From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: a miraculous definition (was Re: Christian Bashing)
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:29:16 GMT

In article <4400.29E334B3@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes: 
|> I don't have a "problem" with people who think like this. But it's
|> mighty hard to define the term "miracle" if you include all
|> aesthetically pleasing manifestations of natural laws.

Hmm...  Perhaps a little more qualification is needed.

I suppose it is fair to define "miracles" in terms of a religious context.
Of course atheists do not believe in miracles.  They do not ascribe
anything to God, since they believe there is none.

I would further qualify a miracle as a phenomenon with an unknown
or as-yet unexplained cause.  Miracles are extraordinary.  We think
we understand the how-and-why of things we see happening every
day.  So when something unexpected or inexplicable happens, we say
"Wow!  It's a miracle!"  :-)
 
|> You can argue that since God created the natural laws, then their
|> manifestations are miraculous, but there are problems with this -
|> everything is a manifestation of a natural law, and if you call
|> everything miraculous, then the word loses meaning.

Yes.  See above.

However, I also consider many seemingly commonplace things to
be somewhat miraculous as well.  The birth of a child, for example.

|> I don't believe in divergences from natural law either, and i think all
|> the people swallowed alive by great fish and all the seas parted and the
|> sun stopping and all the other stuff are probably just
|> "misrepresentations."

Miracles in history seem to have had a tendency to get changed in the
telling over time.  This does not mean that there were no miracles,  but
only that people are fanciful story-tellers.

|> I guess your definition of a miracle is as valid as anyone else's. But
|> it sure is hard to get a coherent debate going about reasons to believe
|> in God with someone who lumps everything under the miracle label. :)
|>  
|> >I tend to view the more noticable, spectacular, or beautiful
|> >manifestations as "miraculous".
|>  
|> Why? What makes a tornado or lightning bolt more miraculous than a less
|> spectacular manifestation? Dropping a ball is a manifestation of the law
|> of gravity, just as a rainbow is a manifestation of the laws of
|> refraction and a lightning bolt is a manifestation of the laws of
|> electricity. Why is a "show-stopper" more of a miracle than something
|> mundane?

No logical reason that I can put my finger on.  Some of these things just
seem to be more impressive to me.  I think you probably understand this
argument from an intuitive perspective.  I suppose this is less than
satisfying to the "Spock" aspect of your character, but there it is.  :-)

*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       | Just My Own Bigoted Opinions |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: hsv.religion