Timeline for What should a rational person accept as a miracle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 2011 at 13:29 | comment | added | Chad | @Kiran - I am simply saying that you discount it as possible because you have not proof. But you have no proof that it is impossible either. Is that rational? I am not trying to say that when you see a piece of toast that appears to have a char pattern vaguely resembling some deitiacal figure you first jump to DI, but that discounting the possibility of it with out reason is not rational either. | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 4:27 | comment | added | WinW | @Chad interesting! Believing it as a devine intervention would not be rational (for no rasons) either. If there is a way out there to explanations, it is of science not of religion-that is what we have found so far. And my conclusion is based on this axiom | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 17:47 | comment | added | Chad | @Kiran - So then you close yourself off to a potential world of wonder for no reason other than you do not want to believe it is possible? Does that sound rational? | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 17:26 | comment | added | WinW | @Chad, I never want to consider a miracle as divine. Miracle for me is just an intriguing thing-that we are curious to know how it occurs but need some more effort or expansion for our knowledge to contain them. When I saw television at the age of four, it was miraculous for me but later I learned how EM signals are transmitted, how cathode ray tubes lighted up and it was no more a miracle. This is the case of me as an individual, same applies to society, science etc. To make it clear, I never wanted to support the argument of 'divine intervention' for all those unknown curious things. | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 13:20 | comment | added | Chad | @Kiran - You seem to discount the possibility of there being an actual miracle. While it my be irrational to expect them, to discount them as a potential source, simply because we do not know is also irrational. 100 years ago much of what is today accepted in particle physics was unknown this did not make untrue though anyone making accurate claims about it may have seemed irrational as well. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 14:51 | comment | added | Mitch | @Chad: I think that it is then a purely philosophical question: "Is there an explanation for everything?' in the sense that I don't think we can know one way or the other (I think it is an assumption of scientific research). | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 14:44 | comment | added | Chad | @Mitch - Actually there is because it did. Even though we did not understand what it was, the explanation was there. It is not rational to expect that we will ever be able to explain everything. That does not mean there is not an explanation for everything. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 13:55 | comment | added | Mitch | Despite the success of science and engineering so far, there is no guarantee that everything can be explained. So from the other direction, before the equations were figured out, there was no guarantee that a rainbow had such an explanation. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 13:06 | comment | added | WinW | @Weissman, :) Got it! Another one 'Lightning'-precisely ' atmospheric electricity'-Beyond the scope of of our current knowledge? | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 12:26 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | How about magnets? | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 12:09 | history | edited | WinW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2011 at 11:32 | history | answered | WinW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |