Reply to Thread New Thread |
01-17-2009, 06:22 PM | #1 |
|
Miracles and Divine Intervention
To understand the religious notion of divine intervention and the ramifications of its existence we must first understand what is meant by the term “miracle”. Like all theistic terminology, the world miracle suffers semantically from the fact that the concept of the supernatural is undefined, that is to say that the notion of the supernatural is not one we can define based on our experiences or observations, because all or our interactions, thoughts and observations occur in the natural universe. In the absence of an adequate definition for the supernatural we can’t exactly define what a miracle is, but we could define a miracle by what it is not. The general notion of a miracle held by most theists could be described by what it is not as follows; an observable event for which the only possible explanation of its cause is not natural. This definition side-steps the problem of meaninglessness which it would suffer from were it defined in terms of supernatural causality, such an issue is inescapable though; we can side-step it now for the sake of argument, but upon taking our leave of this argument so as to consider divine intervention in another vein of thought we would have to return this problem of “what is the supernatural?”. Read the rest of the article here. The author made some valid points. |
|
01-17-2009, 07:07 PM | #2 |
|
... an observable event for which the only possible explanation of its cause is not natural.
That will never happen. And therefore one need not waste any time trying to identify what a 'miracle' or a 'supernatural' event is. It would be better, I think, to just try to understand reality a little bit. Peace & Love! |
|
01-17-2009, 07:32 PM | #3 |
|
I often hear the word "miracle" used, such that it means extream good luck.
Since the notions of "God" include such concepts as "one-ness" and "Unity" -- even God can be considered part of the natural order. In a world view that accepts only the natural as real; there can be no supernatuaral. Jonathan Lobl |
|
01-19-2009, 07:27 PM | #4 |
|
Read the rest of the article here. "The general notion of a miracle held by most theists could be described by what it is not as follows; an observable event for which the only possible explanation of its cause is not natural. " In other words the author is trying to get away from the usual definition of a miracle. miracle n. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: [answers.com] The author wants to be able to use miracle whenever s/he is so moved whether the event can be explained by natural causes or not. For example, most recently the "miracle on the Hudson" which could very well have been the tragedy on the Hudson if not for the quick response of First Responders. For believers, the problem is that a lot of the old miracles have been explained so they have to cast about for a new definition. Miracle has become an over-used word which has lost a lot of its impact because of overuse. I met a woman who gone through the Course on Miracles and was joyously explaining her miracle. It consisted of her being able to get a spot on a bicycle tour in Hawaii that had been booked solid the day before. Sounds like some believers are setting the bar pretty low for miracles just as they set the bar low for their political candidates. |
|
01-26-2009, 09:08 AM | #6 |
|
miracle n. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: [answers.com] Jonathan Lobl |
|
01-26-2009, 09:04 PM | #8 |
|
|
|
01-26-2009, 11:46 PM | #9 |
|
Uh-oh. We are on the same side of an issue. Something will tip over. You call it what you want...I call it good fortune, karma, etc. ~smiles~ |
|
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|