There is no logical argument against miracles. They could exist.
But there really is no reliable evidence for them. If there was, I would also think this is a supernatural universe. But as it stands I’m pretty sure this is a natural universe, without souls and without praying superpowers.
I mean have you heard about the beatification of Pope John Paul II? A nun with symptoms similar to Parkinson’s was healed after she prayed to John Paul. She even had a relapse but they went with it anyway.
Define “miracle”. It’s not well-understood what causes the leaders in lightning. Could this be considered a miracle in support of the existence of Thor?
I think a miracle is usually considered to be a violation of known natural regularities that does not itself have a natural explanation. This is much more specific than just “unexplained phenomenon”. Leaders in lightning are not violations of natural regularities. They are a regular predictable phenomenon, and their existence does not contradict (AFAIK) any other accepted natural law or regularity.
Hm, substitute ‘miracle’ with ‘supernatural phenomenon’, then.
(“supernatural” still in this sense: A “supernatural” explanation appeals to ontologically basic mental things, mental entities that cannot be reduced to nonmental entities.)
So the question of whether lightning is a supernatural phenomenon or not is now about an empirical fact, not about my own ignorance. If the lightning is due to electrically charged regions in clouds, it’s natural. If it’s due to Thor’s rage and only a god can produce it, it’s supernatural.
And of course even if we think that lightning is a supernatural phenomenon it could still be Zeus and not Thor ;)
A “supernatural” explanation appeals to ontologically basic mental things, mental entities that cannot be reduced to nonmental entities.
I think there are supposed to be non mental “supernatural” artifacts as well. Like Thor’s hammer.
I find “miracles” and “supernatural” basically placeholders for “we don’t follow the rules”. It’s basically magic. Harry and I still think there would be rules, just new ones.
In the context of the OP, I think miracles are “magic from an entity”. He wills it, it is done. The miraculous part isn’t the ontologically basic mental thing, but the lack of understanding of how the ontologically mental thing can produce physical effects.
Well played. But there’s a huge difference in how you should update given a phenomonon we don’t yet understand that seems to have no religious connotation and given one that only occurs in conjunction with prayer. If the leaders in lighting occured ten times more frequently any time someone invoked Thor, I’d call it evidence for Asgard. If there’s no religious correlation, I’d call it evidence that we need better meterology.
There is no logical argument against miracles. They could exist.
But there really is no reliable evidence for them. If there was, I would also think this is a supernatural universe. But as it stands I’m pretty sure this is a natural universe, without souls and without praying superpowers.
I mean have you heard about the beatification of Pope John Paul II? A nun with symptoms similar to Parkinson’s was healed after she prayed to John Paul. She even had a relapse but they went with it anyway.
Define “miracle”. It’s not well-understood what causes the leaders in lightning. Could this be considered a miracle in support of the existence of Thor?
I think a miracle is usually considered to be a violation of known natural regularities that does not itself have a natural explanation. This is much more specific than just “unexplained phenomenon”. Leaders in lightning are not violations of natural regularities. They are a regular predictable phenomenon, and their existence does not contradict (AFAIK) any other accepted natural law or regularity.
Hm, substitute ‘miracle’ with ‘supernatural phenomenon’, then.
(“supernatural” still in this sense: A “supernatural” explanation appeals to ontologically basic mental things, mental entities that cannot be reduced to nonmental entities.)
So the question of whether lightning is a supernatural phenomenon or not is now about an empirical fact, not about my own ignorance. If the lightning is due to electrically charged regions in clouds, it’s natural. If it’s due to Thor’s rage and only a god can produce it, it’s supernatural.
And of course even if we think that lightning is a supernatural phenomenon it could still be Zeus and not Thor ;)
I think there are supposed to be non mental “supernatural” artifacts as well. Like Thor’s hammer.
I find “miracles” and “supernatural” basically placeholders for “we don’t follow the rules”. It’s basically magic. Harry and I still think there would be rules, just new ones.
In the context of the OP, I think miracles are “magic from an entity”. He wills it, it is done. The miraculous part isn’t the ontologically basic mental thing, but the lack of understanding of how the ontologically mental thing can produce physical effects.
Well played. But there’s a huge difference in how you should update given a phenomonon we don’t yet understand that seems to have no religious connotation and given one that only occurs in conjunction with prayer. If the leaders in lighting occured ten times more frequently any time someone invoked Thor, I’d call it evidence for Asgard. If there’s no religious correlation, I’d call it evidence that we need better meterology.
Ok, now define “ontologically basic”.