What, exactly, is a “miracle�?

[Zzyzx]

.
What, exactly, is a “miracle�?

Many of these debates involve mention of “miracles�, and many decisions appear to be based upon “miracles�. So, it seems reasonable to ask exactly what constitutes a “miracle�.

[Skyangel]

Miracles are nothing extraordinary to the gods who do them. They are simply a way of life to a god who keeps creating more gods in his own image through the miracle and beauty of reproduction.
You are a god. How many gods have you reproduced in the course of your life by simply doing what comes naturally to any god?

[Slopeshoulder]

I think a miracle is somethign we name, not something we identify.

By that I mean that we can't identify somethign as a miracle because it is based on aasumptions about 1. a break with ordinary cause and effect, and 2. the agency and intervention of an unknown and unverifiable divine being. This is magical thinking. So the popular cinception of miracles is a non-starter. I'm with the empiricists and rationalists (as well as religious liberals) on this.

However, I think we are free to name somethign a miracle (call it a miracle) if it meets these criteria: 1. it is rare, even uncanny, 2. it is (currently) inexplicable, and 3. we experience it as a good. I make no claims about divine agency, but I think it to be well and good to look to certain experiences and call them "miraclulous" if only to mean extraordinarily important. It imparts a certain reverence and humility. Even talk of undeserved or unexpected "grace" in extreme cases.

For example, the fact that my wife survived a deadly affliction, or the beatles found each other, or that evolution got us to einstein and shakespeare and beethoven and brains and ecosystems isn't, to my aesthetic, just "rockin'," or "statistically anomolous," it is "miraculous." It touches us deeply and we tremble at the rareity and power of it, the sheer awe of it, in the face of so much that is neither awe-inspiring nor apparently good or life-giving. This is a subtle shift in meaning (as grammar not as correspondance) that I find useful and valuable.
So I use the word miracle sometimes, and cherish doing so, but I never entertain magical claims.

As an aside for others to go into more deeply, miracles are a narrative device common to mythology intended to make a point. THAT miracles occur is the wrong thing to be arguing about; more important is WHAT miracles make their way into the narrative, for what point, to what end, in what way? Can we learn something through comparative miracle studies (within and across traditions)?
I doubt Jesus made more loaves and fishes. I find that the story of the miracle has something to do with feeding and command and inclusion and presaging the last supper story, and am interested in the eucharistic theology that grew from there. I attend to the value or dis-value of THAT material, not whether Jesus had magical powers. That's kid stuff IMHO.

As always, I'm reappropiating the spirit, not the letter.

[Flail]

I think a miracle is somethign we name, not something we identify.

By that I mean that we can't identify somethign as a miracle because it is based on aasumptions about 1. a break with ordinary cause and effect, and 2. the agency and intervention of an unknown and unverifiable divine being. This is magical thinking. So the popular cinception of miracles is a non-starter. I'm with the empiricists and rationalists (as well as religious liberals) on this.

However, I think we are free to name somethign a miracle (call it a miracle) if it meets these criteria: 1. it is rare, even uncanny, 2. it is (currently) inexplicable, and 3. we experience it as a good. I make no claims about divine agency, but I think it to be well and good to look to certain experiences and call them "miraclulous" if only to mean extraordinarily important. It imparts a certain reverence and humility. Even talk of undeserved or unexpected "grace" in extreme cases.

For example, the fact that my wife survived a deadly affliction, or the beatles found each other, or that evolution got us to einstein and shakespeare and beethoven and brains and ecosystems isn't, to my aesthetic, just "rockin'," or "statistically anomolous," it is "miraculous." It touches us deeply and we tremble at the rareity and power of it, the sheer awe of it, in the face of so much that is neither awe-inspiring nor apparently good or life-giving. This is a subtle shift in meaning (as grammar not as correspondance) that I find useful and valuable.
So I use the word miracle sometimes, and cherish doing so, but I never entertain magical claims.

As an aside for others to go into more deeply, miracles are a narrative device common to mythology intended to make a point. THAT miracles occur is the wrong thing to be arguing about; more important is WHAT miracles make their way into the narrative, for what point, to what end, in what way? Can we learn something through comparative miracle studies (within and across traditions)?
I doubt Jesus made more loaves and fishes. I find that the story of the miracle has something to do with feeding and command and inclusion and presaging the last supper story, and am interested in the eucharistic theology that grew from there. I attend to the value or dis-value of THAT material, not whether Jesus had magical powers. That's kid stuff IMHO.

As always, I'm reappropiating the spirit, not the letter.

Excellent thought provoking post Slopeshoulder! Perhaps a new thread could be crafted from these thoughts?

[I AM ALL I AM]

What, exactly, is a “miracle�?...

In the Bible, miracles are primarily concentrated in three places: the exodus from Egypt, the Elijah-Elisha period of Israelite unfaithfulness to their God, and the time of Jesus and the apostles. Miracles are signs from God that demonstrate to particular people God's presence, God's power, and God's authority. In the case of Jesus, where the scale and scope of miracles are so great, they serve to demonstrate his uniqueness (summarized from The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 515-517).

G'day EduChris.

There appears to be no evidence to support "the exodus from Egypt" (see the article below).

Do the other such "miracles" you cite have any evidence for them ?

Or are the claims as unsubstantiated as "the exodus from Egypt" ?

The Exodus

The Exodus (Greek word έξοδος, Hebrew: יצי�ת מצרי�, Modern Yetsi'at Mitzrayim Tiberian [jəsʕijaθ misʕɾajim] ; "the exit from Egypt") is the story of the departure of the Israelites from ancient Egypt described in the Hebrew Bible. Narrowly defined, the term refers only to the departure from Egypt described in the Book of Exodus; more widely, it takes in the subsequent law-givings and wanderings in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan described in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

With the exception of those conservative scholars who insist on Mosaic authorship of the Torah, scholars agree that the Exodus account is a composite literary construct, composed and edited from smaller units transmitted over centuries to achieve theological and historical coherence.[1] Recent research has identified more and more of the Exodus material as coming from the Israelite monarchy and the Exile, times long after the 2nd millennium epoch in which the narrative is set, and the original base of the story becomes correspondingly more and more difficult to identify.[2] While the form of the story is historical, it is best seen as theology set in a narrative framework, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Israelites; it is therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as history.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

[Zzyzx]

.

Ye are gods.

Fixating on a single issue, item or thought as THE “explanation� is a form of distortion that contradicts a search for “truth�. In this case a single line from a source is chosen for focus – ignoring the vast bulk of the same source that says directly the opposite (that “god� is separate from man).

“You just don’t understand� is a common refrain from those who have developed their own viewpoint that is rejected by others. Such views are often rejected for a good reason – they have no merit beyond the mind of the proposing individual and no application to anyone else (no matter how hard they are pressed or preached).

Typical of this condition is lack of support for the proposition (which, with extreme circularity, is “explained� by “you just don’t understand�).

I understand and agree with the definition. However, if you think about it, all people are divine according to that definition since all people have been created in the image of God/god with the nature of God/god and have the same nature as the God/god within them.

I HAVE “thought about it� – and conclude that “it� is nothing more than the personal opinion of a forum member who has NOT supported claims with anything more than restatement of her personal opinion – ad nausea.

Unsupported personal opinions are worthless to me – and are not considered as having value as evidence in debate.

Your example, which WAS funny, implicates "god" in the "miracle" (or potential miracle) of rescue.

Yes it does but it is a joke, a fictional story which sends a message that God works through very ordinary people

Perhaps the real joke is to propose that human lives are affected by supernatural forces of any kind -- including a supposed "unification or dification of us" .

and those who can't "see it" or dont understand it are fools because they are looking for a different God/god which is in their imagination and outside of people.

There is no assurance that the imagination being expressed here (ye are gods) is any less foolish than the “sky daddy� concept of “god�.

I perceive "divine intervention" working through those who rescue others from the flood or save the lives of others in various ways. I perceive divine intervention working through divine people every day as people intervene in the lives of those who can't help themselves.

That is an “interesting� personal perspective – that is presented with a total absence of support – masquerading as “truth�.

Note that opinion, conjecture and unverified clam does NOT equate to demonstration.

I have nothing else to offer anyone except the Truth and logic within me. All I have is myself to offer you. If that is unacceptable then I apologize for trying to share myself and my thoughts with you.

You DO realize that this is a DEBATE, site, do you not? “Sharing� yourself and your thoughts may be appropriate in settings OTHER than debate (perhaps Holy Huddle) where preaching is encouraged and support for what is presented is not considered important.

I am my own evidence. You are welcome to perceive me and the way I express myself any way you wish. I verify myself with my own words.

I have no interest in your unsupported claims and impressions of yourself. However, I do have interest in helping demonstrate to readers the defects in promoting such ideas under the banner of “truth� when they are nothing more than personal opinions that are not even vaguely supported by what can legitimately be called reasoning and by no evidence whatsoever.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

Ye are gods.

Fixating on a single issue, item or thought as THE “explanation� is a form of distortion that contradicts a search for “truth�. In this case a single line from a source is chosen for focus – ignoring the vast bulk of the same source that says directly the opposite (that “god� is separate from man).

It is, however, a good indicator one may excel in the cherry picking industry.

“You just don’t understand� is a common refrain from those who have developed their own viewpoint that is rejected by others. Such views are often rejected for a good reason – they have no merit beyond the mind of the proposing individual and no application to anyone else (no matter how hard they are pressed or preached).

Typical of this condition is lack of support for the proposition (which, with extreme circularity, is “explained� by “you just don’t understand�).

'Specially when one is unable to present evidence to be understood.

I HAVE “thought about it� – and conclude that “it� is nothing more than the personal opinion of a forum member who has NOT supported claims with anything more than restatement of her personal opinion – ad nausea.

Unsupported personal opinions are worthless to me – and are not considered as having value as evidence in debate.

"Worthless" is such a strong word, may I suggest "useless".

Perhaps the real joke is to propose that human lives are affected by supernatural forces of any kind -- including a supposed "unification or dification of us" .

I notice often folks provide hypotheticals as if that constitutes evidence of some sort. Hypothetically I'm a handsome man.

and those who can't "see it" or dont understand it are fools because they are looking for a different God/god which is in their imagination and outside of people.

There is no assurance that the imagination being expressed here (ye are gods) is any less foolish than the “sky daddy� concept of “god�.

Would a "fool" be able to recognize and accurately diagnose the condition in others?

I perceive "divine intervention" working through those who rescue others from the flood or save the lives of others in various ways. I perceive divine intervention working through divine people every day as people intervene in the lives of those who can't help themselves.

That is an “interesting� personal perspective – that is presented with a total absence of support – masquerading as “truth�.

How heavy your quotaters hang.

I have nothing else to offer anyone except the Truth and logic within me. All I have is myself to offer you. If that is unacceptable then I apologize for trying to share myself and my thoughts with you.

You DO realize that this is a DEBATE, site, do you not?
...

It doesn't seem to matter to some.

I am my own evidence. You are welcome to perceive me and the way I express myself any way you wish. I verify myself with my own words.

I have no interest in your unsupported claims and impressions of yourself. However, I do have interest in helping demonstrate to readers the defects in promoting such ideas under the banner of “truth�...

Now Zzyzx, I love you to death and all, but you know it's spelled Truth.

...
when they are nothing more than personal opinions that are not even vaguely supported by what can legitimately be called reasoning and by no evidence whatsoever.

"You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
- Mark Twain

[Skyangel]

.

Ye are gods.

Fixating on a single issue, item or thought as THE “explanation� is a form of distortion that contradicts a search for “truth�. In this case a single line from a source is chosen for focus – ignoring the vast bulk of the same source that says directly the opposite (that “god� is separate from man).

Please provide proof that the bible says that God is separate from man.. You may do so on a separate thread since it has nothing to do with your OP.

.
“You just don’t understand� is a common refrain from those who have developed their own viewpoint that is rejected by others. Such views are often rejected for a good reason – they have no merit beyond the mind of the proposing individual and no application to anyone else (no matter how hard they are pressed or preached).

Typical of this condition is lack of support for the proposition (which, with extreme circularity, is “explained� by “you just don’t understand�).

Please provide evidence that the view of an individual has no merit beyond the individuals own mind.
Are you suggesting that all people who think differently to the crowds and don't conform to peer pressure think they are not understood by the masses? Can you prove that assumption?
Please do so on a new thread since it has nothing to do with the topic of "What is a miracle"

I understand and agree with the definition. However, if you think about it, all people are divine according to that definition since all people have been created in the image of God/god with the nature of God/god and have the same nature as the God/god within them.

.

I HAVE “thought about it� – and conclude that “it� is nothing more than the personal opinion of a forum member who has NOT supported claims with anything more than restatement of her personal opinion – ad nausea.

Unsupported personal opinions are worthless to me – and are not considered as having value as evidence in debate.

Thank you for your unsupported personal opinion which has nothing to do with the OP.

Perhaps the real joke is to propose that human lives are affected by supernatural forces of any kind -- including a supposed "unification or dification of us" .

Can you suport that presumption with any evidence?

There is no assurance that the imagination being expressed here (ye are gods) is any less foolish than the “sky daddy� concept of “god�.

Where is your evidence to support that one persons concept is any more or less foolish than anyone elses concept ?
Is the concept of a real person being "Santa Claus" more or less foolish that a persons concept of a magical "Santa Claus" who lives at the north pole?
Can you provide a logical reason for your answer?

That is an “interesting� personal perspective – that is presented with a total absence of support – masquerading as “truth�.

Thank you for your own interesting personal perspective which is also presented with a total absence of support. Readers are obviously free to perceive the written word any way they wish regardless of who wrote it.

Note that opinion, conjecture and unverified clam does NOT equate to demonstration.

Can you demonstrate that statement to be true?

You DO realize that this is a DEBATE, site, do you not? “Sharing� yourself and your thoughts may be appropriate in settings OTHER than debate (perhaps Holy Huddle) where preaching is encouraged and support for what is presented is not considered important. .

Yes I realize this is a debate site.
In my opinion, in order to debate successfully it is wise to understand how your opponent thinks and why they think the way they do. By sharing my thoughts with you I am giving you an advantage which you may chose to accept or reject as you wish.

I have no interest in your unsupported claims and impressions of yourself. However, I do have interest in helping demonstrate to readers the defects in promoting such ideas under the banner of “truth� when they are nothing more than personal opinions that are not even vaguely supported by what can legitimately be called reasoning and by no evidence whatsoever.

Are you able to demonstrate the defects in your own ideas and personal opinions? If so, please demonstrate that you can do it.
If you cannot do it with your own ideas and opinions, how do you propose to do it with anyone elses ideas and opinions?

Please demonstrate the defects in your own opinions on a new thread since it has nothing to do with the OP.

[Zzyzx]

.

Ye are gods.

Fixating on a single issue, item or thought as THE “explanation� is a form of distortion that contradicts a search for “truth�. In this case a single line from a source is chosen for focus – ignoring the vast bulk of the same source that says directly the opposite (that “god� is separate from man).

Please provide proof that the bible says that God is separate from man.. You may do so on a separate thread since it has nothing to do with your OP.

Why the sudden concern with the OP?

Perhaps one should be surprised that you, of all people (who steadfastly refuses to substantiate claims with anything more than personal opinions) asks another to substantiate claims. However, I recognize that as an apparent attempt to obfuscate in lieu of debate. Nevertheless, I will respond as though asked by a sincere person.

The simplest and most straightforward example is, “I am the lord, thy god, and you shall not have false gods before me� (or words to that effect in various versions). Notice that the supposed speaker does not say “you are thy god� – and that the supposed speaker sets itself apart from “you�.

It would be most difficult, in my opinion, to “reinterpret� this to imply an internal “god�. However, you are welcome to try to convince readers if you wish.

“You just don’t understand� is a common refrain from those who have developed their own viewpoint that is rejected by others. Such views are often rejected for a good reason – they have no merit beyond the mind of the proposing individual and no application to anyone else (no matter how hard they are pressed or preached).

Typical of this condition is lack of support for the proposition (which, with extreme circularity, is “explained� by “you just don’t understand�).

Please provide evidence that the view of an individual has no merit beyond the individuals own mind.

Notice that I included “lack of support� – indicating that an unsupported opinion has no application to others. Some may choose to accept views expressed without support – but that is a personal decision on their part and is not applied from without.

Are you suggesting that all people who think differently to the crowds and don't conform to peer pressure think they are not understood by the masses? Can you prove that assumption?

I make no such suggestion or assumption. Are you attempting to create a straw man?

Please do so on a new thread since it has nothing to do with the topic of "What is a miracle"

Why pursue lines of discussion that you regard as being off topic? Why suggest that I start a new thread rather than doing so yourself?

Thank you for your unsupported personal opinion which has nothing to do with the OP

Again, why the sudden concern with the OP? .

Perhaps the real joke is to propose that human lives are affected by supernatural forces of any kind -- including a supposed "unification or dification of us" .

Can you suport that presumption with any evidence?

There is no presumption on my part. Notice the word “perhaps� that begins my statement. That is known as a “qualifier� which denotes the statement is not offered as conclusive – but is suggested as an alternative.

There is no assurance that the imagination being expressed here (ye are gods) is any less foolish than the “sky daddy� concept of “god�.

Where is your evidence to support that one persons concept is any more or less foolish than anyone elses concept ?

I have made no such assertion – and make no claim to know “Truth�. Are you attempting to create a straw man?

Is the concept of a real person being "Santa Claus" more or less foolish that a persons concept of a magical "Santa Claus" who lives at the north pole?

I take no position regarding the degree of foolishness (or lack thereof) regarding Santa Claus.

Can you provide a logical reason for your answer?

Since I take no position, no reason is required.

That is an “interesting� personal perspective – that is presented with a total absence of support – masquerading as “truth�.

Thank you for your own interesting personal perspective which is also presented with a total absence of support.

My support is YOUR posts. Readers are encouraged to look for any support offered for statements in your posts (or any evidence of “Truth�).

Readers are obviously free to perceive the written word any way they wish regardless of who wrote it.

I agree. That may not be to your advantage.

Note that opinion, conjecture and unverified clam does NOT equate to demonstration.

Can you demonstrate that statement to be true?

Yes ma’am, I think I can – to those who understand that words come attached to definitions and are not used willy-nilly in reasoned discourse.

Opinion is defined as: “a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter or particular matters: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge�

Conjecture is defined as: “inference from defective or presumptive evidence: an inference or conclusion drawn or deduced by surmise or guesswork�

Unverified is defined as: “lacking substantiation�

Claim is defined as: “to assert especially with conviction and in the face of possible contradiction or doubt: an assertion, statement, or implication (as of value, effectiveness, qualification, eligibility) often made or likely to be suspected of being made without adequate justification�

NOTICE that in none of the definitions is there even a suggestion of “demonstration�. Do you disagree?

Can you honestly say that you did not know that opinion, conjecture and unverified claims do not equate to demonstration?

If you cannot honestly say that (which would indicate more than a little naïveté), then your question demonstrates insincerity in debate through deliberate obfuscation.

In my opinion, in order to debate successfully it is wise to understand how your opponent thinks and why they think the way they do.

In my opinion, in order to debate effectively, it is wise to attempt to understand what an “opponent� SAYS (writes in this case).

I make NO attempt to understand how another person THINKS – and certainly not why they think as they do. I respond to what they say since I am neither a mind reader nor an omniscient.

By sharing my thoughts with you I am giving you an advantage which you may chose to accept or reject as you wish.

Any advantage that may accrue to me is certainly not derived from knowledge of your thoughts. Thanks anyway.

Are you able to demonstrate the defects in your own ideas and personal opinions? If so, please demonstrate that you can do it.

That is a personal matter that is, frankly, none of your business. However, if you can demonstrate a legitimate “need to know� via PM, I may provide some information.

If you cannot do it with your own ideas and opinions, how do you propose to do it with anyone elses ideas and opinions?

Notice that I allow / encourage others to demonstrate the flaws in their stated ideas and opinion (in debate) by asking questions that show readers the lack of supporting evidence and the dependence upon personal opinion. I feel no need to show anyone wrong – but simply allow them to do so themselves.

Please demonstrate the defects in your own opinions on a new thread since it has nothing to do with the OP.

When you wish to have new threads opened, it is your prerogative to do so – not request that of others.

It is incumbent upon you to not ask questions that divert threads for your own purposes.

[Skyangel]

.

The simplest and most straightforward example is, “I am the lord, thy god, and you shall not have false gods before me� (or words to that effect in various versions). Notice that the supposed speaker does not say “you are thy god� – and that the supposed speaker sets itself apart from “you�.

It would be most difficult, in my opinion, to “reinterpret� this to imply an internal “god�. However, you are welcome to try to convince readers if you wish.

Jesus Father was in Him and He was in the Father. When the Father is in you then you are communicating with the Father within you and the Father communicates with you on the inside, in your mind and heart. When you are ONE with the Father in the same way Jesus is one with the Father you are not separate from the Father at all any more than Jesus was separate from the Father. It's a miracle or a mystery which is understood by those who abide in Him.

“You just don’t understand� is a common refrain from those who have developed their own viewpoint that is rejected by others. Such views are often rejected for a good reason – they have no merit beyond the mind of the proposing individual and no application to anyone else (no matter how hard they are pressed or preached).

Typical of this condition is lack of support for the proposition (which, with extreme circularity, is “explained� by “you just don’t understand�).

Please provide evidence that the view of an individual has no merit beyond the individuals own mind.

Notice that I included “lack of support� – indicating that an unsupported opinion has no application to others. Some may choose to accept views expressed without support – but that is a personal decision on their part and is not applied from without.

It all depends on ones perception of "support" and whether the reader finds the offered support acceptable or not. It appears to me that in these debates logic is not acceptable unless it is supported by the masses who agree with it.

Are you suggesting that all people who think differently to the crowds and don't conform to peer pressure think they are not understood by the masses? Can you prove that assumption?

I make no such suggestion or assumption. Are you attempting to create a straw man?

Not at all. Your statement implies that an individuals ideas have no merit unless they are supported by the masses who agree with the statement.
It is very possible the masses really don’t understand.
Just because someones views are rejected, is no indication that their views have no merit except in the minds of those who think that way.
According to social psychologist Irving Janis, peer pressure can cause people to make faulty decisions. Therefore the group may very well be wrong and the individual who does not conform to peer pressure may be right no matter how much their ideas and concepts are rejected by the masses.
-------------------------------
"Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment� (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making."

References
Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, Irving L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Second Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
--------------------

Please do so on a new thread since it has nothing to do with the topic of "What is a miracle"

Why pursue lines of discussion that you regard as being off topic? Why suggest that I start a new thread rather than doing so yourself?

Because you brought up the questions in the first place and I think it is polite to answer questions.

Thank you for your unsupported personal opinion which has nothing to do with the OP

Again, why the sudden concern with the OP? .

Because it is becoming very obvious to me that some people like to keep posting the rules as if I am not obeying them so I figured I better do my best to make it obvious that I am obeying the rules and also encouraging others to do the same. Therefore I encourage you to begin a new thread if any questions you wish to ask me do not relate to your OP of what is a miracle. However, its your thread after all and if you don't mind people straying off topic, I don't either, as long as no one decides to accuse me of breaking any rules.
Rule 4 . Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

Perhaps the real joke is to propose that human lives are affected by supernatural forces of any kind -- including a supposed "unification or dification of us" .

Can you suport that presumption with any evidence?

There is no presumption on my part. Notice the word “perhaps� that begins my statement. That is known as a “qualifier� which denotes the statement is not offered as conclusive – but is suggested as an alternative.

Statements that need qualifiers in case you are wrong are statements that cannot be proved and therefore you have no evidence to support them except for your own wavering opinion which is inconclusive by your own admittance.

There is no assurance that the imagination being expressed here (ye are gods) is any less foolish than the “sky daddy� concept of “god�.

Where is your evidence to support that one persons concept is any more or less foolish than anyone elses concept ?

I have made no such assertion – and make no claim to know “Truth�. Are you attempting to create a straw man?

Not at all but it appears to me that you are with your implication that a statement is foolish when you have nothing but your own unverified opinion to prove it is foolish.

Is the concept of a real person being "Santa Claus" more or less foolish that a persons concept of a magical "Santa Claus" who lives at the north pole?

I take no position regarding the degree of foolishness (or lack thereof) regarding Santa Claus.

It appears to me that you enjoy "sitting on the fence" and not committing to anything.

That is an “interesting� personal perspective – that is presented with a total absence of support – masquerading as “truth�.

Thank you for your own interesting personal perspective which is also presented with a total absence of support.

My support is YOUR posts. Readers are encouraged to look for any support offered for statements in your posts (or any evidence of “Truth�).

Thank you for encouraging people to look.
The wise look beyond outward appearances and they can see the Truth in my posts.

Readers are obviously free to perceive the written word any way they wish regardless of who wrote it.

I agree. That may not be to your advantage.

It may not be to yours either. I already have the advantage since I know the wise can see the Truth in what I write.

Note that opinion, conjecture and unverified clam does NOT equate to demonstration.

Can you demonstrate that statement to be true?

Yes ma’am, I think I can – to those who understand that words come attached to definitions and are not used willy-nilly in reasoned discourse.

Opinion is defined as: “a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter or particular matters: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge�

Conjecture is defined as: “inference from defective or presumptive evidence: an inference or conclusion drawn or deduced by surmise or guesswork�

Unverified is defined as: “lacking substantiation�

Claim is defined as: “to assert especially with conviction and in the face of possible contradiction or doubt: an assertion, statement, or implication (as of value, effectiveness, qualification, eligibility) often made or likely to be suspected of being made without adequate justification�

NOTICE that in none of the definitions is there even a suggestion of “demonstration�. Do you disagree?

Can you honestly say that you did not know that opinion, conjecture and unverified claims do not equate to demonstration?

If you cannot honestly say that (which would indicate more than a little naïveté), then your question demonstrates insincerity in debate through deliberate obfuscation.

You have just demonstrated the meanings of the words opinion, conjecture, unverified and claim. Does that equate to demonstration ?
No person can provide logic without a reasoned and reasonable judgment. What some people call opinion and regard as invalid can be perceived as very valid and logical judgment to others.

In my opinion, in order to debate successfully it is wise to understand how your opponent thinks and why they think the way they do.

In my opinion, in order to debate effectively, it is wise to attempt to understand what an “opponent� SAYS (writes in this case).

I make NO attempt to understand how another person THINKS – and certainly not why they think as they do. I respond to what they say since I am neither a mind reader nor an omniscient.

What people write is also usually what they are thinking. If you do not think the words first, you will not write them since you cannot write words if they are not on your mind in the first place. It is not necessary to be a mind reader to know what people are thinking when they write down their thoughts. All you need to do is to be able to read words.
Understanding those words is quite another thing as is evidenced in the written words of the bible. Words can be interpreted in many different ways by readers.

By sharing my thoughts with you I am giving you an advantage which you may chose to accept or reject as you wish.

Any advantage that may accrue to me is certainly not derived from knowledge of your thoughts. Thanks anyway.

You're welcome.

[Flail]

Skyangel wrote:

What people write is also usually what they are thinking. If you do not think the words first, you will not write them since you cannot write words if they are not on your mind in the first place. It is not necessary to be a mind reader to know what people are thinking when they write down their thoughts. All you need to do is to be able to read words.

I completely disagree. A particular author's motive and intent are often not displayed in his/her writings. The author may be attempting to deceive or be parading fiction as fact or be deluded himself. One must know the author and be able to relate his writings in context. This is difficult if not impossible with many unattributed ancient writings or those attributed to 'gods' or unknown authors.