Do you believe in miracles?

[godelian]

Why when the question, 'Do you believe in miracles?', comes up, there is a bit of inquiry into, 'It depends on what is meant by the 'miracle' word, it depends on the definition of the word 'miracle', or similar'.

Yes, agreed, it depends on the definition of the term miracle.

It is provable that inexplicable truths, i.e. "miracles", occur in the universe of the natural numbers.

Stephen Hawking argued that they therefore also exist in the physical universe. That is a reasonable hypothesis, which I also believe, but unfortunately, it is not provable.

[Sculptor]

It is my view that Professor Errol Briwn has had all to say on the subject that is of relevance....

And has truly appraoched the subject with all the seriousness it deserves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DwEni2N_-A

[meno_]

There is an alternate https://www.google.com/search?q=wdo+dog ... v_j0M,st:0

[godelian]

It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.

We understand the foundations of the natural numbers completely. Still, inexplicable truths are a fundamental part of true arithmetic. No amount of better understanding of arithmetic will make them go away.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_arithmetic
In mathematical logic, true arithmetic is the set of all true first-order statements about the arithmetic of natural numbers.

It took until 1931 for Kurt Godel to discover the existence of inexplicable truths in true arithmetic. It is obviously not possible to derive an inexplicable truth from the theory. It is only possible to derive from the theory that they exist.

We do have a few examples, such as Goldstein's theorem, which is inexplicable in arithmetic theory. It is provable from set theory, however, when including the axiom of infinity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein%27s_theorem
In mathematical logic, Goodstein's theorem is a statement about the natural numbers, proved by Reuben Goodstein in 1944 ... This was the third example of a true statement about natural numbers that is unprovable in Peano arithmetic, after the examples provided by Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Gerhard Gentzen's 1943 direct proof of the unprovability of ε0-induction in Peano arithmetic.

A truth that is inexplicable unless you introduce the axiom of infinity is actually an exceptional special case. The standard case is that no additional axioms could ever explain such inexplicable truth.

There are no miracles. Simple as.

It is certainly not that simple.

Inexplicable truths exist in true arithmetic. Stephen Hawking concluded that they therefore also exist in the physical universe. Of course, Hawking could not prove his hypothesis, no matter how reasonable.

Hawking merely used the likely existence of inexplicable truths in the universe to argue that there cannot be a theory of the physical universe.

The problem with Hawking's view is that inexplicable truths also exist in true arithmetic while we certainly do have a complete theory for the natural numbers. So, the late Hawking's view on the matter is definitely debatable.

[Sculptor]

It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.

We understand the foundations of the natural numbers completely. Still, inexplicable truths are a fundamental part of true arithmetic. No amount of better understanding of arithmetic will make them go away.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_arithmetic
In mathematical logic, true arithmetic is the set of all true first-order statements about the arithmetic of natural numbers.

It took until 1931 for Kurt Godel to discover the existence of inexplicable truths in true arithmetic. It is obviously not possible to derive an inexplicable truth from the theory. It is only possible to derive from the theory that they exist.

We do have a few examples, such as Goldstein's theorem, which is inexplicable in arithmetic theory. It is provable from set theory, however, when including the axiom of infinity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein%27s_theorem
In mathematical logic, Goodstein's theorem is a statement about the natural numbers, proved by Reuben Goodstein in 1944 ... This was the third example of a true statement about natural numbers that is unprovable in Peano arithmetic, after the examples provided by Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Gerhard Gentzen's 1943 direct proof of the unprovability of ε0-induction in Peano arithmetic.

A truth that is inexplicable unless you introduce the axiom of infinity is actually an exceptional special case. The standard case is that no additional axioms could ever explain such inexplicable truth.

There are no miracles. Simple as.

It is certainly not that simple.

Inexplicable truths exist in true arithmetic. Stephen Hawking concluded that they therefore also exist in the physical universe. Of course, Hawking could not prove his hypothesis, no matter how reasonable.

Hawking merely used the likely existence of inexplicable truths in the universe to argue that there cannot be a theory of the physical universe.

The problem with Hawking's view is that inexplicable truths also exist in true arithmetic while we certainly do have a complete theory for the natural numbers. So, the late Hawking's view on the matter is definitely debatable.

Irrelevant

[Iwannaplato]

It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.

And how was this measured?

[Age]

I am not sure what any of this has to do with me, if it does. I was just saying that there was no 'spark of Life, Itself', and this is just because Life exists, always.

Age, science has shown that there actually is a spark when life begins.

Where has 'science' shown that 'life' supposedly began?

And, when did 'life' supposedly begin?

See, through 'science', itself, it was discovered that 'life' has always existed, but obviously not every one has caught up with this yet.

And, that is only some human beings who think or believe that 'life', and the Universe, began.

But this is just because some people only 'look from' a small or narrowed field of view, and so do not think about nor 'look at' the big and whole picture of things.

[iambiguous]

Of course, it's one thing to claim a belief in miracles and another thing altogether to actually demonstrate that miracles occur. In part because many who claim that miracles do occur, attach them to God. And then, in turn, they claim to believe that God does exist because without Him they have no definitive access to moral commandments and immortality and salvation.

So, please note any miracles that you believe in. And then attempt to provide us with substance evidence that they did occur.

A poll just won't cut it for some of us. After all, doesn't it revolve entirely around what you do believe rather than what you can in fact demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn?

[Age]

... it would have to defy the laws of nature in such a way that, to the best of our knowledge, it really should not be possible.

Logically, anything is possible if the conditions are right.
Discerning the elements in their proper combination that comprise the conditions is limited by the best of our knowledge.

Scientists already know how to deal with insufficient maths.
It's as simple as theorizing a new element to make the maths work.
Presto ... Call the element, Dark Matter.

As it is with maths, if the knowledge to explain a perceptual phenomenon of unknown duration is insufficient, then call the phenomenon a miracle.

The problem with calling things miracles is that it stops us from looking for an actual explanation.

Calling things miracles stops people from looking for actual explanations may well be very True, and let us not forget that there is an explanation for absolutely every thing that happens and occurs.

Based on that view, the spark of Life itself is the unknown miracle element that science can't explain.

But that doesn't seem unsolvable; I think it will be explained eventually.

But no one can 'solve' what did not happen, nor occurred.

Life always exists. Life could not and did not 'just begin', just like the Universe could not and did not 'just begin'.

Consciousness is the nut we will have the most trouble cracking, I would say.

Consciousness was 'harder to crack', but still not as hard as some when this is being written might think it would be.

[Age]

I am not sure what any of this has to do with me, if it does. I was just saying that there was no 'spark of Life, Itself', and this is just because Life exists, always.

Age, something else to think about.
You often say that God is a she. Or, a her.

In my whole life "walker" I have never ever even thought that God is a 'she', nor a 'her' let alone said it. I have also never ever alluded to this absolutely anywhere throughout this forum, let alone ever said or wrote this absolutely anywhere in this forum. So, how you come to 'assume' this, and then worse still conclude this, and say and write this publicly, you, and only you, would know.

Would you like to explain to the readers how you come to presume, conclude, and/or believe this most outrageous and most idiotic and stupid claim here?

Just so you become aware, I have been the very one criticizing and questioning anyone and especially "immanuel can" why would you human beings put a 'gender' onto something like God, Itself. (And, just so you are further aware I already know why you human beings did this, and continue to do this, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written.)

How could God be a she or a her, when the Holy Bible says that God is an our?

Moot. And, ridiculous.

Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:”

The 'art' and/or the 'created' does not possess nor own the "artist" and/or the "creator". In fact it is the other way around, the "artist" and "creator", it could be said and/or argued, own or possess the 'art' and/or the 'created'.

So, God, the 'Creator' is not an 'our', of human beings, like you said and implied here, you human beings are God's {children, as some say and claim].

Now, of course, this all depends on whether you human beings have 'created' God, through imagination only, then God would be 'yours' [human beings]. Or, whether 'God' was and is just name/label 'created' and placed on and used to refer to the very Thing, which the word 'God' is said to be able to do.

By the way, the very Thing that can do all of what God is said to be able to do, really does exist.

[Age]

A miracles is by definition an instance where the laws of nature are transgressed.

Is this one definition one that every one agrees with, accepts, and uses? Or, just one that you agree with, accept, and use "sculptor"?

And, when you say, 'transgress the laws of nature', are you saying and meaning something that is, literally, absolutely impossible to happen and occur anyway?

It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.
In Hume's time miracles seemed to be reported as happening everyday.

When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened....

Have you considered that it could be just 'a story', made up to convey 'a message', which might have been said and written as 'a puzzle', to be 'revealed' at a 'later time' or in 'later days' after it was written?

Or, is it a case of 'did happen', or, 'did not happen', and nothing else?

If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion

There are no miracles. Simple as.

[Harbal]

Logically, anything is possible if the conditions are right.
Discerning the elements in their proper combination that comprise the conditions is limited by the best of our knowledge.

Scientists already know how to deal with insufficient maths.
It's as simple as theorizing a new element to make the maths work.
Presto ... Call the element, Dark Matter.

As it is with maths, if the knowledge to explain a perceptual phenomenon of unknown duration is insufficient, then call the phenomenon a miracle.

The problem with calling things miracles is that it stops us from looking for an actual explanation.

Calling things miracles stops people from looking for actual explanations may well be very True, and let us not forget that there is an explanation for absolutely every thing that happens and occurs.

Based on that view, the spark of Life itself is the unknown miracle element that science can't explain.

But that doesn't seem unsolvable; I think it will be explained eventually.

But no one can 'solve' what did not happen, nor occurred.

Life always exists. Life could not and did not 'just begin', just like the Universe could not and did not 'just begin'.

Consciousness is the nut we will have the most trouble cracking, I would say.

Consciousness was 'harder to crack', but still not as hard as some when this is being written might think it would be.

Life hasn't always existed on this planet, and we don't know of life anywhere else. As for consciousness; it is still a complete mystery. No one knows what it really is, or how it comes about. If you believe you do know, then you are badly mistaken.

[Sculptor]

It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.

And how was this measured?

History.
It's a no brainer.

[Age]

Why when the question, 'Do you believe in miracles?', comes up, there is a bit of inquiry into, 'It depends on what is meant by the 'miracle' word, it depends on the definition of the word 'miracle', or similar'.

Yes, agreed, it depends on the definition of the term miracle.

That was not 'the point' I was making, as absolutely everything here is dependent upon the actual 'definition/s' being used.

What I was actually asking is, 'Why when, 'Do you believe in miracles?', is asked, people start wondering about and defining the word 'miracle' before they answer, but when, 'Do you believe in God?', for example, is asked, no one starts wondering about and defining the word 'God'?

For the latter question, people just answer it, whereas for the former question, people start defining the 'miracle' word, and then start to answer it.

I just put this out here for something to consider.

It is provable that inexplicable truths, i.e. "miracles", occur in the universe of the natural numbers.

But for anything that actually happens and occurs there is nothing that is 'inexplicable'. That at certain periods throughout human history somethings will not yet be able to be explained is perfectly normal and understandable. However, how about you list some things, which you class as 'miracles', and let us see if we can explain them for you.

That the Universe is, for example, infinite and eternal is Truly explicable.

Stephen Hawking argued that they therefore also exist in the physical universe. That is a reasonable hypothesis, which I also believe, but unfortunately, it is not provable.

Why would any sane human being 'believe' some thing to be true, when what is 'believed to be true' cannot even, supposedly, be proved to be true anyway?

Obviously, if something cannot be proved to be true, then 'that thing' may well not even be true to begin with. So, again, why would any sane human being 'believe' some thing to be true when it may well not even be anyway?

[meno_]

It is no co-incidence that the more we understand science, the instances of reported miracles has declined.

And how was this measured?

History.
It's a no brainer.

Yes true, but history will need to be repeated if its content is lost and forgotten.