I wanted to ask you a question about this. Do you believe in ANY of the christian miracles? Like, I dunno, the virgin or the zombie stories? Because if you do, I really don't understand what's stopping you from believing in ALL of the bible, in fact believing in ALL of the bible LITERALLY. Maybe you could explain your stance on this issue - I find it quite curious.

This is the same type of defining that one does with concepts like "What is mathematics?" Not every concept can be precisely and unambiguously defined. But it's still possible to have a functional understanding of the terms.

Well, there is a difference between being imprecise, and not saying anything at all. Right now you're in the second category.

Feel free to give examples of miracles, if you're having hard time formalizing the concept. In fact, I think giving examples would be more useful at this stage of the conversation.

I do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that he was crucified and resurrected.

Some people do try to believe the all of bible literally, but to do so would be a gigantic error. As a matter of hermeneutics, the Bible can never mean what it never meant. Therefore, one must first take the time to understand what it meant to its original hearers/readers (exegesis) before one attempts to draw meaning from it today.

With respect to transubstantiation, did Jesus mean that it was literally going to turn into his body and his blood? I don't think so. When Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches" did he mean it in a literal sense, that he's a physical vine and we are physical branches attached to that vine? Of course not! I'm not Catholic, and I'm not beholden to many of the beliefs that have been passed down through them.

You will find that most people who claim to take the Bible literally don't actually take the Bible literally. They do so selectively based more on their Christian culture than through any careful consideration of scripture. It is noted by seminary professors that students often come to the table looking for ways to get around various Bible verses so that they can hold to their own cultural upbringing (eisegesis) rather than approaching the Bible in a more intellectually sensitive manner.

You are assuming that it is easy to distinguish between events where magic played a part, and those where it did not.
This demands a frame of reference that we know is purely physical.
How can we be sure we have that, when physical and divine forces are invisibly intertwined?
What about new fields of study? How do we know what is truly physical, and what magical forces make us see for their own ends?
Since we cannot directly distinguish between magic and physicality, the agent interference has to be made obvious as in your examples. This does not have to be the case.
Results derived in a world where physical effects coexist with magical ones are useless.

To say that the concept is not formalized is equivalent to pointing out that every dictionary is circular (words are used to define words).

If you cannot conceive of the difference between a physical world things that would lie outside of it, then there's nothing I can do to help you understand.

So by assuming that you have a purely physical world, you avoid this problem? Nope. All you do is become intentionally ignorant by assumption.

I don't understand the question.

No, it does not. Nor does it need to be the case that the universe is understandable from a mathematical modeling perspective. Yet it is.

I fail to see how this point has been made beyond bare assertions. (I should point out that "magic" is the improper term to be using. It invokes a sense that is clearly different from the definition that I have put forth as "magic" can be induced from the physical universe, whereas the supernatural is caused by an external agent.)

Swamp gas iyam.

Would it be fair to say that what you take literally and what you don't is for the most part guided by science?

And what happens when we conclude that we don't have enough information to determine what it meant to the original hearers/readers?

No clue why you're squirming and not answering the question. Just give examples, don't be shy.

If you notice, when I was attempting to define a miracle, I was aware of this issue and precisely because of this issue inserted "current understanding" into the definition.

There's a big difference between bedrock language that we learn instinctively as children and high-level concepts that we initially learn based on examples or on combinations of other words.

Defining symbols with symbols is only a weakness if you assume knowledge can only be found within the confines of your language. For example if you assume no new type of celestial object exists because you don't have a word for it, then you are suffering from this weakness. This is more common problem in computer programming and mathematics than it is in words, probably because these tend to require strict formal typing. It really doesn't seem to be a big problem for human language.

You do realize that even if we accept what you are saying here (which I don't and Aaron W has done a good job of showing why) that you are not actually building a case against the existence of miracles. And that if you are right you will have no scientific reason for believing miracles do not exist and aren't sometimes the best explanation for an occurrence, only that science is incapable of coming to conclusions about supernatural events.

So if for a matter of practicality you want to rule out the supernatural (which I don't feel you have grounds to, but whatever), then just understand that your worldview, one that rules out the supernatural a priori, is no more rational or skeptical (in fact it's probably less skeptical and rational) than a worldview that includes the possibility of the supernatural.

Then you proceed with caution. Much of the New Testament is in the form of a one-sided conversation. The original readers knew what caused the letter to be written, but we can only infer from the the half of the conversation that we have.

Terms such as "supernatural" and "miracle" have no place in science for the same reason "big pile of some metal" isn't usually used in engineering specs. Nobody can "build a case" against so massively uncertain terms. That ofcourse is the chief reason they are completely and utterly uninteresting from a research point of view.

If you had actually gotten to the point where one could with rigor build a case against miracles and the supernatural, you would actually have come to a place where the terms would be interesting.

I did notice, and this is why your understanding doesn't even comprehend supernatural causation.

This is similar to the problems with many of the Greeks' understanding of the infinite. Something like Zeno's paradox, which we can understand are not even real problems, were utterly incomprehensible to them. They lacked an intellectual framework to understand the question in a way that it could be resolved.

We are in a position (with respect to those particular problems) where we can make sense of the question, have a sensible answer, AND understand why they had a problem. However, they would not necessarily be able to enter into our world to see their problems because of their intellectual limitations (not because they aren't smart enough, but because their intellectual foundation does not permit them this ability).

In the same way, I can see the problems that are arising in your understanding because you have a strong materialist conception of the universe. I can intellectually sit in your position and understand your objection to my definition, and I can see that it cannot be resolved with your understanding. But there's nothing I can do to bring you into my world because you do not have an intellectual framework which can encompass an understanding of a supernatural (because you are a materialist).

This is something that I cannot resolve for you. You must first be willing to abandon (if just for the sake of argument) your materialist fundamentalism in order to make sense of what I'm saying.

My argument was actually supposed to be limited to scientific research, not reality in general.
It is possible I did not communicate this.
My point is simple, if you are investigating physical phenomena, and accept the possibility of supernatural intervention; you have to deal with two simultaneously working forces. One the laws of nature, always present, and the other supernatural intervention, occasionally and undetectably present. You are now faced with the problem of having your results potentially contaminated, by a force that can hide any variable from you, de or increase any variables significance as well as introduce false variables.
This supernatural force can do all this without you having any ability to detect it.
Aron believes he would still be able to get meaningful results from his experiments, despite this interference, I see no justification for this belief.

I'm still waiting for a couple of examples of miracles as per your definition.

Transubstantiation would qualify if it happened. I thought that was already pointed out, but I guess not.

The resurrection of Jesus is another obvious claim of a miracle.

The forgiveness of sins and the restoration of the relationship between God and man.

But I think I know where we're going because we've been here before. (This, I know I've pointed out.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

are regularly performed "miracles", although they are not claimed by all denominations.

Ok, let's look at the second one, since it's the most well-defined one.

Let's say X years later scientists show that it is in fact a perfectly natural phenomenon to have someone die and then get resurrected, and in fact find a way to do this on a regular basis, moreover, they figure out how you can do it with simple materials at hand (maybe they discover a 5th or 7th force or maybe another dimension that you go to or maybe your brain indeed has superpowers waiting to be uncovered or whatever else you can fancy ). Wouldn't be the first time we thought smth was a miracle only to have science later understand it and replicate it.

Would you still call the resurrection of Jesus a miracle? Or are you going to make the (insanely strong) claim that such a phenomenon can never be a part of the physical world?

like for example?

Weather, Sun, Moon, eclipses . . .

Rainbows

God's reminder to himself not to drown the earth again (if I recall it correctly)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...16&version=NIV

And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

Post-It notes were not invented until many years later.