Miracles: How do you define them?

[Josh]

Originally posted 12/23/05:

What is your definition of a 'miracle'?

[nathaniel]

Originally posted 12/25/05:

i would define a miracle as an event that can't be explained by natural causes, or something that happens within the laws of nature, but happens at such a crucial moment or with such ironic timing that you would be hard pressed to explain it by mere coincidence.

[Josh]

Originally posted 12/26/05:

By 'natural causes' I presume you mean 'causes within nature', right?

Aside from the fact that our scientific knowledge of reality is miniscule, and therefor we might not be able to distinguish between a 'cause within nature' or a 'supernatural cause', I think your definition is hitting close to home. However, when you say of the second case 'or something that happens within the laws of nature' do you mean that the first kind of miracle is 'contradicting a law of nature'?

I guess I see miracles that come from supernatural, direct causes as still not ultimately 'breaking any laws', but perhaps we could say the 'normal laws'. I mean, if God created the world and he is intimately involved in it, then any laws there are come from Him so there really is no need to break a law (which I note you didn't say).

We'll talk more about this Tuesday.

I guess a further question I have is in the case of those miracles of timing which seem to be able to be explained by known 'laws' of nature. Does their timing suggest that at some miniscule point God did kick them off supernaturally? Or is this an even more general act of predestination?

Wow, did I just use miniscule twice in the same posting?!


Embarrasing.

[hume]

Originally posted 12/26/05:

By 'natural causes' I presume you mean 'causes within nature', right?

Aside from the fact that our scientific knowledge of reality is miniscule, and therefor we might not be able to distinguish between a 'cause within nature' or a 'supernatural cause', I think your definition is hitting close to home. However, when you say of the second case 'or something that happens within the laws of nature' do you mean that the first kind of miracle is 'contradicting a law of nature'?

I guess I see miracles that come from supernatural, direct causes as still not ultimately 'breaking any laws', but perhaps we could say the 'normal laws'. I mean, if God created the world and he is intimately involved in it, then any laws there are come from Him so there really is no need to break a law (which I note you didn't say).

We'll talk more about this Tuesday.

I guess a further question I have is in the case of those miracles of timing which seem to be able to be explained by known 'laws' of nature. Does their timing suggest that at some miniscule point God did kick them off supernaturally? Or is this an even more general act of predestination?

[Josh]

Granted... it's just that there are something we might experience in the lab (and therefore, at least hypothetically possible in the real world) that we might be tempted to call miraculous, because we can't intuitively grasp it, but that doesn't mean what we are seeing is necessarily the result of something supernatural.

I guess I was talking stuff like string theory, multiple dimensions, etc..

(Still, I'm not convinced that we shouldn't really see everyting as linked to the supernatural)

[michelle]

In the fashion of Potter Stewart I will say, "A miracle, I know it when I see it." I think it's really hard for me to "define" what I think of as a miracle because I know I will miss something. But here it goes anyway...

I think of miraculous events as being those that are scientific or medical phenomena. Personally, I would not classify something happening at just the right time and place as a miracle, but rather the hand of God working in the world in a tangible (that's for you Josh) way. I guess I have a pretty conservative view of miracles in that way.

I agree with Jason when he says, "...it's that practical understanding that provides the context for us to be recognize something as 'miraculous.'" Maybe "miraculous" events have a scientific explanation. Granted, it may be long and too complicated for any person to ever understand. But when something that happens that defies all things that we (as a human race not an individual) know and understand to be true, I think that could be classified as miraculous.

For me, this is probably more of a starting point for miracles, not an all encompassing view of what I think they are.

[Josh]

Originally posted 12/27/05:

While I do hold that there are 'miracles of timing' with natural explanations, I would agree that they might be of a different order or magnitude than miracles that appear to break the rules of our normal understanding of scientific law.

For instance, while I think the crossing of the Red Sea or the Jordan River might be a 'miracle of timing' with natural explanation, Jesus turning water into wine definitely seems to break the normal rules of physics.

I say seems of course, because I don't really think it does break them, I just don't think we know enough about physics or what happens when something outside the universe acts as a casual agent.

But when I think of the extreme rareness of documented cases of the river Jordan being blocked up or winds creating a path in the upper Red Sea, and then couple that with the fact that those things happened at precisely the right time (whether it was the Israelites fleeing from the Egyptians or the Israelites stepped out in faith into the Jordan), I can't help but personally call it a miracle.

Of course a lot of this is semantics- personal vs. technical definitions. And the point here is just as much to learn about subjective views on miracles as trying to pin down an objective one.

It's interesting to note what one person takes as a miracle and what another takes as just a coincidence.

Sorry, kinda rambling.

[hume]

I like Nate's defintion.

I would just add a "personal" element: a miracle implies the activity of a person (that is, it can't be explained sufficiently in terms of routine or plausible natural causes); yet not just any person -- for us to call it miraculous, it must appear that the event could not have been caused by human beings (even if humans were involved, the event is outside the bounds of normal human capacities).

[rose]

How about this: A miracle to me would be something occuring that defies the rules of our space-time dimensions.

[Josh]

12/26/05:

So, here we have a definition of miracle that doesn't have to mean that the miracle 'breaks a rule' of nature-- just the rules that seem inherent in our dimensional limitations. Nice.

(I am guilty of pandering here?)

[hume]

Excellent (and brief) sermon on the topic:

www.kencollins.com/disc-09.htm

[elizabeth]

Originally posted 12/26/05:

My definition of a miracle is something that happens that you never expected would/could happen.