does anyone believe in miracals?
like..jesus and God and stuff?

just wondering if theres a kindred spirit out there...

I suppose such things exist but I have yet to witness any firsthand. They could be just extreme coincidental happenings. If the universe is truly random like some propse it is then the chances of such happening exist right.

But, as a cynic, I need first hand proof of their existence untill then i'll turn to the Hallmark channel for my miracle needs.

Miracles! They happen.
I remember reading that the key to understanding miracles is to know that nothing is pre-ordained but that paradoxically nothing is random. I think fully comprehending this concept would be a miracle.

Originally posted by JesusRocksMySocks
does anyone believe in miracals?


Hey I'm pretty sure that plenty of people on the religion board do! That's really where this thread should be.

Depends on what the definition of Miracle is for you.


bye!

Miracles such as faith healings happen, and the testamonies of doctors as well as before / after medical records could scientifically confirm them. I've unfortunetly seen no books of that kind on the subject. It would be nice if the info was more readily available, but those who experience them don't want to make money over the salvation of a loved one.

theres no such things as miracles or faith/touch healing,or any supernatural stuff.
if there was and some one could prove it under scientificaly controled conditions,dont you think they would go for the million $ price?
see;
www.randi.org

Originally posted by Q25
if there was and some one could prove it under scientificaly controled conditions,dont you think they would go for the million $ price?
see;
www.randi.org

Newsflash to Q,

Not everyone's top priority is to accumulate as much $$$$ as possible. Thank god it isn't.

Has anyone ever heard of 'The miracle man of Brazil?'

http://www.triadpublishers.com/Pmiracle.html

He's pretty hard to discount. Numerous american Doctors have studied him personally, and they've all been amazed at his results.

I personally wonder how much money Randai is making off his lecture series. Colleges and institutions PAY for lecturers, you know.

The force of gravity existed for millennia before it could be scientifically explained. Gravity did not suddenly come into existence when it could be defined and measured. It had always been there. It is the same for the so called "paranormal forces". They are there. We just do not have the level of achievement to define and measure them.

Not everyone's top priority is to accumulate as much $$$$ as possible.

This is one of the biggest delusions anyone could imagine.

Pseudoscience is profitable because there are so many gullible people willing to open their wallets for something they really, really want to believe.

The "fortune telling" scams are not the whole of the so called "paranormal" field. The fact that individals have been reporting unexplained phenomenon for recorded time ought to tell you something. There has to be a reason for unexplained knowings.

The "fortune telling" scams are not the whole of the so called "paranormal" field.

I agree, there are a lot of scams in the paranormal field, most likely they are all scams.

The fact that individals have been reporting unexplained phenomenon for recorded time ought to tell you something.

Yes, people have a tendency to want to believe in things that don’t exist – the reasoning for doing so covers a wide field, from getting attention to mental delusions.

There has to be a reason for unexplained knowings.

There usually is but it has never been shown to be anything other than the mundane.

Mundane.
Precisely, it is just a sixth sense that we all have. Just as some have acute hearing (sound waves) or vison (light waves) others perceive different vibrations. It is a vibrating universe.

Precisely, it is just a sixth sense that we all have.

And what exactly is the sixth sense?

Just as some have acute hearing (sound waves) or vison (light waves) others perceive different vibrations.

Like hearing things and seeing things? Those are hallucinations.

No
It is knowing something you should not know. An event that has happened at another place but you know it has happened. Perception outside logic.

It is knowing something you should not know. An event that has happened at another place but you know it has happened.

Sorry, but that ability has never been shown to exist with any degree of accuracy.

You persist in appling Newtonian process to something that is outside the box. It is not a science it is an experience. Open your mind and feel it. It is more emotion than logic. As much a feeling as a thought. Your body experiences as much as your mind.

It is not a science it is an experience. Open your mind and feel it. It is more emotion than logic. As much a feeling as a thought.

Uh, rather pointless, don't ya think? What am I to gain?

Ha, it seems everywhere I go I end up agreeing with (Q).

It is not a science it is an experience.

I hate to break this to you buddy, but everything is science. Science coveres everything in existence. While it is true that we don't have the technology to know every scientific, physical and cosmic thing out there, we do know enough to say that psychic phenomenons are false. Really, what proof do you have that such things aren't a scam? They always seem to say they can do this and that, they can read peoples mind and teach you about it. So you say sure tell me how to do it and before you know it your paying some 100 or 200 dollars for a book of crap. Once you finish this long book of nothing you realize it's bull and you 200 dollars shorter. How is this not a scam? If these psychic phenomenons are so true and emotionally enlightening then why is it that no one can prove it to the world? knwo why? because they can't. You know why? Because it isn't real. you know why? Because it's human nature to scam for a quick buck.

Science coveres everything in existence.

Can you scientifically prove this statement? You are saying that everything that exists is something which can be measured, tested, and researched. You can appeal to probability all you want to, but in the end your argument is self-supportive.

Hmm if my statement was false then can u prove that science doesn't cover all and every aspect?

Hmm if my statement was false then can u prove that science doesn't cover all and every aspect?

He he... nice paradox...

Anyone care to comment on this issue?

Or, has everyone taken on Q's methods and avoid what they can't explain.



Has anyone ever heard of 'The miracle man of Brazil?'

http://www.triadpublishers.com/Pmiracle.html

He's pretty hard to discount. Numerous american Doctors have studied him personally, and they've all been amazed at his results.

What people like Mona Lisa Schulz and Caroline Myss have done and continue to do is also well documented. What Edgar Cayce did has with stood the test of time.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Hmm, I must say this "Miracle Man" is pretty interesting but unfortunetly I don't find any testimonies about him. Of course there were testimonies about his book but that just leads back to money. Why is someone who's so close to god and can make miracles need to sell books about his practice for money? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Unless of course this is just another scam. Now i'm open minded and will admit when im wrong when it's proven to me, but again, there is no proof about his work other than the book he read. Other than mentioning it just now i've never heard of him. Never seen any news croverage, never read about him on the internet, nor have I seen him on tv. You would think that someone who can heal people of any and every ailment would get some attention. yet i haven't seen to much on him. Why is this?

It can simply be another scam. Have u been healed by him? I don't think you have. You're gullible and to quick to be impressed. Think for a second. Think about how many people have run scams and how long they've lasted before they were proven false. In the end everything comes down to money as usual, and like i've said countless times, people would do anything for some green.+

If one MD is guilty of malpractice are all MD's quacks. It is afterall a profession that refuses to pull the licenses of repeat offenders. So you just might be safer with the guy in SA.

Originally posted by Votorx
Hmm, I must say this "Miracle Man" is pretty interesting but unfortunetly I don't find any testimonies about him. Of course there were testimonies about his book but that just leads back to money. Why is someone who's so close to god and can make miracles need to sell books about his practice for money?

What???

First of all, it isn't HIS BOOK!

It was written by an another Doctor who witnessed his work.

This man WON'T even accept payment for his work. How about that Q?


Now i'm open minded and will admit when im wrong when it's proven to me, but again, there is no proof about his work other than the book he read.

:confused:


Other than mentioning it just now i've never heard of him. Never seen any news croverage, never read about him on the internet, nor have I seen him on tv. You would think that someone who can heal people of any and every ailment would get some attention. yet i haven't seen to much on him. Why is this?

So, because he hasn't made the filtered American media, he must be a hoax?

You're gullible and to quick to be impressed.

You don't have a clue as to what you're saying.

The force of gravity existed for millennia before it could be scientifically explained.

Gravity can still not be scientifically explained!

I hate to break this to you buddy, but everything is science. Science coveres everything in existence.

Science does not cover art, poetry, humor, psychology, music, love, religion, economics, politics, ...should I go on?

Rob

This man WON'T even accept payment for his work. How about that Q?

Votor is correct – you are gullible and easily impressed.

‘John of God’, as he humbly calls himself is a charlatan and a fraud. Before and after X-ray pics sent to doctors revealed this as the before pics were of a cancer in the lungs and the after pics were of a healthy liver.

It was also shown that those who provided so-called testimonials were paid off.

See James Randi.

Gravity can still not be scientifically explained!

Really? What about all the experimental evidence verifying General Relativity?

Does GR explain what gravity IS, or what it DOES?

Also, I did not think GR had been proven even remotely true; apart from anything else I seem to recall that it doesn't provide an adequate description of 1) what happens to relativistic effects when things speed up and slow down with respect to one another, or 2) how there can be two different kinds of time. I also thought that GR explained gravity as an effect of the curvature of space...

1) what happens to relativistic effects when things speed up and slow down with respect to one another

That is question that can be answered with Special Relativity. Clocks appear to slow down when observing them moving at relativistic speeds from a stationary frame of reference.

how there can be two different kinds of time

Time is not absolute and is relative to the observer.

I also thought that GR explained gravity as an effect of the curvature of space...

It does, however Special Relativity is a subset of GR.

Clocks appear to slow down when observing them moving at relativistic speeds from a stationary frame of reference.

Moving, not accelerating; I'd understood that SR did not predict very well in situations where one or both of the observers was accelerating with respect to the other one.

Time is not absolute and is relative to the observer.

Yes, time in GR is a function of the propagation of light. Then there is the time that governs the propagation of light... two kinds of time, no?

Moving, not accelerating; I'd understood that SR did not predict very well in situations where one or both of the observers was accelerating with respect to the other one.

Correct.

Yes, time in GR is a function of the propagation of light. Then there is the time that governs the propagation of light... two kinds of time, no?

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here when you make a connection between time and light? Assuming there are two kinds of time would also assume an absolute time.

You can measure time with a variety of methods, pendulum, etc. in which your measurements are of some standard measure in your frame of reference. By accelerating or moving at high velocities, an outside observer stationary relative to you will observe your clock ticking slower, the faster the velocity or the greater the acceleration, the slower the clock will appear to tick. However under these conditions, to you, your clock appears to tick normally and does not appear to slow.

Events propagate at the speed of light - this is what causes time dilation, if I understand correctly... I'll draw an example from an old class of mine.

Let's say you are flying along in outer space, at some extremely high speed, .99(c) or something like that. There is a wall beside you, which is very long, such that you can fly beside it for a very long time. You use a photon emitter to emit single photons at the wall, and they bounce back and strike a photosensor that detects their arrival. You have seperated yourself from the wall by one light second of distance, so the photon you emit takes two seconds to return to the photosensor, one second there, one second back.

So it looks like this:

_____________
|

->

Where the arrow is you, traveling at .99(c) to the right relative to the wall, the horizontal line is the wall, and the vertical line is the path of the photon. The photon is traveling 2 light seconds worth of distance every time.

Now let's look at you from the standpoint of the wall.

_____________
/\
/ \
/ \

Events propagate at the speed of light - this is what causes time dilation, if I understand correctly... I'll draw an example from an old class of mine.

Let's say you are flying along in outer space, at some extremely high speed, .99(c) or something like that. There is a wall beside you, which is very long, such that you can fly beside it for a very long time. You use a photon emitter to emit single photons at the wall, and they bounce back and strike a photosensor that detects their arrival. You have seperated yourself from the wall by one light second of distance, so the photon you emit takes two seconds to return to the photosensor, one second there, one second back.

So it looks like this:

_____________
|
|
|
->

Where the arrow is you, traveling at .99(c) to the right relative to the wall, the horizontal line is the wall, and the vertical line is the path of the photon. The photon is traveling 2 light seconds worth of distance every time.

Now let's look at you from the standpoint of the wall.

_____________
/\
/ \
/ \
-> ->

Since an observer from the wall's frame of reference sees you as moving at .99(c), it also sees the photon as taking an angled path towards the wall. My slashes here aren't 45 degrees, so just imagine that they are, since your speed is close enough to the speed of light that the photon you emit is moving in the same direction as you almost as fast as it's moving towards/away from the wall.

From the wall's frame of reference, the photon traverses a longer path and therefore takes longer to get where it is going - instead of 2 light seconds of distance, it traverses 2*(root 2) = root 8 = ~2.8 light seconds. Hence, time seems to go more slowly for you than for the wall, from the wall's point of view - no event can travel faster than light.

In this way, time is a function of the propagation of light in GR.

THEN, we have the propagation of light. If light has a speed, it must be governed by a time of its own, above and beyond the time which it governs. Hence, there are two kinds of time.

Dangit, my slashes came out unspaced. I hope that the diagrams are good enough to get my point across.

The diagrams are OK and understandable.

In this way, time is a function of the propagation of light in GR.

All you’ve managed to somewhat describe is the same event from different reference frames. You can transform the results from one frame to another. I noticed you tried to do that but are using the incorrect formula. The frame you choose to be the stationary frame is considered the ‘Proper’ time.

If light has a speed, it must be governed by a time of its own

At the speed of light, time stops.

Again, you’re trying to assert an absolute time and that is incorrect – time is relative to the observer.

Then what time governs the propagation of light? If there was no such one, then it wouldn't have a speed. And you can't say that time stops at the speed of light, because that's just a corollary of the presupposition that events can only propagate at the speed of light - that doesn't explain how light propagates.

(I am not using time dilation formulas as I don't know 'em; I'm only demonstrating the difference in the distance that the light travels between the two frames.)

Since the speed of light is still an absolute limit in GR and it is always the same (in the same medium) there is by definition a CONSTANT speed at which it propagates, out of which falls the propagation of events. So, some frame-independent time defines the propagation of light, and the propagation of light governs the frame-dependent propagation of events. Time need not be absolute, but the travel of the photons is still governed by a non-frame-dependent time.

Then what time governs the propagation of light? If there was no such one, then it wouldn't have a speed.

This may be where you are confusing the issue – time does not govern anything, especially the propagation of light. Time exists as a mathematical quantity and is not some physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. There is nothing in the physical universe that depends on time.

And you can't say that time stops at the speed of light, because that's just a corollary of the presupposition that events can only propagate at the speed of light - that doesn't explain how light propagates.

You don’t need time to explain how light propagates.

Since the speed of light is still an absolute limit in GR and it is always the same (in the same medium) there is by definition a CONSTANT speed at which it propagates

Yes.

out of which falls the propagation of events.

No, you are asserting that the speed of light is determined by events and/or determines those events– it does not.

So, some frame-independent time defines the propagation of light, and the propagation of light governs the frame-dependent propagation of events. Time need not be absolute, but the travel of the photons is still governed by a non-frame-dependent time.

Again no, the propagation of light is exclusively determined by the permittivity and permeability of space. Time is not needed to explain this.

Then what's all this crap about the space-time continuum that people keep throwing at me?

Dahm i stay away for a few days and i have no idea what ya'll are talking about, can someone catch me up a bit on what this topic has turned into?


Science does not cover art, poetry, humor, psychology, music, love, religion, economics, politics, ...should I go on?

Lol you just answer yourself. All of this can fall under psychology.

Art : The process of combining 2 different pigments creating another pigment or different proportions. The ability of the paint to stay on simple things like paper or cardboard can be explained scientifically. The effect it has on someones mentality (Psychology).

Poetry: The effects of it has on another person. How it is created and used in a person head (Psychology). The psychological need of poetry and rythm can also be explained scientifically.

Humor: The brain activities causing us to find something funny, or "Make a Funny"(Psychology). The ability to laugh, the benifits of laughing and mental goodness of humor can also be explain scientifically.

Psychology: You joking...Here's the definition of psychology since you don't know it:
The science that deals with mental processes and behavior Psychology also plays into the idea of art, poetry, psychology, music, love etc etc etc.

Music: The sound vibrations emitted when a instrument is played. How the materials are created to make these sound waves, how they work and how they entrigue a person mental psychy(Psychology). How the vocal cords work, how the tongues and mouth help in forming sounds all fall under some branch of science.

Love: Lets just make them simple now i don't feel like going through everyone and giving you an explanation. This can fall under psychology.

Religion: Can also fall under psychology. Religion can also be a stress reliever. It allows people to believe in something that is all supreme and gives people the feeling that they are safe and being watched over. Religion changes how a person would normally act (Psychology).

Economics: People's economic decisions, the structure of economy and the ideas and commotions which happen in the minds of the people who are pawns to these economic ploys. (Psychology)

Politics: Basically the same thing as economy.

Summary: Everything and i mean every single thing, as much as you want to argue about it, everything falls under science in one way or another. Some of the things i may have said may not have mayed sense since i hate writing really long things but you have the basic idea, so think about it and you will see that it does fall under science.

Oh yes and please continue spidergoat.

Then what's all this crap about the space-time continuum that people keep throwing at me?

Maybe these people are simply throwing crap – the phrase “space-time continuum” sounds like it came from sci-fi show.

However, spacetime is where the 3 dimensions of space and the dimension of time are treated as a single 4 dimensional manifold. Each point in spacetime is considered an event within the manifold containing 4 coordinates (t,x,y,z).

please dear god, dont try and explain that you yourself have felt a miracle, because judging by the way you spelled Miracles you probably think the god damn light in the refridgerator is a miracle

please dear god, dont try and explain that you yourself have felt a miracle, because judging by the way you spelled Miracles you probably think the god damn light in the refridgerator is a miracle

LoL



Spider goat im still waiting for your response.

I believe and for those that need proof check out bible prophecy (more accurate yhan Nostodamus). Also their are scientists that haven proven this but then shunned. Try reading "The Physics of Immortality". It is written by a physicist and provides proof of God's existence in scientific proof. There are several others if you are interested.:)

Originally posted by Mystech
Hey I'm pretty sure that plenty of people on the religion board do! That's really where this thread should be.


There is a theory that aliens are actually angels (good and bad) and the cover up more to shield from metaphysical.

There is a theory that aliens are actually angels (good and bad) and the cover up more to shield from metaphysical.

Aliens are angels....And i bet the my dog is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

Here's a questoin for you :What aliens?

If you read the bible it will also tell you that miracles were jesus' way of proving himself as the son of god, and that after his death they would fade away over time.

Aliens are angels....And i bet the my dog is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

Here's a questoin for you :What aliens?
I never said aliens are angels, I said there exists a theorey (not mine) that sitings are actually angels, metaphysical, whatever you wish to call them. I'm sure your dog resembles yourself as most do.

If you read the bible it will also tell you that miracles were jesus' way of proving himself as the son of god, and that after his death they would fade away over time.

Once again this is if you believe the bible or if there is even such a thing as Jesus or god. If what you say is true then miracles don't happen. And since miracles is a religious aspect then this shows that miracles are not real.

Once again this is if you believe the bible or if there is even such a thing as Jesus or god. If what you say is true then miracles don't happen. And since miracles is a religious aspect then this shows that miracles are not real.
How so? "Religion" or things of some, don't necessarily represent God, but man. There is proof that God exists all around you. If you want a scientfic formula of proof, read "The Physics of Immortality" written by a physicist. There are also many more on scientific proof written by doctors, scientist, etc. but different thread. ;)
Once again, I never said or claimed this to be true. It is a theory I read and since this is a discussion board, I threw it out there to see if anyone else on board was familar with and had an opinion or more info on it.

How so? "Religion" or things of some, don't necessarily represent God, but man. There is proof that God exists all around you. If you want a scientfic formula of proof, read "The Physics of Immortality" written by a physicist. There are also many more on scientific proof written by doctors, scientist, etc. but different thread. ;)
Once again, I never said or claimed this to be true. It is a theory I read and since this is a discussion board, I threw it out there to see if anyone else on board was familar with and had an opinion or more info on it.

Jo jo explained it i do not wish to say it again. As for The Physics of Immortality, yeah of heard of it. I've also heard many countless times of it being complete bullshit. So why waste my time reading it? If you do not think that such a claim it true then why are u using this theory as supporting details that god acutally exists?

Why do you feel you need to distort every remark I make with your time being such an issue? First, I never implied any anyway that that "theory" supporting God, once again, a asked on discussion to see if anyone else had any knowledge of it as a curiousity. Second, you really have no educated opinion on the book if you have not read it and maybe it is giving you to much credit, but I would have thought you could have come up with a more intellectual response to describe the book than bs. Third as I recall, JoJo's comment was on miracles which once again, I never even mentioned nor did I comment on so once again, your reply unfounded. Last, I have no question that God exists and is not even an issue.
I can't understand why, if you are going to reply, you don't respond to what is actual issue written instead of manipulating the words to something else. Do you not understand or just have no basis for an opinion?

First, I never implied any anyway that that "theory" supporting God, once again, a asked on discussion to see if anyone else had any knowledge of it as a curiousity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is proof that God exists all around you. If you want a scientfic formula of proof, read "The Physics of Immortality" written by a physicist.

This right here shows that you were implying that that document was supporting the idea that god exists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, you really have no educated opinion on the book if you have not read it and maybe it is giving you to much credit, but I would have thought you could have come up with a more intellectual response to describe the book than bs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm i never said I did. Nor did i say the book itself was bs. All i said was that I've heard OTHERS say it was BS. These people were obviously smarter than you so I would rather accept their opinions than yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third as I recall, JoJo's comment was on miracles which once again, I never even mentioned nor did I comment on so once again, your reply unfounded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When did i ever say you did? How was my reply unfounded?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last, I have no question that God exists and is not even an issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------What's your point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
can't understand why, if you are going to reply, you don't respond to what is actual issue written instead of manipulating the words to something else. Do you not understand or just have no basis for an opinion?

I don't uderstand. I did reply to what was actually written and never manipulated anything. Maybe you should follow your own advice?