Don't you mean, why do some "highly intelligent folk" believe in miracles rather than coincidence?

You should read Cure, Agustino. It shows some science behind the "miracles".

One difference between miracles and fantasy is that one doesn't ever happen and the other does. Fantasies occur in the minds of people from time to time, but miracles simply do not occur.

And I think that your definition sucks, by the way. It's too vague and inclusive. Is a power cut a miracle? Is constipation?

I can understand why people believe the kind of miracles described in Judaism, Christianity or Islam for that matter. They are clearly portrayed as one-off events, that are, for the most part, not reproducible, nor in the control of human beings (for the most part). — Agustino

Yeah, wishful thinking. That's why.

But there are smart people, for example Steve Jobs, who did a similar thing by refusing surgery for cancer, and ended up dying. So where do we draw the boundary between miracles and fantasy, and why is it that some intelligent and very pragmatic people believe fantasy? — Agustino

Even smart people can do foolish things or have the odd poorly founded belief. It's just part and parcel of being human. I'm not necessarily saying that what Steve Jobs did was foolish, or that it was based on a poorly founded belief, but it could have been. I don't know enough about it, so I can't really comment.

The miracle is that we are.

Real miracles as opposed to fake miracles? >:O

Don't you mean, why do some "highly intelligent folk" believe in miracles rather than coincidence? — apokrisis

So materializing a palace in the middle of the Himalayas is just "coincidence"? :P

You should read Cure, Agustino. It shows some science behind the "miracles". — praxis

Thanks for the book, haven't read it. However, I should note that I have no doubt that the mind influences the physical health of the body, and can even cure the body in some cases. However, the problem is with refusing conventional medicine which has been shown in once circumstance to have good outcomes in order to attempt to heal solely through the mind.

For example, if there was a surgery with 90% chance of success that could cure you of a serious disease, would you refuse the surgery and attempt to cure yourself through the mind alone?

And I think that your definition sucks, by the way. It's too vague and inclusive. Is a power cut a miracle? Is constipation? — Sapientia

:-d - obviously I mean an interruption of the laws of physics.

You should read Cure, — praxis

Looks fascinating.

Have a read of Pondering Miracles, Medical and Religious, by Jacalyn Duffin, a medical scientist who was unexpectedly contacted as an expert in the adjudication of a claim of a miraculous cure of cancer:

Over hundreds of hours in the Vatican archives, I examined the files of more than 1,400 miracle investigations — at least one from every canonization between 1588 and 1999.

The problem with the idea of miracles, for many people, is that they rely, consciously or otherwise, on the non-occurrence of such anomalous happenings. The fact of scientific regularity and predictability provides a kind of handle on what to consider reasonable; talk of miracles undermines that sense of certainty.

So materializing a palace in the middle of the Himalayas is just "coincidence"? — Agustino

Did that happen or didn’t you say it was a fantasy?

So let’s get back to miracles. Usually they are things that happen. Then intelligent folk would have to decide whether to attribute them to divine intervention or mere coincidence.

Where ought we draw the line would you say?

there are smart people, for example Steve Jobs, who did a similar thing by refusing surgery for cancer, and ended up dying. — Agustino

You didn’t mention this, but a copy of Autobiography of a Yogi was given to every guest at Steve Jobs’ funeral ^1.

You proved neither that miracles are real nor that fantasy isn't.

Did that happen or didn’t you say it was a fantasy? — apokrisis

I think it was fantasy, but there are obviously some people who claim that it did happen.

Then intelligent folk would have to decide whether to attribute them to divine intervention or mere coincidence.

Where ought we draw the line would you say? — apokrisis

That is a more difficult and different than the questions I was asking in the OP. It depends on the context. If I say - "now I will walk on water" and then walk on water it will be different than if I just try to go into the water and happen to walk on it for a second or so.

on the non-occurrence of such anomalous happenings. — Wayfarer

Well, personally I rely on their very rare occurence, not their entire non-occurrence.

The fact of scientific regularity and predictability provides a kind of handle on what to consider reasonable; talk of miracles undermines that sense of certainty. — Wayfarer

If we have the miracles become frequent, day-to-day things, then certainly. Would you not say that having everyday miracles would undermine the sense of certainty we get from our scientific understanding?

You didn’t mention this, but a copy of Autobiography of a Yogi was given to every guest at Steve Jobs’ funeral 1. — Wayfarer

Thanks, interesting. I knew he liked the book and read it, but I didn't know he gave a copy at his funeral. But that even proves my point even more. I think he was influenced by such reading, which caused him to take a decision that ended in his death. He could very likely have saved himself had he listened to his doctors. So it seems strange that he was such a pragmatic person in business - obviously not some wishy-washy type who lived in a dream world and couldn't get things done - and yet, when it came to his physical health, he adopted such a wishy-washy approach instead of relying on the certainty of medical science.

Jobs named his company ‘Apple’ partially because at the time he was a fruitarian. It is true that he postponed treatement very unwisely. I would never like to rely on there being miracles, but I am still inclined to believe they occur sometimes.

I would never like to rely on there being miracles, but I am still inclined to believe they occur sometimes. — Wayfarer

Yeah, that's similar to my position.

Jobs named his company ‘Apple’ partially because at the time he was a fruitarian. It is true that he postponed treatement very unwisely — Wayfarer

The strange part about this is that you'd expect someone who is pragmatic in one area of his life to be able to take this same pragmatism and apply it to other areas, but apparently not in this case. I think he overestimated his own powers.

He was a complex character, Jobs. I read the Isaacson bio when it came out, although Tim Cook and others didn’t like it. Also saw a documentary on him, Billion Dollar Hippie. He was very 60’s in his attitude. Actually I once considered doing some research on the influence of popular Eastern mysticism on the birth of the computer revolution. A lot of the creators of the PC and software, in the Bay Area, were into that kind of thing. It made it possible for them to think they could, as Jobs used to say, ‘make a dent in the Universe’. Anyway I am forever indebted to Jobs because I owe my career, such as it is, to falling into a job selling Apple Macintosh in the late 1980s. I worked at Apple as a contractor for a while, which was a great experience. I remember Michael Dell saying, in the mid-90’s, that it was over for Apple, Jobs ought to return the funds to the shareholders and go out of business. ;-)

Actually I once considered doing some research on the influence of popular Eastern mysticism on the birth of the computer revolution. A lot of the creators of the PC and software, in the Bay Area, were into that kind of thing. It made it possible for them to think they could, as Jobs used to say, ‘make a dent in the Universe’. — Wayfarer

Hmm, that's interesting but isn't Eastern mysticism quite frequently against "making a dent in the Universe" - I mean it's not like Buddhism or Hinduism love ambition as an attitude no?

Apple is satanic company and Jobs was probably devil worshiper, one way or the other.

Apple logo is bitten apple, a symbol of man's rebellion against God in the garden. They seem to be proud of man's fallen state.

First Apple computer was sold for $666. This number is mark of the beast, explicitly revealed in the Bible as a mark for man or woman who follows satan. One of the Apple ads for their first computer said: "Byte into an Apple for 666."

One of their early ads was depicting Adam hiding his nakedness with computer, with snake behind him.

One of their main marketing themes throughout the years was rebellion. How hip. But what's the ultimate Apple's rebellion? It's against true God, the God of the Bible, as they have shown enough for all who are open to see.

By the way, Bible reveals that earthly riches follow those in this world who do most work for satan.

By the way, Bible reveals that earthly riches follow those in this world who do most work for satan. — Henri

:s :-}

That's why John D. Rockefeller or King Solomon were the wealthiest men who ever lived?

That's why John D. Rockefeller or King Solomon were the wealthiest men who ever lived? — Agustino

I don't know what that's got to do with satanic Apple company. There's an answer to your question and it starts with understanding that God's creation is complex. There are always exceptions, to put it simply.

Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Solomon did a lot of work for satan, by the way, in later part of his life. He is probably saved person, but we could generally say that's not the norm in God's creation.

For example, if there was a surgery with 90% chance of success that could cure you of a serious disease, would you refuse the surgery and attempt to cure yourself through the mind alone? — Agustino

That depends on the procedure. You may be proceeding from a misconception however, the mere belief that a surgical procedure has the power to cure can be as beneficial as any faith healing, perhaps even more benefit for some.

Still trying to read Autobiography of a Yogi and the miracles make me angry. Just another example where the lay person is excluded from the powers conveyed by union with a higher state. Sounds like Yogananda is traversing the multiverse.

The miracles are to the book like advertising are to services and products in our economy. They're there to either seduce you or repel you but the goal of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism is to get beyond that. Miracles belong to the realm of phenomena which Yogis are not supposed to be interested in. Yogananda even talks about it in the book, between all the bullshit miracles.

The problem with you, Agustinino, is that you don't have the proper attitude to get to the astral plane, where you then can witness miracles (like all that good advertising which will help you to get more cash in this bullshit world of miracles and advertising).

Everything is a miracle, but a miracle of absolute bullshit and absurdity.

The secret connection between Steve Jobs and Yogananda is miraculous style written over the bullshit mundanity of life: Advertising.

Obviously I mean an interruption of the laws of physics. — Agustino

Well, why didn't you say so? Wording is important when coming up with a definition.

For example, if there was a surgery with 90% chance of success that could cure you of a serious disease, would you refuse the surgery and attempt to cure yourself through the mind alone? — Agustino

Of course not! That'd be crazy, unless you have a death wish.

on the non-occurrence of such anomalous happenings — Wayfarer

Sounds like the title of a discussion created by Robert Lockhart.

We don't have anyone of that name in Oz. :-*

Please can we stop using 'miracle' as a word meaning very rare or random occurrence. Even things like birth have been described as miracles and it's crazy! A miracle is an occurrence that cannot be explained by any of the sciences and therefore cannot happen. This is where theism came from because of the lack of scientific development in the ancient world as people saw something cool and assigned it to a god because humans have always had the desire to understand everything but haven't had the resources or were not developed enough to do so

A miracle is an occurrence that cannot be explained by any of the sciences and therefore cannot happen. — Joel Bingham

By this definition, a miracle would be an event that excited scientists to find an explanation --which is to say an unknown pattern in which such an event fits. Ideally this unknown pattern would extend and not violate the system of established patterns.

It seems to me that the impossibility of miracle as you define it would happen only at the ideal end of science. And then it would rest on the assumption that reality was truly law-like. (See Hume's problem of induction.) Finally, it's my impression that our world is a sort of casino. Extremely unlikely things could happen accordingly to the laws of physics as I non-expertly understand them. The system is not deterministic. 'God' plays dice.

This is where theism came from because of the lack of scientific development in the ancient world as people saw something cool and assigned it to a god because humans have always had the desire to understand everything but haven't had the resources or were not developed enough to do so — Joel Bingham

I'm not a theist, but I think this is too simplified. Religion was not, in my view, just proto-science. We don't just want to understand the world conceptually. We want to feel a certain way in it and about it. We want to feel a certain way about the place of our community in it. If religion is just bad science, then flags and anthems are just bad science?

I completely agree and apologise for how vague my comment was. However on the flags and anthems section I completely disagree I never claimed anything of the sort and I don't think you can compare religion to an anthem. Religion is an attempt to understand the world without being crushed by sadness that we don't matter that much and when we die we just die, but an anthem is just having pride in an empire. I don't see how one can believe they're at all similar. If I've made any mistakes here please comment.

I think miracles are rightly defined as the temporary interruption of the regular functioning of things. — Agustino

You'd need a miracle to believe that nonsense

Actually, if a miracle is defined as a suspension of natural law as we understand it then there isn't a good reason that their occurrence is impossible. All natural laws are derived from induction which is, by definition, probabilistic. In other words, every physical or chemical law is simply a very high probability outcome. That means there is always a chance, no matter how miniscule, that these laws could be bent or broken.

However, it's a very big leap to attribute miracles to God or something supernatural. I think that's where people make the mistake.

No you don't need a miracle to believe a definition.