Wortfish wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
So the deity you're trying to define, clearly isn't omnipotent. Whilst this does resolve a lot of issues (why doesn't this deity divert X disaster/basically does fuck all), it also raises issues about how your definition is different to that of other theists. Which definition are we supposed to work to?

Basically.

Stop squirming.

No. It refers to the fact that establishing a set of rules, interactions and principles means not tampering and changing them all the time - else they would not have any real meaning as rules.

Ah, so Western legal systems is another subject you do not understand, just like parenting.

Again, an omnipotent god would be able to break any rules.
Again, there's no reason for such a god to create a system that restrains himself, rather than just the universe.

Still not answering the question about the universes Wortfish. Of course your magic book has no answers because when god was invented there was no concept of universe. In fact there was no concept of our solar system and to go further there was not concept of Earth. The ancient world was just that ancient as is every religion. Earth was flat and its centre was Jerusalem. The sun and moon appeared and disappeared to the terror of the people. Would the sun return? Very simple and so is it still; very simple.

Wortfish wrote:

BlackBart wrote:He can't do things that are logically incoherent, like exist.

There is no logical incoherence in God's necessary existence.

Except that its totally redundant. I take it that this God thingy is supposed to be a living sentient intelligence? So you're announcing that living sentient intelligences are impossible in nature so must have been created by a ... Er... living sentient intelligence?

You're seriously asserting that?

Fuuucking Nora.

Wortfish wrote:winning the lottery and learning you have inherited a fortune, and learning that your wife has unexpectedly and suddenly recovered from cancer - all on the same day. That would be grounds to suppose a miracle had taken place.

So you say.

Wortfish wrote:
winning the lottery and learning you have inherited a fortune and learning that your wife has unexpectedly and
suddenly recovered from cancer - all on the same day. That would be grounds to suppose a miracle had taken place

All those things are entirely possible even if the odds of them happening on the same day are infinitesimal since infinitesimal is still within reason even if you do not think it is. A miracle would have to be some thing that defied all rational explanation What you have described is not a miracle but unconnected though explainable events occurring within a specific time period

Wortfish wrote:
No. It refers to the fact that establishing a set of rules, interactions and principles means not tampering and changing them all the time - else they would not have any real meaning as rules.

This is irrelevant when it comes to an omnipotent entity. An omnipotent deity can do whatever it likes. An omnipotent deity can choose not to change the rules once it has set them up but, being omnipotent, there is no reason why it should have set the rules up in a particular way.

Wortfish wrote:The best systems require the least intervention.

You're again conflating human made processes with how the universe simply is but, failing to see that you're simply trying to assume that a) there is something behind those processes and b) you're anthropomorphising onto it. Basically, you don't even recognise you're simply projecting humanity onto things.

Wortfish wrote:But God being good, cannot do evil.

Either god cannot do anything or god willingly allows evil to happen.

Wortfish wrote: Likewise, having created a universe, God cannot destroy it.

Why not?

Wortfish wrote: So omnipotence refers to God being all-powerful, but not in an absolute or arbitrary sense,

So God isn't omnipotent. Because to be omnipotent is absolute.

Wortfish wrote:rather in the sense that everything depends on him for their existence and that there is no greater power than the deity.

How do you know? How do you know that God wasn't created by another entity more powerful than God is simply testing to see how well God is working out?

Wortfish wrote: God may also choose to limit himself to working with, rather than against, natural processes to produce desired effects.

Ah, so God is omnipotent but, chooses not to use his power, so that natural processes which cause great suffering and harm, happen.

If you could make it through a post without stumbling over your own arguments and contradicting yourself, that'd be grand.

Wortfish wrote:#2 refers not to some natural phenomenon for which we don't know too much about, but rather an undiscovered/unknown one.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the difference between the two, because I can't see it.

#3 doesn't refers to several extremely unlikely events happening at once: winning the lottery and learning you have inherited a fortune, and learning that your wife has unexpectedly and suddenly recovered from cancer - all on the same day. That would be grounds to suppose a miracle had taken place.

Nothing more to say.

So Wortfish is now effectively asserting that coincidence = miracle?

This is hilarious.

Calilasseia wrote:So Wortfish is now effectively asserting that coincidence = miracle?

This is hilarious.

Hey, woah, that's an identical point to the thread I made a bit ago! http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 54399.html

The idea was... not well received. I guess I know what Cali thinks of the idea now...

Sort of, Zadocfish2. You were wondering if apparently meaningful coincidences were actually a subtle means of communication arranged by an extremely-shy omnipotent being, rather than just false-positive pattern-recognition triggers.

Wortfish is just defining "miracle" as an incredibly fortunate series of coincidences, to reinforce his claim that his incredulity proves that Ptah did it.

Calilasseia wrote:So Wortfish is now effectively asserting that coincidence = miracle?

This is hilarious.

Not really. But it can be argued that the simultaneous occurrence of many extremely improbably events is miraculous.

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:#2 refers not to some natural phenomenon for which we don't know too much about, but rather an undiscovered/unknown one.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the difference between the two, because I can't see it.

Suspension of natural law is quite different from there being an undiscovered law or phenomenon. In the example I gave about throwing a pen in the air, and it remaining there, I offered two possibilities: 1) the law of gravity is suspended by a supernatual entity. 2) somene uses psyschokinesis - natural powers unknown to science - to prevent the pen from falling.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
winning the lottery and learning you have inherited a fortune and learning that your wife has unexpectedly and
suddenly recovered from cancer - all on the same day. That would be grounds to suppose a miracle had taken place

All those things are entirely possible even if the odds of them happening on the same day are infinitesimal since infinitesimal is still within reason even if you do not think it is. A miracle would have to be some thing that defied all rational explanation What you have described is not a miracle but unconnected though explainable events occurring within a specific time period

Such an outcome is possible, but the chances of it happening are so remote that it can be regarded as a miracle.

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:#2 refers not to some natural phenomenon for which we don't know too much about, but rather an undiscovered/unknown one.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the difference between the two, because I can't see it.

Suspension of natural law is quite different from there being an undiscovered law or phenomenon. In the example I gave about throwing a pen in the air, and it remaining there, I offered two possibilities: 1) the law of gravity is suspended by a supernatual entity. 2) somene uses psyschokinesis - natural powers unknown to science - to prevent the pen from falling.

That's not an answer to my question.

Wortfish wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:So Wortfish is now effectively asserting that coincidence = miracle?

This is hilarious.

Not really. But it can be argued that the simultaneous occurrence of many extremely improbably events is miraculous.

Only in the metaphorical sense, not in the literal sense.

Wortfish wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
winning the lottery and learning you have inherited a fortune and learning that your wife has unexpectedly and
suddenly recovered from cancer - all on the same day. That would be grounds to suppose a miracle had taken place

All those things are entirely possible even if the odds of them happening on the same day are infinitesimal since infinitesimal is still within reason even if you do not think it is. A miracle would have to be some thing that defied all rational explanation What you have described is not a miracle but unconnected though explainable events occurring within a specific time period

Such an outcome is possible, but the chances of it happening are so remote that it can be regarded as a miracle.

Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

Wortfish wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
winning the lottery and learning you have inherited a fortune and learning that your wife has unexpectedly and
suddenly recovered from cancer - all on the same day. That would be grounds to suppose a miracle had taken place

All those things are entirely possible even if the odds of them happening on the same day are infinitesimal since infinitesimal is still within reason even if you do not think it is. A miracle would have to be some thing that defied all rational explanation What you have described is not a miracle but unconnected though explainable events occurring within a specific time period

Such an outcome is possible, but the chances of it happening are so remote that it can be regarded as a miracle.

Again, that's not what miraculous means in a literal sense.

Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

Based on what?

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Provide the precise numerical probability at which a random occurrence should be considered a "miracle", and show how this number was derived.

I believe, if the odds are less than 1 in 10^40, then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance.

Go to Random Letter Sequence Generator.
In the field "Length of each random letter sequence:" enter "29". Leave the other fields at default. Press the button "click to generate random sequence" and observe your miracle at the click of a button. Press it again. Another miracle. Press it ten times, you've witnessed ten miracles.

Clearly your definition of a miracle is utterly fucking ridiculous.