What is the difference between an extraordinary event and a miracle?

[Boojatta]

The title of one of my threads directed a question to people who believe that there are no miracles. The question itself didn't use the word "miracle", but at least one person demanded that I define the word "miracle." Now it occurs to me that one might define it as follows:

"A miracle is an event that is extraordinary."

Maybe someone believes that the above definition is in conflict with ordinary usage. However, even if there is no conflict with ordinary usage, the definition has little internal structure. It seems to merely replace a word with a synonym and leave both the word and the synonym undefined.

Do you have a habit of asserting things like the following: "If you make an allegation that a particular event occurred, then you are required to provide extraordinary evidence if the alleged event would itself be extraordinary"? If you do, then perhaps you should explain what it means to say that an occurrence or event would be "extraordinary."

[Warpy]

1. An 18 inch snowfall here 2 years ago was an extraordinary event

but hardly a miracle. It did nicely end our 10 year drought, though.

I have seen the occasional miracle in health care, people who insisted on getting better and walking out of the hospital when they should have been dead meat within 24 hours of admission. I also saw healthy people walk in and get carried out on a morgue gurney 24 hours later, no rhyme or reason there, either.

The problem with miracles or even extraordinary events is that we can neither control them nor count on them. They are flukes that happen when they happen, prayers or no prayers, scientific method or no scientific method.

I'd be more inclined to describe a miracle as a fluke with a positive outcome.

[Boojatta]

4. Are you sure that there was an 18 inch snowfall two years ago?

If you're going to claim that an 18 inch snowfall occurred, then some people who participate in DU's Religion/Theology forum might demand that you provide extraordinary evidence.

[Lancer]

2. Obama's election an extraordinary event, but not a miracle.

Not all events are extraordinary. And, despite the asinine song used in CVS ads, there are no "ordinary" miracles.

IMO, in order for an event to be a miracle, it has to have divine origins. Unearthly origins, tangible or corporeal results.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. An extraordinary event is a miracle wittnessed by an agnostic.

[Goblinmonger]

5. Or a miracle

is an extraordinary event witnessed by someone who needs to attribute all events to an unseen higher power.

[Bear down under]

6. Not an extraordinary event, but an impossible one.

"A miracle happens when God suspends the laws of nature for a purpose."

That is the definition I was given by the Dominicans as a young man -- I think it comes from Thomas Aquinas.

In judging whether a miracle has occurred, both things are important.

First, the event is something that could not have happened without divine intervention. A flowerpot falls off a balcony and narrowly misses hitting someone bneath? A lucky chance. The flowerpot remains suspended in mid air until the person notices it and gets out of the way? Maybe...

Second, there must be evidence of divine purpose -- maybe to increase the faith of the witnesses (as in many of the miracles attributed to Jesus in the gospels) or to demonstrate God's support for the person who requested the miracle, as in the case of miracles attributed to the saints.

[skepticscott]

8. The problem with that definition is

that the laws of nature cannot be suspended. If they could, they wouldn't be laws. Any seeming suspension of the laws of nature is only a result of our incomplete understanding of how those laws operate.

[Bear down under]

9. There is no "problem" with the definition I gave

Don't forget, defining something doesn't prove its existence -- it is perfectly possible to define something entirely imaginary, like Beethoven's Tenth Symphony or the square root of minus two.

A definition may, however, set the necessary conditions for the thing defined to exist. In this case, one of the defined conditions for a miracle to happen is that the laws of nature are suspended.

Now, it is legitimate to argue that they cannot be, and therefore miracles do not happen; but that is moving from definition to argument which calls for proof. To define the laws of nature as inviolable -- "if they could (be suspended) they wouldn't be laws" -- doesn't offer proof but merely another definition.

Notice, I am not asserting that miracles can or do occur!

[skepticscott]

13. The notion that "laws of nature" are inviolable

was implicit in the definition you offered, since if what you refer to as a law could be violated, why would god need to "suspend" it in order to make a miracle happen? Are you beginning to see the problem? If you can't offer a useful definition of X, or at least point to examples of things that qualify as X, it becomes reasonable to ask whether X is a meaningful concept in the first place.

And btw...the square root of minus 2 is not in the least bit imaginary, despite its mathematical classification. You can write down complex numbers on paper and perform calculations on them just like any other numbers. But I'd be very interested to hear how you'd "define" Beethoven's Tenth Symphony in a way that has any meaning.

[Bear down under]

17. You're confusing definition with proof.

To define a miracle as something that happens when God suspends the laws of nature for a purpose of His own proves nothing about whether miracles actually exist.

You are free to argue that no event can fit the definition, either because God has no power to suspend the laws of nature or because He does not exist in any case -- and that miracles are therefore imaginary. But those are arguments brought forward on the basis of the definition, not flaws inherent in the definition itself.

Similarly, imaginary numbers don't exist -- there is no number which multiplied by itself can give a negative product like minus two -- but that doesn't mean that the concept cannot be a useful mathematical tool. Even the objective existence of natural numbers is unprovable; they exist only as abstract concepts in the mind. But that doesn't prevent their being very useful as a way to describe external reality.

As for Beethoven's Tenth Symphony, that is easy to define. It is the symphony that Beethoven composed after the Ninth. That you have never heard it is because (despite his assurances to his publishers) he actually wrote very little of it down and it was left unfinished and unperformable at his death.

[skepticscott]

19. Your argument assumes

that the people who gave you that definition were just engaging in an abstract exercise in defining a word, when in fact they were doing no such thing. They were either defining the word as part of an attempt to prove that miracles do exist, or simply assuming without proof (as if it was obvious) that they do. The fact that their definition makes no sense is directly relevant to that.

And sorry, but complex numbers do exist. The complex number 0+√2i gives the result -2 when multiplied by itself. You really should do a little more research before you say such silly things.

And if Beethoven wrote any of his "Tenth" symphony down, why would you characterize it as "imaginary" instead of simply incomplete, other than to make a point that has no support in the first place?

[Bear down under]

21. Really?

In giving that definition of a miracle, I made no argument either for or against their existence. That is what the word means. That it was couched in terms derived from Christianity is irrelevant: there are miracle stories (and debate about their veracity) in every religious tradition, and that definition or some variant thereof is the standard one.

And yes, it does make sense. A miracle is essentially a metaphysical concept, and it is appropriate to define it in metaphysical terms.

Sure, in common usage something that is so unusual or exceptional that it seems beyond human power to achieve may be described as miraculous or almost so; but that is a metaphorical use of the word which only makes sense in reference to its original metaphysical meaning.

Nonetheless, if you wish to offer a secular defintion of "miracle" as a contribution to this discussion, please do so.

As for numbers, whether natural, rational, irrational, imaginary or complex:

They are a certainly very powerful tools for describing the world, but do they have any existence except as concepts in the human mind? Are they "real" or just hypothetical? This has been a matter for debate at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, and the question has not been settled yet. It contributes nothing to the debate to say "Of course they're real, don't be silly." Which sounds dangerouly like a faith-based argument ...

For Beethoven's Tenth Symphony, you might like to refresh your memory here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._10
(The link to the article on Beethoven's Symphony no 10 is found in the second line of the links; I can't get it to work from here, sorry.)

For a more detailed discussion by Dr Barry Cooper, a leading authority on the Tenth Symphony who has developed a performing edition of the first movement based on Beethoven's sketches:

http://www.lucare.com/immortal/cooper.html

[skepticscott]

22. Two posts ago

you said that Beethoven's Tenth Symphony was "entirely imaginary" and one post ago you said it was "unperformable". Now you're saying that it not only exists in some form, but that someone has concocted a performable version. You need to get your stories straight.

As far as complex number go, I can provide a concrete and cogent definition of them, and I can point to things that are unequivocal examples. I can write them down, and I can perform calculations with them. That's a lot more real than the concept of a "miracle" has ever been.

And I choose not to even bother offering a definition of "miracle" because it's an entirely muddled concept (at least in the sense that religious folk use it) that I see no value in. My world needs no "miracles" and holds together just fine without the desperate need to invent them.

[Boojatta]

11. Given your claim that anything that can be suspended isn't a law,

how do you know that there exists at least one law?

[skepticscott]

7. You're right

defining a miracle as an extraordinary event is a pretty sucky definition. Bob Beamon long jumping 29' 2 1/2" was an extraordinary event, but no miracle. A little thought would give you a hundred more counter-examples...try again.

And no fair saying that you coming up with a coherent post would be a miracle...

[RagAss]

10. The miracle originates outside of space-time.

[Orrex]

14. What the heck does that even mean, specifically?

And if such an event were to occur, how would we recognize it as originating "outside of space-time?" Can you identify another confirmed event in history that originated that way?

[ZombieHorde]

12. What is the difference between an extraordinary event and a miracle?

The supernatural.

[HamdenRice]

15. There is no extraordinary event

Only Zuul !

[Random_Australian]

16. In normal standards of proof and evidence, something that requires extraordinary evidence

is something so against what we know/so unlikely to be correct, that even a lot of the errors we can't see are more likely.

Also, if you wanted to prove God exists (for example), so many people have such an emotional investment in the matter (ie. want to find a proof, want to believe the proof is true) that if someone were to come up with a proof, it would have to be subjected to intense scrutiny.

[Silent3]

18. What's blue and smells like red paint?

Blue paint.

[rug]

20. It's the difference between rare and impossible.