More on miracles

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Yes, a miracle can be exactly that. As I said, I believe that miracles don't have to be big events, but small ones as well.

I don't think it destroys the usefulness of the word, as a miracle to me doesn't necessarily need to be a miracle to you. I believe miracles are more personal than mysterious.

I hope that makes sense.

What Woot seems to believe that there are no supernatural forces.

All may be naturally explained some day, but given our fragmentary knowledge of the universe, sometimes bridging gaps by allowing for unexplainable processes is acceptable to those in harder sciences. Logic even makes room for fuzzy logic, and computers have similar concepts.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by woot

So you accept that a miracle is anything that you personally don't understand, and that supernatural forces aren't necessarily at play? If so, I accept that there are lots of miracles, but it seems to do violence to the usefulness of the word. We already have words that mean something like "mystery."

A "mystery" doesn't necessarily induce faith in God. Miracles represent a subset of mysteries.

[woot]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

A "mystery" doesn't necessarily induce faith in God. Miracles represent a subset of mysteries.

Yea, that's true. So then a miracle is simply a mystery to a religious person?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by woot

Yea, that's true. So then a miracle is simply a mystery to a religious person?

Sure. I don't think that destroys the power of the word. Even religious people would say the benefit of miracles is their effect on actions/faith. To the atheist, miracles have no meaning anyway.