No miracles

Biblical fable which is not a historical fact. If it were so there would be need for diversive religions.

I am not talking of the bible,this happened some few years ago,i repeat,if you want to the read and watch it,i will give you the link.

No use. I wouldnt beleive it. There have been many cases of apparently dead people really being alive.

Medical doctors confirmed him dead and he was taken to the mortuary,yet he woke up afterwards.Pronouncing one dead and waking up later is not a miracle?

No miracles for you because you don't believe on it.

God proves his self many times don't make a blasphemy to god!

because when you question god and you make him a lair well its in you! hell is waiting for those who defy

Thanks for that,though my own God is a God of capital G and not small g as you have stated here,anyway,thanks.

No, that would simply be against the natural order of things even if you believe in a creator.

Yes i agree. These are the laws we should be paying more attention to.
We are part of evolving nature. No need to invoke anything unnatural as a miracle in any guise.

Absolutely.

bingo.

You got it, thats why they are called miracles/

Its the other way round - man created god in his own image. There is plenty proof of that.

I don't know how you can say "it's the other way around" when God created EVERYTHING - isn't that, in itself, a miracle?

According to many religions God created the world and everything. What do you mean by man created the god?

The idea of a "god" in your terms is clearly invented by man in his own need.
In this enlightened time we should all realize this.

We have been "enlightened" about the existence of God for centuries now!

The existence of God is one thing. It depends on how you define the "God". Religion to religion it differs.

The other question here is the creation of world by GOD. How do you prove that?

My "god" is an underlying spirituality within all things.

No, man did not create God, that is an absurd and ridiculous idea and makes no sense. You may mean man created the concept of God but don't confuse the concept of something with the thing in itself.

all the best urban

Agreed. Even "supernatural" events can become evidently natural.
My "god" is natural not supernatural.

That's a very interesting statement islander. How do you define "God" then in natural terms?

I think he means god figuratively. Probably fate or recordings of the past or something like that.

I do not see a personal god but an underlying natural spirituality in all things.

With respect that is not the definition of a so-called miracle.

So, what is your definition of miracle?

all the best urban

A miracle is a manifestation contrary to the laws of nature.

Yes, in nature everything is caused by a previous event, this is the most basic law of nature. My act of will to raise my arm, since no previous event caused me to will thus, is an un-caused physical event, that therefore runs contrary to laws of nature. So, as I said before, I perform many miracles each day.

all the best urban

Your being alive and having a will caused this to happen. No miracle there!

Seems you are a little arbitrary in your application of your definition.

all the best urban

It seems we break the laws of nature all the time do we not?

Indeed we do

all the best urban

You have already said that your act of will caused you to move your arm. That therefore was the causal event. There is always a causal event of some sort however you look at it.

Yes, but I was the originator of a causal chain, whereas physical events only occur by prior causes.

That is to say, that the Laws of nature seem to disallow novel causal chains to be originated yet that I am able to do, which is miraculous!

all the best urban

There is always a causal event.

So you claim but that is just your faith!

all the best urban

Whatever happened to free will? When someone decides to do something whimsical, without any obligation to do so, I suppose you (islander) may assume that it was neurons that caused the event. I will not dispute this, but I will contest that we humans are not robots. We have instincts, to be sure, but we do have a certain degree of control over what we "want" to do. As we contemplate our options, consider what looks more fun, etc., we eventually reach a decision. The causal event is our own will. Perhaps universal causation has something to do with will as well.

Here's the problem Islander:

In order to show that human action was part of the causal chain, you would need to establish that consciouness could be reduced to neural activity, or more acurately that a conscious state reduces to a neural state and that is hard for a number of reasons.

There are a number of possible approaches to do this.

1. Neural states cause mental states. This looks promising, certainly neural states seem to be necessary for consciusness; we have no clear instances of consciousness without neural activity. But neural activity alone does not seem to be enough to bring about consciousness, consider sleeping, being in a coma or under anaesthetic. So, whilst neural activity is a necessary condition for conscousness it is not a sufficient cause.

2. Is consciouness just neural activity. By Leibniz law for things to be the same they must exhibit the same properties. Yet conscousness has properties neural states do not, (Intentionality being the classic example) therefore consciouness and neural activity are not the same.

So, conscious and neural activity are not the same, unless you can provide a different explination (The world waits with bated breath for such) And since neural states do not alone cause conscousness (From 1.) you cannot simply assume that consciousness is part of the causal chain.

Therefore, humans are capable of creating novel causal chains in (Apparent) contradiction to the natural laws.

Amazing and miraculous! But not so suprising for a panentheist

all the best urban

Good stuff! If you don't mind, urbandekay, I am going to copycat off you. Not in verbatim, of course, but your analogy here is gold. Actually, it's not even gold; it's platinum studded with diamonds.

Where?

all the best urban

That last post about consciousness vs. neural activity.

Missed that one.

all the best urban

The one you posted above, 3 days ago:

"Here's the problem Islander:

"In order to show that human action was part of the causal chain, you would need to establish that consciouness could be reduced to neural activity, or more acurately that a conscious state reduces to a neural state and that is hard for a number of reasons.

"There are a number of possible approaches to do this.

"1. Neural states cause mental states. This looks promising, certainly neural states seem to be necessary for consciusness; we have no clear instances of consciousness without neural activity. But neural activity alone does not seem to be enough to bring about consciousness, consider sleeping, being in a coma or under anaesthetic. So, whilst neural activity is a necessary condition for conscousness it is not a sufficient cause.

"2. Is consciouness just neural activity. By Leibniz law for things to be the same they must exhibit the same properties. Yet conscousness has properties neural states do not, (Intentionality being the classic example) therefore consciouness and neural activity are not the same.

"So, conscious and neural activity are not the same, unless you can provide a different explination (The world waits with bated breath for such) And since neural states do not alone cause conscousness (From 1.) you cannot simply assume that consciousness is part of the causal chain.

"Therefore, humans are capable of creating novel causal chains in (Apparent) contradiction to the natural laws.

"Amazing and miraculous! But not so suprising for a panentheist

"all the best urban"

I likes, I likes.

hehehehe

I meant where are you planning to use it?

all the best urban

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean that I was in the middle of a discussion and was just about to quote you; I meant that this analogy of yours made a lot of sense, and that I intend to use it in the near future. If you would like to be informed when I do, I could add you as a friend.