Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Hmmm... so I'm being presumptuous? ...... again?!?   Whereas it's true that certain things that were deemed miraculous in past ages are now understood as being governed by known natural laws, that can't be said for all the possibilities that fall within the parameters of "a miracle operating in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law". Some instances will necessarily always fall outside natural laws because they're supernatural. There is matter (that which is classed under physical law), psyche or soul (that which is classed under psychological principles), and spirit (that which is classed under spiritual law). This probably clarified nothing for you, but it makes perfect sense to me. |
But you're still defining 'miracles' as things which are inexplicable in terms of natural law, when we haven't actually set the parameters of natural law. Where, exactly, are you setting the dividing line between natural & supernatural - & what's your justification for setting it there as opposed to elsewhere?
Now, if you were saying that the fact that there is
something rather than
nothing is a 'miracle', that the sun shines on the grass, & every blade is both similar to & unique from every other, that there are sunsets & mountains, that I can experience all of those things - that all those things are 'miracles' (even the fact that there
are natural laws which apply in every part of the Universe) I'd struggle to argue with the point, but to say that 'X' can't be explained by current scientific thinking, therefore it (& it alone) is a 'miracle' seems a bit limiting. The whole thing is a miracle, not just the bits we can't explain - what you're calling a 'miracle' I'd just call inexplicable.