This is the logical problem with miracles. It’s never reasonable to believe that a divine force has intervened because there will always be a more likely explanation. A miracle is an occurrence which is so unlikely that only the intervention of the divine can explain it. That means that any other explanation for the occurrence, no matter how ridiculous, must be more likely than divine intervention. And a reasonable person must prefer the likely explanation.
If a mountain range (harmlessly) sprung up in the middle of the Pacific and spelled out, in comic sans, “LDS is the true religion -XOX Jesus”, it’d still be more likely that this was a natural phenomena or alien intervention than the hand of God.
This creates a paradox where both of the following statements are true:
Belief in miracles is never reasonable.
Reason can’t confirm a miracle, and thus is an inadequate tool to evaluate them.
Sounds like the problem is with your definition of miracle. “An occurrence which is so unlikely that only the intervention of the divine can explain it.” A thing isn’t inexplicable by the mundane because of its probability, but because it violates natural laws. And something being truly impossible doesn’t necessarily imply the existence of divinity, but moreso suggests that the fault lies in your conception of natural laws.
The more common definition of miracle is “a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.” For example, if an angel appears out of nowhere before you with a message from the Lord, that teleportation is not scientifically explicable. When you open the can of worms that things can break natural laws, you can always come up with an explanation that denies the divine, like that the “angel” is actually a telepathic shapeshifting alien that can teleport and wants to scam you, but that’s not the point. The point is that it’s considered to be a divine act, and it’s considered as such because divine is the word we have for higher powers that are unable to be explained by any level of science.
Also, once the can of worms is open, you no longer get to claim that God’s existence has an infinitely small likelihood, and you have to consider whether your alternate explanation is really more likely than the explanation that all the signs are pointing to. Frankly, I don’t think you get to claim it’s infinitely small in the first place, as whether God is likely to exist is an unsettled debate, but it’s not an unreasonable stance to hold.
You really downvoted yourself? I stand corrected I suppose. If your question is serious: there’s obviously no problem with doing so, I think most people just assume that comment scores start at 1 from the original users upvote.
The up vote and downvote system is one of the few things on Lemmy that I think is worth not having, it’s nice knowing the relative popularity of a post ahead of time but it should be used as a does this add to the conversation, and not a I agree or disagree with the conversation. When it’s used as an agree or disagree, the opposing side gets reduced visibility in many clients (whether this is lemmy side or client side idk)
Sadly a lot of people do it based off of their opinion of the post instead, it’s one of the reasons that I turned my scores off the other week I want to read the comments based off their contribution to the conversation at hand, and when people use downvote for opinion it creates a tunnel vision/echo chamber.
Sure by doing this you lose the ability to see up votes, but it also removes your subconscious judgement of a post before you enter, you get to read it as it is.
This may sound like a weird take, but the upvotes and downvotes system is a good way of learning about what people accept and don’t accept, and to help me understand people better. I’m autistic and had a sheltered history, and I’m also a novelist; and honestly seeing agrees and disagrees is really helpful for me. Most of the time they shouldn’t be taken too seriously, of course; and you should have or develop enough awareness to understand when you’re just plain valid, or when you actually might need to adjust your thinking.
I do agree that it has it’s merits, I just don’t think that it helps for accepting different POV’s which is something I feel is important on social platforms due to the amount of people on it. I tend to not let down votes effect me, my complaint is strictly visibility side
I’m glad you have found a way to help yourself with the current system! I gave up myself XD
With the same reasoning it’s never logical to assume that things we can’t always identify or put a label on are strange or foreign or from other planets.
The most logical, and most mentally healthy mind, would first try to explore the most plausible explanations and first assume there is no miraculous visitation involved.
If a mountain springs up in the middle of the Pacific and a comic sans message pops up saying LDS is the true religion," I can guarantee it’s because the multi-billion dollar corporation called the LDS Church has put money into a new kind of marketing campaign.
And if you’re stupid enough to give that corporation 10 percent of your income, maybe you’re too stupid to be trying to solve UFO mysteries in the first place.
I understand where you’re coming from and I’m pretty much an atheist, but if that happened I would at least consider taking a stroll over to the temple.
Ugh not me. I’ve been through the SLC temple and it’s one horrifyingly bland white cold interior throughout. If that’s what mormons see as their ‘destiny’ in the afterlife, I’m kinda glad I’ll be roasting in hell instead. To me that kind of austerity doesn’t smack of godliness, it smacks of sterility and coldhearted lifelessness.
This is the logical problem with miracles. It’s never reasonable to believe that a divine force has intervened because there will always be a more likely explanation. A miracle is an occurrence which is so unlikely that only the intervention of the divine can explain it. That means that any other explanation for the occurrence, no matter how ridiculous, must be more likely than divine intervention. And a reasonable person must prefer the likely explanation.
If a mountain range (harmlessly) sprung up in the middle of the Pacific and spelled out, in comic sans, “LDS is the true religion -XOX Jesus”, it’d still be more likely that this was a natural phenomena or alien intervention than the hand of God.
This creates a paradox where both of the following statements are true:
Belief in miracles is never reasonable.
Reason can’t confirm a miracle, and thus is an inadequate tool to evaluate them.
Sounds like the problem is with your definition of miracle. “An occurrence which is so unlikely that only the intervention of the divine can explain it.” A thing isn’t inexplicable by the mundane because of its probability, but because it violates natural laws. And something being truly impossible doesn’t necessarily imply the existence of divinity, but moreso suggests that the fault lies in your conception of natural laws.
The more common definition of miracle is “a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.” For example, if an angel appears out of nowhere before you with a message from the Lord, that teleportation is not scientifically explicable. When you open the can of worms that things can break natural laws, you can always come up with an explanation that denies the divine, like that the “angel” is actually a telepathic shapeshifting alien that can teleport and wants to scam you, but that’s not the point. The point is that it’s considered to be a divine act, and it’s considered as such because divine is the word we have for higher powers that are unable to be explained by any level of science.
Also, once the can of worms is open, you no longer get to claim that God’s existence has an infinitely small likelihood, and you have to consider whether your alternate explanation is really more likely than the explanation that all the signs are pointing to. Frankly, I don’t think you get to claim it’s infinitely small in the first place, as whether God is likely to exist is an unsettled debate, but it’s not an unreasonable stance to hold.
Both of these long, thoughtful replies were downvoted for some reason. Wtf guys? Is this not a forum for communication?
Oh, sorry, should I not have downvoted myself?
You really downvoted yourself? I stand corrected I suppose. If your question is serious: there’s obviously no problem with doing so, I think most people just assume that comment scores start at 1 from the original users upvote.
Lol, I just did it as a joke after your comment. It do be a goofy community.
Most people use downvote and upvote as “disagree” and “agree” buttons. No real way to stop people from doing that either.
The up vote and downvote system is one of the few things on Lemmy that I think is worth not having, it’s nice knowing the relative popularity of a post ahead of time but it should be used as a does this add to the conversation, and not a I agree or disagree with the conversation. When it’s used as an agree or disagree, the opposing side gets reduced visibility in many clients (whether this is lemmy side or client side idk)
Sadly a lot of people do it based off of their opinion of the post instead, it’s one of the reasons that I turned my scores off the other week I want to read the comments based off their contribution to the conversation at hand, and when people use downvote for opinion it creates a tunnel vision/echo chamber.
Sure by doing this you lose the ability to see up votes, but it also removes your subconscious judgement of a post before you enter, you get to read it as it is.
This may sound like a weird take, but the upvotes and downvotes system is a good way of learning about what people accept and don’t accept, and to help me understand people better. I’m autistic and had a sheltered history, and I’m also a novelist; and honestly seeing agrees and disagrees is really helpful for me. Most of the time they shouldn’t be taken too seriously, of course; and you should have or develop enough awareness to understand when you’re just plain valid, or when you actually might need to adjust your thinking.
I do agree that it has it’s merits, I just don’t think that it helps for accepting different POV’s which is something I feel is important on social platforms due to the amount of people on it. I tend to not let down votes effect me, my complaint is strictly visibility side
I’m glad you have found a way to help yourself with the current system! I gave up myself XD
With the same reasoning it’s never logical to assume that things we can’t always identify or put a label on are strange or foreign or from other planets.
The most logical, and most mentally healthy mind, would first try to explore the most plausible explanations and first assume there is no miraculous visitation involved.
If a mountain springs up in the middle of the Pacific and a comic sans message pops up saying LDS is the true religion," I can guarantee it’s because the multi-billion dollar corporation called the LDS Church has put money into a new kind of marketing campaign.
And if you’re stupid enough to give that corporation 10 percent of your income, maybe you’re too stupid to be trying to solve UFO mysteries in the first place.
I understand where you’re coming from and I’m pretty much an atheist, but if that happened I would at least consider taking a stroll over to the temple.
Ugh not me. I’ve been through the SLC temple and it’s one horrifyingly bland white cold interior throughout. If that’s what mormons see as their ‘destiny’ in the afterlife, I’m kinda glad I’ll be roasting in hell instead. To me that kind of austerity doesn’t smack of godliness, it smacks of sterility and coldhearted lifelessness.
Both of these long, thoughtful replies were downvoted for some reason. Wtf guys? Is this not a forum for communication?