I don't believe in miracles

[tvaeli]

Spirituality: it is a study of how long-term logic (ethics) can influence short-term logic (matter).

In mathematical system, each part is free to create local optimums, such as self-gain or gain right now, but the long-term systems converge to win.

To believe this, I do not have to "believe" in miracles:

• Atheists very often believe in miracles: they believe that to prove a mystery, it necessarily means their logic laws are disproven.
• If they have to follow karma to prove long-term effects had influence them, they say it's inheretly biased; rather the "miracle" has to work without ethics and prove as "neutral" science.

In this matter, miracle does *not* break natural laws and I do not believe this: if miracle is reasoned, that long-term effects can influence and break short-term logic, this definitely means *stronger* logic break them, by which they are followed more, not that some kind of particular "will" or "intent" is being over matter: in long term, we rather find *better* solutions, than trying to break our home.

 

Buddha definitely stated that those systems with "breaking" qualities, which an atheist would call breakthroughs for us, somehow proving interesting qualities of magic, but which are not interesting by buddha: magic which happens instantly, over long distance or very complex cause and effect, by buddha, follows the same rules with magic we normally see in life and which does not appear so magical. Also, most creditable information about spirituality emphasizes life, love, consciousness, and real miracles we see in life and does not cling to seek to some "miraculous" quality.

• Witches and alchemists who tried to do counter-nature "miracles" and to break essential rules, were trying to achieve side-effects similar to what enlightenment could sometimes feel, but it's like trying to make your local cause very efficient: no, miracles happen and global causes, such as society ethics god, are very efficient doing them.

 

Science is not about particular evidence, what any of us has seen of a few has experienced together, but it's about form of information, which has solid, repeatable, sharable nature: in this sense the words of Buddha that the buddhist terms do hold in normal situation, as well as more efficient and miraculous developments of mind. But reading the real authors and stories, rather than seeking something exceptional and walking and talking like atheist, whose main criteria is that he never met what he was looking for - such person indeed "believes" in miracles, but we need to do and not believe so we need to look at actual sources what miracles really are:

• Christmas miracles, good miracles in christian sense, are indeed if a poor child is given a substantial material support or an important thing which would gain symbolic meaning in their life, by materially helping them for long term.
• Christian saints and buddhists, as well as others, consistently had to fix through history:
  • Magic healing is not a miracle, but healing itself is a miracle: if we do only the described magic, such as a machine responding to voice or detecting words such as "friend", without healing, it's not a miracle, because it's not a long term gain; if atheists removes the healing and only the machine remains, and tries to prove they still get medical money from government - a long-term energy to support local claim -; indeed they end up like witches and alchemists, and this kind of self-strength attitude is too much based on "belief".
  • Christ said it's about sacrifice, and buddha invented dukkha: in each case this supports evolution theory, a long process and initial give-away, as well as personal give-away; so evidently neither buddha or christ believen in miracles: they did not belive that instantly, without any effort, anything would happen. So if atheist says christian or buddhist have to believe they get something for free, this is not surprise that the same atheist later comes with heavy lesson from god to prove that those things won't happen, and we definitely have to accept this proof: this described, atheistically hysteric and free-from-goal-thus-natural kind of miracle does happen.
  • Life is also miracle: it is like love and other miracles; by science it's nearly impossible life would be born, but it still did: it overcame material laws and started to follow the cause - materialist would say it's not a matter, but different thing, to prove that life is made of matter, but this kind of circulation of argument is nonsense; indeed a material substance found mental overmaterial goal, and the science of looking souls which measure three grams or anything real is also nonsene: it's not material and real thing, the soul and long-term cause, but it's made of complex patterns and logic of this "real" thing, and indeed you don't measure this without being able to measure patterns.
  • Atheists also believe this kind of miracles: in buddhism, they say, karma does not hold because prize and punishment are not there, and god was a criminal in story of noah, they say, as a good and real god would not impose punishment and reward. It seems like a scientific argument, but it's actually a fearful stub of ethics: karma is said to be infinite chain of cause and effect; god - at least in his fatherly presence - is said to be completeness of, for example, truth matter and logic: in each case, reward and punishment exist in spiritual and ethical realm of long-term causes and large systems, because the intent of small parts is either synchronized and aligned with the big or rejected. This, because miracles are not real: humans and society are not failure and sinners, the atheists are stating they provide reward and punishment themselves, because they are "not ethical", but religious, spiritual believer must not provide reward and punishment, because they are ought to be "ideal": this is heavy atheist belief in miracles, rejecting Buddha's main discovery of Dukkha and Christs teaching of self-sacrifice for higher good: each of this is work, not miracle to be believed, and thus by following things in real spirituality and religion: once the "miracles", which mean elevating efficieny in this long-term reach to influence local optimum, they must seem completely natural: mathematical system is non-explainable if it does not contain such effects of long term over short, reward and punishment, and the atheist explanation about "ideal reality", which does not contain dukkha, sin, punishment or reward: indeed this is the reason why they find *anything at all* in this, but for them it seems that what exists, exists only in mundane sphere where they can see they need to work, call police, and be otherwise so "evil" but they have dismissed buddha or god by static such evilness does not exist.

[tvaeli]

Atheists also have explained the miracle of professional spiritual healer or psychologist, who survives without asking money and provides their service for free, because it's a spiritual, somehow "ideal" service: be warned because the same atheist can not live with you if you do such profession *for real* - they see these ideal fantasies but the "real experience" does change them typically faster than yours.

[tvaeli]

Atheist belief: God, spiritual believers and others, who provide either natural cure, psychological help based on long-term natural evidence etc., must provide their service for free is absolutely biased and based on conception of "miracles" and "belief", reflection of atheist nature itself:

They say a charlatan is cheating on money and playing on human psychology. This is true, because a charlatan is providing a *fake service*.
Money, indeed, in case of long-term gain comes from a tax system and can thus help the poor, but this poor person must efficiently build up the tax system.
⦁    Person, who provides natural cure or help based on strategies to follow long-term gain does not *miracously* get along without food, shelter etc., but both Bible and teachings of Buddha *do* believe in food and shelter: bible, for example, provides numerous stories where providing food and shelter itself is miraculous, life-based activity, and lack of food and shelter, living from "nothing", is not evidential in real sacred texts.
⦁    Reaching enornomous efficiency has been believed by many hermetics, alchemists, and witches, but normally people who believe in miracles are killed in religious stories - persons, who said help lack basis, provided miracles which did not have actual basis and failed. Exactly belief that God does not follow thermodynamic principle is wrong - God is the *sum* of thermodynamic principle, and as below, it's followed in every single action, so above.
⦁    While it's generally "good" to have tax system to provide long-term basis in food and shelter, this is not evidential in modern society that one has such church basis to survive without asking; rather, the system must be strategically very good.
⦁    Getting help from other without paying to prove their goodness, and stating that 10€ for hour of support is "cheating" or "asking too much", and that God should pay for the help an atheist gets: stating that they need help without paying is the *cheat itself*.

[tvaeli]

https://github.com/tambetvali/SpiBody/blob/main/notes/goodmoney.md - this is my long story, where copilot created the scientific-religious parts at the end, and i asked it to be scientific; it's not religion and miracles.

[JosephKnecht]

1 hour ago, tvaeli said:

Spirituality: it is a study of how long-term logic (ethics) can influence short-term logic (matter).

When you start with the wrong definition, you are bound to end up in error. 

Spirituality has nothing to do with logic, ethics, or matter. 

[tvaeli]

4 minutes ago, JosephKnecht said:

When you start with the wrong definition, you are bound to end up in error. 

Spirituality has nothing to do with logic, ethics, or matter. 

This kind of thing occurs once your spirit is born. Once it's born as the ultimate result of this: that spirit sees itself inside potentials of different universes, and understands the base science is same for all, seeing them as possible universes; such spirit lifts beyond matter. It's not a contradiction, but natural law - once a fact is implied by math, it could also be used as a basis. Each implied thing has mathematical synchronicity: logic occurs where each truth resonates, a single truth can be true but it's not inside an environment of falses; we live where truth meets truth. Spirit is not a material structure, but an immanent goal which does it in any way - the material substance can resolve in different ways, but it will be resolved. We can be very different species, but we follow the same laws. Logic is immanent, not made by matter, but you can not see this as "break or hole" in the material laws; rather, it appears where molecules follow their material rules.

Indeed, logic ethics and matter conclude into principle, which has "nothing to do" with the initial paradigm; this is a mystery of science - if brain structure and your awareness is kind of the same thing, why you cannot explain anything about them in terms of the other? It's known in medicine: it's not trivial, often not accepted, to mix the felt and measured properties of sickness and cure; yet, humans are perfectly capable to see when others are sick or have problems, and know many solutions naturally - even an atheist is so natural that talking all against hands-on healing, unreasonably strong force moves his hand on where he has pain, and he does not need any physical evidence.

[Xonas Pitfall]

Hmm . . . 💭🤔

I don’t think that when most people talk about miracles, they are thinking about whether they are free, karmic, ethical, or long-term in nature.

In traditional or layman’s terms, a miracle usually means a strange, sudden, and inexplicable event, especially one that would normally require a long time or enormous effort, or that appears impossible within the current understanding of reality.

For example, if a patient needs eight years of intensive chemotherapy to recover from cancer, but instead goes to a mystical healer who snaps their fingers and the cancer disappears, most people would call that a miracle. Now, I agree that such a healer, or possibly their genetic bloodline, may have invested enormous effort over many years to develop that ability. In that sense, the act still has a consequential cause, even though the observer experiences it as sudden and inexplicable.

Ultimately, this seems to come down to how you define the word “miracle.”

• If a miracle is defined as something with no causal explanation whatsoever, then in a universe governed by cause and consequence, miracles do not exist by definition.
• If a miracle is defined as something that has no explanation within our current observable or accepted framework, yet remains coherent within a still-unknown system of causes, then miracles do exist.
• And if a miracle is defined as complex systems gradually harmonizing over time to produce beauty, health, love, or support, then nearly everything in life could be considered a miracle, and many more will continue to emerge.

Basically, whether something is called a miracle is highly dependent on the observer, and on that observer’s assumptions about what is normal, expected, or possible. The same is true for labels like abnormal, alien, or unfamiliar.

Even the official Oxford definition points in this direction: “an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency,” for example, “the miracle of rising from the grave.”

The key phrase here is “not explicable by natural or scientific laws.” Whatever a culture or observer accepts as natural, scientific, common, or usual will determine whether an event is classified as a miracle at all. Change the assumed framework, and the miracle either disappears or becomes ordinary.

[tvaeli]

1 hour ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

The key phrase here is “not explicable by natural or scientific laws.” Whatever a culture or observer accepts as natural, scientific, common, or usual will determine whether an event is classified as a miracle at all. Change the assumed framework, and the miracle either disappears or becomes ordinary.

The long-term, slow-progressing miracles: I somehow reached the word "spectacular", somehow defined by magazines like "Nature" and "Discovery Channel" for me, which try to show this miracle at grand scale and to produce awe (a feeling which signals an actual, real miracle, as compared to hopes and fears - feelings by which layman often destorys their zen of the miracle).

There is such things as "symbol": a meaninful reference, which draws new meanings in every instance. I think life as a miracle denies to fully explain it: once you find new sets of rules of life, you always find new sets of exceptions and such way, a true miracle rather does not deplete. Life sometimes loses it's meaning, and comes back brigther and stronger than ever.

I have seen if ordinary people meet someone first time and seem to become friends, that person loses their shine and becomes ordinary - there is certain problem with this ordinality:

1. It becomes ordinary, but does not lose it's meaning; so the new ordinary often is wrapped around the hands of a pig; but true scientist still thinks their explained science is somehow holy and sacred, in it's continuous way as well as real fruitful value-production.
2. The people of elevated ordinary world should understand the real basis of this world is better than before - we live better than stone age people, but we both live in an ordinary realm.
3. Very often, this ordinality is overemphasized: for example, magic was much explained by psychology and other effects, but today I say we live in a world where many people appear as animals because they lost interest in this ordinary, common magic which should actually get them into flow. Scientist can visibly ruin something by explaining it.

[tvaeli]

https://github.com/tambetvali/SpiBody/blob/main/notes/metaspirit.md - this is the long article written with aid of copilot, to convey all the topic.