Can you follow up with some actual information about such environments? It would seem to me that the woman in the hospital is in a pretty controlled environment for witnessing a medical miracle.

It sounds like you're starting down the path of "miracles don't happen" but this runs contrary to your admission of miracles previously. So I have to admit some confusion as to what you're trying to say here.

Edit: Also, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that all reported "miracles" are "miracles" nor have I ever made any claim of the frequency of such events. It's quite clear you're stretching here.

Like I said - I'd need more details than you provided to even begin forming an opinion about what happened with that woman.


I had to double edit since you replied too quick, so I'll post here:

The question is - what's stopping you from building miracle-detectors if these miracles are indeed real and keep happening all the time?

And as I said, you're welcome to delve into it as deeply as you want. Regardless of your conclusion in this particular instance, do you agree that hospitals serve as sufficiently controlled environments to detect medical miracles? After all, people die in hospitals all the time. Doctors are constantly facing end of life scenarios. There are hospitals all over the US. Yet in this one hospital, this one particular person did something that goes against the current state of medical knowledge (as far as I can tell... if I forget to put this clause in at some point in the future, I think I've made it clear that I can be corrected on this point).

Who claimed that they are "happening all the time"? Also, the concept of detecting a "miracle" is an incredibly vague concept and I can't even conceive of how one might build a device that would satisfy your standard of evidence of a miracle.

I would suggest starting with laying out what would be sufficient to convince you that the woman coming back to life is a miracle (Edit: You don't even have to research to find out whether it's true -- just lay out a standard). At least then you can put something concrete forward.

To put it another way, if miracles really did happen "all the time" they most likely would not be described as miracles. The rarity of the event is part of the definition of what makes it a miracle if you're using the dictionary definition. If you're using the definition regarding the violation of the current state of scientific knowledge, then the preponderance of such events would change the state of scientific knowledge, and scientific knowledge would conform to account for these events.

So you're really playing a disingenuous game here.

Yeah, but light is only a particle when we are observing it. It's what's happening when we aren't looking that's the most interesting.

And I said "a great deal of evidence", which also answers the rest of your post.

A great deal of low-calibre evidence = 'no evidence to speak of'. The word of 99 other bums that the bum is teetotal does not convince me.

One thing that I find puzzling about modern day miracles is the scale.
Biblical miracles were big and spectacular and unmistakable.
Why must modern miracles be so tiny and ambiguous?

lol, I'M playing a disingenuous game? That's pretty funny. I am more than happy to accept any miracles when they are ACTUALLY observed even if science is unable to explain them. Why? Because I'm open to change, and I don't have FIXED ideas - they evolve and become better ALL THE TIME.

Now YOU on the other hand want to play the game where your "miracles" are BY (your) DEFINITION events that are arranged specifically NOT to be PROPERLY OBSERVED. As science progresses your "miracles" change and adapt to avoid observation.

And I'M playing a disingenuous game? Uhhh.... *facepalm*

I'm not a doctor. Ask me smth physicsy instead if you want modern evaluation. If it were to me I guess I would define death when more than some % of your brain cells died.

E.g. from my limited knowledge about medicine - absence of brain-waves is NOT a sign of death nowadays even though it WAS 30 years ago - during heart transplants the temperature is lowered to be very low, almost all blood is pumped out, there are no brain-waves, etc for hours - yet these people are not dead. (note that this superficially fits the data you presented, which is why you'd really need to present more data if you want me to see "miracles")

1) You're the one claiming that I'm making assertions about the frequency of miracles which I have not actually made.
2) The dictionary definition precludes the possibility that miracles happen with the frequency you say that I claim.
3) The definition of miracle that you have given also precludes the possibility that miracles happen with the frequency that you say I claim.
4) The statement in bold is a clear misrepresentation. At what point have I "changed a miracle" to avoid observation?

As you continue to distort the argument by making false claims, your position grows progressively weaker.

If a doctor declares it to be a medical miracle, would you consent that it's a medical miracle?

How can a doctor prove a miracle from God when he cant even prove God. All he can say is a healing is unexplained.

I'm not even talking about a "miracle from God." According to Eddi's definition of a miracle, there need not be any reference to God.

You ofcourse mean perceived rarity. Who knows, could be a ton of demigods out there who have spontaneously resurrected inside their coffins.

If its not a miracle form God it wouldn't be a miracle afaik.

At this point, to continue a meaningful conversation, I believe you are forced to give a very detailed definition of what a "miracle" is according to you and also give examples and occurrence rates of these. So go ahead.

If A doctor declares it - no. Just like if A physicist declares that he observed propagation of info at faster than c.

My acceptance criteria are the same as for anything else in science. Independent observation, proper statistics and error analysis, etc.

Can you confirm the independent observation of the single photon?

Umm, yes? Thankfully they're not relying on subjective eyes to do that, so it's not a problem. And they do record everything they do, and their instruments and error analysis are publicly available for scrutiny.

The definition of miracle is what I take from the dictionary. Note again that you are the one using the unconventional definition.

I also need not declare the frequency of miracles. For the sake of this argument, it is entirely possible for there to be no miracles at all. By definition of a miracle, the rarity of the event must be taken into consideration, but this is an ill-defined boundary. Besides, the question itself is ill-defined. It's like asking "How often does something unusual happen?" The object "something unusual" is too poorly defined to be of value in determining the answer to the question.

It would be much simpler if you would admit that I never made any claims of knowledge of the frequency of miracles, nor have I claimed to be an "expert" in them (as you seem to be implying). I'm merely talking about reported phenomena that appear to be outside the realm of the ordinary and to which some attribution to God has been made. I think the record is clear on this one.

How is this "independent confirmation"? You can have lots of eyes looking at a single piece of data, but it's still only a single piece of data gathered by a single source. To me, this does not appear to be "independent confirmation." Perhaps you can explain how you use the term "independent confirmation."

Miracle:

"# any amazing or wonderful occurrence
# a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent "

Given your notorious meticulousness - please define "marvelous", "amazing" etc in the above DICTIONARY definition.

Sure, if you want to avoid any type of a constructive discussion, you need not declare anything. That last couple of lines seem to indicate you have no clue what a "miracle" is, but please feel free to correct me.

zzzzz, yeah, you just like to make empty arguments and weasel out by NEVER putting your own neck on the line. How about giving us your OWN opinion for a change, rather than criticizing everybody else's ([un]surprisingly not Pletho's or Stu's or Prax's or Splenda's though, EVER)?

That single piece of data has error bars that can be independently verified.

Okay, so you're using "independent observation" in the way that I would use "independent analysis."

Independent observation of a seismic event (for example) would require that two independent stations measure the event.

Independent analysis would be taking the record (or records) of a seismic event and have two different people (or groups) analyze the data to draw conclusions.