Yes, I think so. If you want to make a miracle distinct from a low-probability occurrence, then it should be explicitly contrary to scientific law (and - if you want to get cosmic - not just known scientific law).

CPR is not very dramatically impressive, but there was a technique that used to be taught in CPR classes called 'the pro-cardial thump'. You basically thumped the sternum kinda hard with the base of your fist. If I thumped a dead Celtic chieftain on the chest (posit the time machine) and he came back to life that would look like an impressive miracle - but it would not be, from our scientific perspective.

I think that a miracle would be something that, no matter how advanced we got, we would not be able to explain it. This would be due to its being derived directly from a god that was greater than the entire universe and not subject to its limitations.

I cannot imagine a miracle.

Jan

Perhaps correct in a large sense, but in the context of a lot of recent threads, 'benign' can mean "They are not throwing bombs at us".

Jan

You seem to know a lot. Can you explain why CPR works sometimes and not others? if not, how come that the ONLY explanation in this case was the CPR?

My point is what AJAshinoff said "Some things you cannot explain".

I will leave you a thought here. I believe that knowledge is unlimited (or infinite if you prefer). And a fact of life is that any man has a limited capacity to acquire knowledge. Then, the consequence of both things is that all the knowledge of all human kind, accumulated, is almost nothing compared with the undiscovered knowledge. And this will be true forever. (The alternative is that human kind will reach the state of knowing all there is, falling in a tedious state for the rest of existence... that is dreadful!)

Socrates put it short: I only know that I know nothing.

By the way, being an atheist is having faith in a concept that nobody can prove. And the last clarification: be religious is different from believing in God. It is necessary to believe in God to be religious but it is not sufficient. I will not discuss religion with anybody that didn't ask for it, because I consider that arrogant from my point of view.

I celebrate the result, and yes, I believe the prayer had to do with it.

Atheist groups that run around suing for such horrid things as religious Christmas displays really knock themselves out recognizing other people's existence of God.
It's almost as if organized atheists have a non-believing despise all things Christian religion of their own.

There's a belief many have that first there will be an ambush Rapture when the more devout believers will be snatched up into Heaven in the blink of an eye. No predictive value there.
But a predictive value is found that an Antichrist will rule a hell on earth for 7 years before Jesus then comes back and rules the world for 1,000 years before all goes not the hell but to God.
It's all in Revelations.
A month ago I enjoyed a movie the Hollywood elite and critics who get invited to cocktail parties put down really hard--a total remake of Left Behind.
Its star, Nicolas Cage even received the Raspberry Award for worst actor of the year.
I saw this movie with a Christian friend .
After we watched the Netflix rental, we both agreed that the flick was bit uncomfortably slow at first but when the Rapture hit--What a ride!
There was nothing wrong with the acting of Nicholas Cage either.
Elite snot-heads just wanted to put him in down for the effrontery of starring in a faith-based movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6JbSi2h...

Oh, but He did! I'm just answering your question.

And even then many tried to discredit Him when made miracles in person. Nothing new. It wouldn't make any difference if He shows up again in person n terms of beliefs. That is not the point.

I just love gospel music. Get a good group of singers wailing on gospel and I can't sit still. But then, I pretty much love most music. Excluding rap which isn't music but chant with a music background. And the poetry is mostly crap.

While A.R. was firm in her atheism, I find that there a certain things in the universe that are puzzling to the point where one is almost pushed to where one has to admit that something is going on that science has big problems with. One of the most potent is the large amount of "coincidences" that need to occur in order for life to begin. Science's answer to that is that the universe is so vast that even with the odds of a million to one there is still the possibility of life. And the answer to that is that a vast universe is necessary for "You-Name-It" to create life. Strangely enough when I rejected religion, it was Quantum Physics that led me to this area of inquisition. The thing that turned me off before A.R. at the age of 12 or so, was the trappings of religion. The robes, the objects I called 'tools" of religion, the mindless repetition, the need to humble oneself, and the pure silliness of it all.

I can accept that the cosmos, waves, particles, and dimensions exist. However, as a creator in my various roles chemical, biomedical, and materials engineer, when I see great design, I have two insatiable desires.

1) to be able to create what has already been done myself because I don't think that you can really say you know something until you can do it yourself; and

2) like Dagny and Rearden, I want to find the creator and learn from it/him/her.

why would the philosophy have to have an explanation for the origin of the universe? why is it not sufficient to simply say Ais A and acknowledge objective reality. There are many things unknown to us about the cosmos, waves, particles, dimensions. Epistemologically, it is just as important to understand what you DON'T know as it is to understand what you do know. If we found the "cause" of the Universe, then you would have to find the "cause" for that cause (infinite regression). as an aside, db is now becoming quite skeptical of The Big Bang Theory among other things we are being told about cosmology.

I reasoned you could have the last word on this subject because today, Sunday, I refresh my soul. That, is a reality. Have a wonderful day.

On this topic, we will disagree, khalling. Regarding one deity over another, I have no good answer for that. I consider myself a deist in the sense that I believe in a superhuman (not supernatural) being as being responsible for the creation of the universe. Everything else in our existence has a cause. To expect that the universe has no cause does not make sense to me. There appears to be a natural explanation for how the universe evolved, but I can find no reason why there could have been such a concentration of matter and energy at the origin of the universe. A guiding mind is a possible explanation, but it cannot be proven. I have a very hard time coming up with another possible explanation, but I will continue to search for one.
To simply say that the universe has always existed is unsatisfactory. We can estimate the time of the origin of the universe. "Existence exists" is an excellent way of summarizing that we must accept reality as it is (as opposed to faking reality), but "existence exists" is not an explanation for the origin of the universe. Any philosophy that I am going to adhere to must have a satisfactory explanation for the origin of the universe. I have not found such a philosophy yet.

I completely disagree j. But more impotantly, which god would you have me reject? Why is the christian god more legit than Odin? Zeus? Atheism is simply a rejection of a concept nothing more.

"AR rejected the supernatural and explained why." I totally agree with that. "It is a direct consequence of her philosophy and contradicts it." This is the argument that I have with Ayn Rand. She defined a philosophy solely on what she currently knows (That is reasonable.) and was not open to examining new evidence that might be inconsistent with her preconception. This is what I view as unscientific. This is precisely the point that I have with atheism. Atheists readily accept any evidence that is consistent with their world view and just as readily dismiss evidence that might be contrary to it.

As always, I will continue to assert that atheism is a positive statement that there is no God, thus requiring proof as well. Your numerous explanations, no matter how many of them you make, are unconvincing. If you do not know something, you simply say that you do not know, and look for evidence and explanations of what you currently do not know or understand. We will forever disagree on this issue. Your definition (and perhaps Ms. Rand's definition) of "atheist" is not the standard definition, and for you, conveniently so. You are consistent with your own definition.

Fair enough.

If you had read carefully, I just said that Paul was telling Christians to be illogical. You argued this point because you were expecting me to be defending Christianity. I was not.

I am not claiming that the only logical explanation is "God did it.". What I am saying is illogical is to expect a cause and effect relationship in everything else in life, and then just accept that the universe exists without some underlying cause. In the meantime, I will look for scientific explanations for what I do not understand.

little girls and butterflies need no excuse -- j

Existence does not mean in a container. Your bizarre sophistry is increasingly irrelevant.

We do live without "It".