comparison to "god done it".

.....no, its just the same.



The same? Ha. One implies a creator, one implies life is life, no more, no less. Here is an example of flawed logic. Probability (after i corrected myself in previous post) is not equal to "god done it".


And probability eminates from where?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic23
 


Right, I was hoping you would ask this question. Consider there are two opitions (p.s. i will come back to your larger post, its just i have to stop myself agreeing and counter (you see im actually a theist, but i love providing the skeptic, since it plays a balancing act, so that those who are undecided get to choose fairly for themselves
its all about balance but anwyay).

The two options are God is infinite and he created the Universe OR The Universe is Infinite.

Most argue that God created the Universe for many reasons. One fo these being how intricately balanced it is. If you were walking in a field and saw a metallic watch on the floor, you would know that that watch could not have just come to be, since it has mechanic hands that move precisely to eachother, the gears inside revolve at a set pace, the metal has been worked and fashioned and so on. All attributes point toward a designer. HOWEVER, before the Big Bang, there was no Time. Time was created with Matter, speed = distance travelled / time. Therefore, lets say the probability of this Universe coming to be, as intricate and balanced as it is, is 1 in 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Since there is an infinite amount of time, all possibilites will be recognised. So that is what we have today. The universe is just a brute fact.

Cheers,

BRad



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join