“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.”
-Martain Luther
That may also have been Martain Luthers position, or his 'table talks' (from which your quote is also derived) are forgeries (as some think). Either way, it doesn't add anything to your position.
So... I should have put it as 1 + 1 = 2, over and over again, because apparently the concept of Mathematical abstraction has evaded you. Suddenly, 1 + 1 = ...3. *Gasp* would that be obvious enough? Because that is the causal equivalent of what I was saying, but it doesn't fit your need for Objectivity.
Mathematical abstraction? If we must. A miracle described in mathematical abstraction is this:
Given A natrual force valued at 1 added to another natural force of 1 has a force of 2.
And
God has unlimited force and unlimited ability to act, and thus has a value of X. Normally, God takes no action, so X=0
In any situation we have the following:
1+1+X
Normally the result is 2. If God chooses to intervene the result will not be 2. If the result is not 2 God must have intervened.
That is a mathematical abstraction of the statement that a Miracle is
"
an effect or extraordinary event in the physical
world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
That is what a miracle is in scripture, and in normal English conversation. What you're talking about is something different than that, and has no real place in theology.
Because that is the causal equivalent of what I was saying, but it doesn't fit your need for Objectivity.
But what you're saying doesn't matter, because you are not talking about a miracle, you are merely using the word as a way to put your ideology places it does not work.
Don't get hung up on your need for a "Proper" definition for sake of missing the big picture.
Actually, I'm hung up on having a 'functional' definition, one which is agreeable to people in general and publicly and officially accepted. This is the basis for intelligible communication.
Also, more importantly, I'm refusing to allow you to tirade your definitions around as if they where true.
In fact you do not have an interest in what is true, that has been brought to my attention recently and highlighted by your point blank refusal to deal with contradictions in your philosophy. Nor will you go back and address contradicitons in your own statements that I addressed last post. Perhaps we will touch on that later.
(A rule that governs reality, ie Physics, Chemisty, Thermodynamics, but whatever)
God governs reality. Imminently in fact. The above are all observations on how he chooses to govern it. You agree with that don't you? That is a very important question.
<ACCORDING TO YOU what circumstances is an exception?
Search the word Miracle in whatever bible software you use. Also try signs and wonders for more OT hits. This is what we are discussing, and each miracle in scripture holds some exception to normal understanding of physics. The superlong day comes to mind as one of the most remarkable ones...
The very conventions by which theories are established into Laws of Nature or the Governing Rules of Reality, as we interact with it, seem to escape you.
What a silly assumption, don't you realize by now that I know more about how these laws where formed, their implications, limits, uses, and problems than you? Despite being the same age I'm a tad better rounded than you.
You didn't bother because you didn't want to see the forest for the Trees. Then again we both know that this conversation isn't really about the "Proper" definition of a Miracle. When I'm not talking about the definition of a Miracle, I'm talking about what can be meaning said concerning the application of a miracle to faith.
Your premise on Faith was clearly contingent on your premise concerning miracles. If the foundations faulty don't go checking the roof for leaks when the house comes down. If you don't know what a miracle is you cannot justifiably talk about how miracles relate to faith.
I did you the dignity of explaining why I did not address parts of your post, you said nothing as to weather you where or not in fact a fideist, nor did you adress my reasons for thinking you where. You certainly didn't take the time to deal with the apparent contradictions in your own statements on Gideon...
Your belief is the same Fallacy that justifies the belief behind Snake Handling Christians. That doing so is reasonable and Rational because the Bible says that its possible.
It is indeed possible. That does not however mean it will happen. It seems their fallacy is misapplication of scripture. Interestingly enough that is what I say
your fallacy is. And while their mistake is lethal only to the body, the poison that strikes you is of the soul.
Anyway, when having a discussion on matters like this it is best to build layer upon layer with agreements, and state when our presuppositions force differences that cannot be reconciled. Sharing definitions are quite critical in resolving a discussion, as they are the means of accurate communication.
I will not allow you to dictate your own definitions any more than you should allow me to come in and define a miracle as tuna sandwich, and say that when scripture talks of miracles its really talking of tuna.
