Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do miracles ever happen? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Some would argue our mere existence and the whole universe(or however many of them they may well be) is a miracle, whether created or simply born out of nothing. The fact we are able to mathematically describe the universe and the coincidence of evolution complementing the big bang could also be considererd a miracle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, at the end of the day, everything is based on science.
    Love - hormones.
    Flying bikes - physics.
    Even Doctor Who has explanations for everything that happens, even though that's very stretched out unreal things that would never happen in real life.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Short Story Long)
    What to you perceive to be a miracle?
    Personally, I'd call anything positive that occurs with a very small initial probability a miracle (or more appropriately, miraculous).

    Though if we're talking about divine miracles, then I guess that would be the idea of supernatural intervention by a 'higher power' to achieve a beneficial goal.

    (Original post by Short Story Long)
    Do you believe in miracles? Why or why not?
    To my first definition: yes, although not as a pre-destined or designed outcome.

    To the second (and more common one): No. As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence to indicate that any supposed miracles have necessarily occurred as a result of intervention by a god/supernatural entity.

    (Original post by Short Story Long)
    Do you think a belief in a Supreme-Being is unnecessary for a belief in miracles?
    Different people could attribute miracles to spirits, angels, energy forces or anything of a supernatural origin as opposed to just a supreme being. Personally though, I won't buy into it until there's scientific evidence to the contrary.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Short Story Long)
    I'm currently doing A2 philosophy of religion and one topic is miracles. I find the responses both for and against the likely hood of miracles absolutely fascinating and would like to hear some more opinions.

    So...

    Do you believe in miracles? Why or why not?
    What to you perceive to be a miracle?
    Do you think a belief in a Supreme-Being is unnecessary for a belief in miracles?

    I personally don't think I'll ever be able to come a concrete answer, but I would love to hear different opinions
    "Be realistic.Plan for a miracle"
    -Osho
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If they do happen I'm sure they are the result of a myriad of unseen causes and effects which not only escape and defy our sense of logic and reason but that we like to believe are attributed to something divine or supernatural.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for some amazing response guys!

    If I give the definition of a miracle as a 'violation of the laws of nature', does this change any opinions or anyone got anything else to say about it?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Short Story Long)
    Thanks for some amazing response guys!

    If I give the definition of a miracle as a 'violation of the laws of nature', does this change any opinions or anyone got anything else to say about it?
    If they can be violated, then they aren't "laws" of nature after all, are they? They're more like "trends" of nature. I think this definition of "miracle" is self-contradictory.

    Some people describe other things as miracles, which are perfectly consistent with science, but are pretty amazing nonetheless. For example, people describe pregnancy and birth as a miracle. It doesn't violate any laws of nature, but besides the fact that we're so used to it, the fact that a tiny couple of cells have the potential to grow into a fully-fledged human being is quite non-trivial.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    If they can be violated, then they aren't "laws" of nature after all, are they? They're more like "trends" of nature.
    Good point, some people don't see the laws of nature as fixed though and are just what we know from experience. The word laws can be interpreted differently. I think belief in whether there can be violations or not is hinged upon if you see the 'laws' of nature as fixed or not.

    I'm not scientific or anything but there must be something that occurred in nature which goes against what the laws of nature are perceived to be at that time. So does this mean that the laws of nature are not fixed yet or that they are fixed but we don not know of them fully yet. If we do not know of them fully, then violations of the perceived laws of nature may be possible. What does this mean for miracles (with the violation of laws of nature definition) ?

    To be honest that probably made no sense, if it doesn't just ignore it.

    Anyone feel free to reply, I want to know as many peoples views as possible
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)

    Some people describe other things as miracles, which are perfectly consistent with science, but are pretty amazing nonetheless. For example, people describe pregnancy and birth as a miracle. It doesn't violate any laws of nature, but besides the fact that we're so used to it, the fact that a tiny couple of cells have the potential to grow into a fully-fledged human being is quite non-trivial.
    Just read this bit. The word miracle is so differently interpreted by different people and its amazing how a few words have the ability to change views completely I find the different definitions of a miracle the most interesting part of this topic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Short Story Long)
    Good point, some people don't see the laws of nature as fixed though and are just what we know from experience. The word laws can be interpreted differently. I think belief in whether there can be violations or not is hinged upon if you see the 'laws' of nature as fixed or not.

    I'm not scientific or anything but there must be something that occurred in nature which goes against what the laws of nature are perceived to be at that time. So does this mean that the laws of nature are not fixed yet or that they are fixed but we don not know of them fully yet. If we do not know of them fully, then violations of the perceived laws of nature may be possible. What does this mean for miracles (with the violation of laws of nature definition) ?

    To be honest that probably made no sense, if it doesn't just ignore it.

    Anyone feel free to reply, I want to know as many peoples views as possible
    To be honest there's not much difference between a law not being static and laws being perceived to not be static.

    A natural law is something that is never broken, but if it is broken in nature then it means it's not a natural law by definition, this means our ideas about this phenomenon was wrong.

    If we perceive it to be not static there is something that is wrong with our idea of what that law truly is, so we again need to change our ideas about the phenomenon. Both occurrences are mistakes on our parts. Both are misinterpretations of phenomena in nature that may or may not be laws.

    There are things that make our understanding of the physical world break down, for example black holes and singularities, the ideas implanted in Einstein's relativity theory break down in the depths of a black hole. However, this is hardly a miracle. This problem has only arose because we lack the theory to fully understand it.

    What I'm saying is that if there is an absolute law of this universe, you cannot break it, because that's what a natural law is. If you happen to break it, it's because you haven't understood it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0x2a)
    To be honest there's not much difference between a law not being static and laws being perceived to not be static.

    A natural law is something that is never broken, but if it is broken in nature then it means it's not a natural law by definition, this means our ideas about this phenomenon was wrong.

    If we perceive it to be not static there is something that is wrong with our idea of what that law truly is, so we again need to change our ideas about the phenomenon. Both occurrences are mistakes on our parts. Both are misinterpretations of phenomena in nature that may or may not be laws.

    There are things that make our understanding of the physical world break down, for example black holes and singularities, the ideas implanted in Einstein's relativity theory break down in the depths of a black hole. However, this is hardly a miracle. This problem has only arose because we lack the theory to fully understand it.

    What I'm saying is that if there is an absolute law of this universe, you cannot break it, because that's what a natural law is. If you happen to break it, it's because you haven't understood it.

    Lovely point thank you, really well explained
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.