Talk:Miracle

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Epistemology / Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Philosophy of religion Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I do not think that this material belongs in this article. It seems to better be suited for an article on writing, culture, drama, or something like that. RK 14:00, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC) A miracle which me must believe in.

In this view, miracles do not really occur. Rather, they are the product of creative story tellers. They use them to embellish a hero or incident with a theological flavor. Using miracles in a story allow characters and situations to become bigger than life, and to stir the emotions of the listener more than the mundane and ordinary.

In the world of miracle, wonder and faith the imposssible become the possible. Through bravery and courage, charity, sacrifice and reason Good always triumps over evil. Deep inside each person is the longing to see the extraordinary, undenial, proof of goodness and divine love; and a personal desire for someone (perhaps even ourselves) to be special and possess wondrous powers to right wrongs for someone's benefit. Story tellers know miracle stories inspire wondrous deeds. Everyone wants to be a hero and bring about happiness. In these stories these deeds happen, dispelling doubt and uplifting faith.

Critical science and history take a back seat. Those far outside the world of the artistic story teller have difficulty understanding: for them there is only fact and fiction. It is easy for modern people to stop believing. Many of our ancestors did not. They held on to miracles and optimism in very brutal times.

Doesn't seem here to be any sceptical view of miracles - either from atheist or Protestant point of view. Or indeed how Catholics view miracles claimed by other faiths.

Exile 11:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity is the most powerful mystical religion. It is. Has the most miracles that happend yearly: Holy Light - in Jerusalem on Orthodox Easter on the place Jesus resurected Jordan river moving back - every year on the day Jesus was baptised but last year Jordan river moves back when Bishop of Jerusalem performs a celebration of Jesus Baptism. Every year on the transfiguration day, a cloud comes on Mount Tabor where Transfiguration happend. Through prayer Holy Water changes molecular movement from brownian movement to something different and resists for years being good to drink. Bodies being incoruptible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptg3RVtoeYA&feature=channel_page many many more like monks speaking with Jesus, St Mary, saints, angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.235.204 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video presented here doesn't show any miracle happening so I think it is better been elaborated here rather than speaking from one point of view which is what I'm doing, clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.108.80 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still true that one must have two miracles attributed to him/her (posthumously) based on appeals to his/her spirit to intervene in order to be considered for canonization as a saint? If so, does this belong in the article at some place?

Answer: Sometimes. Two posthumous miracles are required for canonization, unless the candidate was martyred for his faith (martyrs don't need miracles to become saints).

Rlquall 21:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The final section, particularly the last paragraph, is a bit preachy for my liking. I'd agree that a more sceptical view of miracles should be added to the article as a whole.

e03bf085 21:35, 1 Apr 2005 (BST)

I quote the following from the Catholic part of the article: Since Adam and Eve set foot on the earth there have been an estimated 40,000,000+ miracles.

I come to the conclusion that you can't accurately calculate the number of miracles from the time of Genesis to the present. I believe that there is currently a growth of miracles taking place (especially in China at the moment). Is this number calculated for just the Catholic faith or for the whole of the Church? It's just I think that this number is rather small in ratio to the number of miracles which I have seen locally and I live in a very small country. Also you must consider the fact that God performs many spiritual wounds which can be counted as miracles as well. It has been reported from the house churches of China that 80% of Christians in the region are so in witness to miracles. At the time of me writing this there is well over 10 million Christians in the house churches and the current growth of the Church is 25,000 per day (taken from Mal Fletcher's book: The Pioneer Spirit, which can be purchased from Authentic).

Figures from the China house churches are quoted from the Back to Jerusalem web site http://www.backtojerusalem.com/

Well we know how many verified, proven miracles have occured in recorded history and that number is zero. The Catholic Church or you personally can assert as many as you want, but neither one of you has actually ever come up with any evidence SuperAtheist (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there have been a dozen or so verified proven miracles over the years. By this I mean ones that stand up to all scientific scrutiny such as the Miracle of the Eucharist of Buenos Aries as well as many others. The miracle was verified by an atheist, who became a catholic afterwards. http://miraculousrosary.blogspot.com/2012/07/eucharistic-miracle-buenos-aires.html Watch the first video Super Atheist. You can argue about it all day if you wish, but that's just one of many confirmed miracles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowHawk555 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the "40mm miracles comment" should either be expanded or deleted
The message below was posted to user Michael Hardy, who added the comment recently.
Michael
First of all, congratulations for working on so many good mathematics articles.
I am writing however about the entry "miracle", which you edited on 24 Jan 2005 (quote from your comment: "I'm putting back some material that an anonymous editor put here earlier, purporting to present a Catholic view. This time it is so labeled and appropriately formatted for Wikipedia.")
Among the comments added is the claim that 40 mm miracles are estimated to have happened, in the history of humankind. While I myself do not believe in miracles as a religious manifestation, I would be interested in knowing how this estimate has been arrived to. I actually think that the basis of this estimate are a required addition to the paragraph.
I also believe that if such an estimate can not be described in some further detail and (as much as possible) in an unbiased way, then maybe that comment should be removed, having no sources or further detailed explanation.
To clarify further: I am unbiased as to whether that comment should remain and be expanded, or should just be removed. However I am adamant that it should not remain unexpanded in its current state. I will post this same comment in the entry's talk page, hoping to receive some illuminating comments from fellow wikipedians. Regards, gintaras 23:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We definitely need official sources for the many claims made in the new section on Catholic views of miracles. Wikipedia:Cite sources is one of our policies. For instance:

• Anyone can perform a miracle if he or she adheres to the following points. Really? Anyone can?
• A Satan-assisted miracle is a temporary miracle that disguises itself as a genuine miracle....

I think this article lacks reference to the work of renowned contemporary theologians and philosophers who have tried to give a meaningful interpretation to miracles, which is, by the way, not affected by the critique by philosophers referred to on this page.

E.g.: the work of Karl Rahner or the views referred to by Bernard Sesboué in Croire, Invitation à la foi catholique pour les femmes et les hommes du xxie siècle, 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.147.75 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that this belongs as it is, but my editing of it is to reflect a need to be gramatical if it is retained. A source for the alledged number of miracles would be really nice! Rlquall 21:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes... The article now claims that the Vatican records some 12,756+ events that it regards as miracles. That number is just the Earth's equatorial diameter in kilometres. Of course it might be a coincidence, but in a discussion of miracles any coincidence sticks out like a sore thumb. So, what about those sources?
—Herbee 23:57, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Could we get info for what constitutes a miracle according to Catholic doctrine? -Tydaj 3 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

More than you may be looking for is here. This does not provide a source for the above claimed number, however. Csernica 5 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

I can find very little support for most of what this section has to say in any standard Catholic references. Whoever added it has not responded to repeated requests for sources, especially for his rather odd figure for the number of recorded miracles. If no one objects, I'm going to give it a drastic edit sometime soon. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody elaborate on this?: "Within the Christian church in Africa miracles are still a frequent occurance." I don't have a problem with it in the article, but I guess I just wondered exactly what was meant by this. DJPthousand 19:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article in a Pentecostal category? Most Christian groups affirm the existence of ongoing miracles. We should either include this in categories for all of them individually if it's going to be in one; or just put it under Category:Christianity and not in any of the subcategories for each group, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... Hindu statues reportedly drank milk on September 21, 1995. The story received world-wide coverage by television stations including CNN and BBC, newspapers such as the Washington post, New York Times, The Guardian and Daily Express, and radio... Sounds fascinating! Something this recent in such mainstream papers ought to be in their on-line archives. Can anyone find a specific link and add it to this page? --Keeves 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian's has been archived and is only mentioned in a story about a statue of mary bleeding now. Looking for the others. I added 3 refs: two of them mention these sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding, this would be better in Modern miracles section, and I will move it there if and when I can find enough information on Hindu miracles to get more than one line, or when someone Hindu expands that section. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

there was hysteria for a day or 2 on the milk-drinking. It was quickly explained by capillary action and died down soon after that. Not many Hindus still consider that a miracle. I have removed that and expanded the section. I only tried to draw parallels to what is considered a miracle in Christianity, since the concept does not have the same significance in Hinduism. --Pranathi 23:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put that in, as I explained above, until a more knowledgable editor could make a contribution. I searched online and the darn milk thing was 99% of the returns, so I thought, well, it will do until we get some substance here.

Thanks again for adding that substance! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the search didn't reveal much because the concept, though it exists in Hinduism, does not have the same significance as in other religions. Miracles are not talked of by themselves or as an illustration of a figure's authenticity. Thanks again for the alert.--Pranathi 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Modern physics, specifically dimensional physics, help to explain how events that seemingly defy reality can occur. These transcendent miracles include events such as the virgin conception of Christ and his bodily resurrection." What? This needs some serious clarification and smells far too much like pure speculation and/or opionion to belong in an encyclopedia article. What scientist has ever linked superstring theory or whatever with MIRACLES in any serious way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.80.30 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur, removed unsourced possibly OR speculation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Another type of miracles are ones that seem to defy physics all together. Modern physics, specifically dimensional physics, help to explain how events that seemingly defy reality can occur." This is still nonsense, and in dire need of explanation/clarification/sources/examples, etc.

The section "transcendent and non-transcendent miracles" is bullcrap and must be destroyed. I, the anonymous editor, shall now do just that.

The section as currently written is

(a) far too long - perhaps this criticism deserves to be merged into the article 'Argument from Miracles'. If necessary there could even be an article on Hume's essay itself - it's quite well known.

(b) clearly POV. It begins by calling his analysis infamous for heaven's sake.

(c) Rather bad, IMO. I have only the non-specialists understanding of Hume's views on the subject of miracles, but this is egregiously awful. I suspect a college freshman posting his essay to the web...

--Gargletheape 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Hume's views[edit]

Re DEFINITION. The definition that the article attributes to David Hume is very nice. It is, of course, not what Hume wrote in the chapter On Miracles but why should Wikipedia go directly to the source if such a nice formulation of what Hume might have said is available from another encyclopedia. Anyway, the main point is that by providing information on what Hume did not write, the subsection also in a way tells us something about the views that Hume did not hold, which was after all what it set out to do. Mission accomplished.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could, you know, like, fix it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re FIX IT. So what do you think I'm doing, TCC?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being sarcastic on the talk page. Fixing it involves editing the actual article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re INVOLVED. This may come as a surprise to you, TCC, but in Switzerland, where I come from, pointing out a method for solving a whole class of equations is considered worth much more than actually solving one of these equations.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re SARCASM. Another surprise, TCC: In the Alps, sarcasm is not considered a crime. On the contrary, it is seen as the mark of every great writer. We can't all be great writers, of course, but we can pay our tribute to these giants by also using this tool now and then.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked what I thought you were doing and I provided a straightforward answer. I never said sarcasm was a crime, it's just not helpful here. And this isn't mathematics, where discovering the method is 95% of the work. It's an encyclopedia, where nothing useful is done until and unless the article is edited. I don't know Hume well and I'm frankly not interested in him. You do and you are. Why you can do nothing but complain, and refuse to to the work yourself, I can't imagine. Had you simply edited the article, it would already be fixed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, I believe you'll find that great writers frequently use irony, not sarcasm. Irony is a forceful way of making a point. Sarcasm is merely insulting. You don't need to be a great writer to insult; any moron can manage it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re 95%. Right. In an encyclopedia it's 99.99%.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re FIXED. Right. 1 article out of a million would be fixed. Without anybody having learned anything.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re COMPLAIN. Who's complaining, TCC?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re IRONY. Right. But why should this be a proof that they don't use sarcasm as well? Show me one who doesn't!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re INSULT. In the mountains, sarcasm is not considered an insult. Telling other people what to do and how to write, is. Well other countries, other customs, as we say in Switzerland.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 99.9% -- All right. So your mathematics comparison was even more inapposite than I said. I admit I deliberately underestimated it.

The million articles are not all wrong. A great many of them have no serious problems or inaccuracies to speak of, at least not more than a reputable print encyclopedia like the Britannica. Besides, why not fix those that are wrong? Of course since there will be less to complain about it would spoil some of your fun, but hey, you have another 999,999 articles to complain about. And nobody would have learned anything? That's absurd. Any reader of the article would have learned something. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Complain? You are. I'm merely pointing out that complaining about a problem without doing anything about it, when doing something about it is perfectly within your power and indeed would have taken less effort than this discussion, is more useless than anything else. But perhaps doing useful things is not your purpose here.

Irony -- Yes, many great writers use sarcasm. It's a method of attack, not well-intended discourse. As many great writers have had occasion to intellectually attack someone, it's not surprising that they use it. Sarcasm is characterized as "biting". Irony is regarded as insightful. I suppose which is more admirable depends on the situation.

I live in mountains myself. You may be surprised to learn that they exist in places other than Switzerland. In these mountains sarcasm, especially the condescending variety you use here, is insulting. But now you're either being dishonest or are admitting to the charge. What was your initial sarcastic complaint about the article but an instruction to someone, anyone, to fix it? (I'm sure you might claim otherwise, but that would be highly disingenuous of you.) So you were being insulting at large, even by your own lights. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re MOUNTAINS. Well, TCC, thank goodness you explained to me what mountains you are coming from. Otherwise I might have taken offense at being called "deliberately obtuse", "condescending", "insulting at large", "highly disingenuous", "a moron", "dishonest", et cetera et cetera. But if in the American mountains this is taken to be civilized discourse, then that's fine with me. I only hope that you won't mind if I don't reply in the same way. In Switzerland we say: When in Rome, never forget you're a Swiss.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re SARCASM (cont.) This morning it came to me in a flash: You, TCC, have never read the book that introduced sarcasm as a literary style to our civilization. I guess, like so many young people nowadays, you had the misfortune to be raised as a "free thinker". Had you ever read only one of the many beautiful verses in which the Bible uses sarcasm of the most explicit kind to make a point, you would have a very different opinion of it. But see for yourself. The book won't bite you, and you don't have to become a believer. Just give it a try. You will learn a lot. Not only about the uses of sarcasm but also about other things, such as intellectual pride and humility for instance. I wish you a very pleasant day, TCC.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very silly man. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re SILLY. Well, I assume this rates as an argument in the American mountains; and, no doubt, also in the back of the German woods. But let me show you what we in the Swiss mountains prefer: And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a God; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. Yes, you got it: SARCASM. The preferred way to talk to the prophets of Baal.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I correct myself. You're a very silly man, and you still haven't done anything useful with the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

continued below>> Re CORRECT.

Re BELIEF OR OPINION. As mentioned above, a reader should be able to deduce Hume's views from the information given in the article. At least if he is an American. For the readers from Switzerland or other mountaineous regions, here is a short explanation of what Hume's essay is all about:

A man like David Hume would of course never have wasted his time discussing the kind of miracles mentioned in the article. Anyone willing to invest the 10 minutes that it takes to read On Miracles will see that Hume has something very different in mind: decisions that can only be "wrong". Nobody has ever seen a man raised from the dead (best case). Your best friend has never ever deceived you (best case). If this friend tells you he has just seen some Lazarus rising, should your belief or opinion be that he is right (miracle #1) or that he is wrong (miracle #2)? You can either be right for the wrong reason, or wrong for the right reason. Nobody (sorry, Mr Hume!) has ever come up with anything even approaching a satisfactory solution to this problem.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re CORRECT. Nice correction, TCC. And so brilliantly argued. You feel that a silly man should do the work that, in your opinion, needs to be done. And not only a silly one but a VERY silly one at that. You want a very silly man to write articles for Wikipedia? That's what you want? - And they cried out aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followers of Sai Baba are sincere in their belief that he performs miracles. The dominant view outside the movement appears to be that this is simple conjuring. We can state the facts without appearing to form a judgment, I hope, and the same should be true of the others. That includes the section title: claims is neutral, fraud is not. Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

true. Some followers of Sathya Sai Baba continue to have faith even if they hear someone observing fraud or even when they personally observe fraud. Sathya Sai Baba himself gives various definitions of a miracle. One of his definitions is an event that attracts the attention because it cannot be explained. Andries 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re DEFINITION. If he wants this definition to make any sense whatsoever, Sathya Sai Baba would have to specify who would be qualified to decide that an explanation is satisfactory or not. Does he, Andries?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with content, but I think that the Christianity section contains more Judaism than the Judaism part. Needs attn. Flymeoutofhere 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just inserted a link to Cessationism in the See also section. At least one of the External links is more related to Cessationism than Miracle per se. Perhaps it isn't needed here. DFH 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wiccans do not consider themselves as Satanic. Many of them belive in a God and a Goddess. Some of them even believe that these are forms of the God of Love and Loving Light, The Greatest Spirit of all Spirits, the Ultimate Conciousness, or The Source of Life, the Universe and Everything. Therefore any association done toward Satanism would most likely not be from anyone within the faith. Most often it is in Christian literature as such. But Wiccan literaure has a different view. However, I have found that far too often Wiccan literature does sometimes do just the opposite of what they intend to do. Yet, if you examine my viewpoint you will see that so do the Christian literatures. Their creed is "Harm none, and Do what you will so be it in love." By Critizing the Christians they have violated the principle, because judgemental criticism is harmful. Sometimes they are careful, and constructively criticize. Just like Christian Literature often violates the law "Judge not, lest ye be judged." These are principles that all men must learn. Even myself.

So basically Wiccans believe in anything.

I started correcting the English in this section because parts of it were not comprehensible to an English speaking reader but I don't have time right now to finish. There are also some NPOV problems which should be addressed. I think the many Quranic citations should be in a separate list, as they clutter up the article and make it less readable. Do feel free to discuss this. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but would like to improve this section.Essaouira 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article to contain some bias in the way "god" was spelled. There were many cases where "God" was used in the place where "god" should have been. This is a minor edit, but it is very important. The use of "God" in many parts of the article are biased towards the god of the Christian religion, who is named "God". I fixed a few of the issues I found with this. Some of the parts should be left as "God" since that is what they are refering too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.71.219.100 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The the first two paragraphs in the section for contemporary miracles seem to be more in the vein of recruitment brochures than encyclopedic entries - somebody want to have a look at that? I'm no expert, but I'm almost certain those don't belong.

I don't think that is a standard English word. I didn't edit, because I have no way of knowing what the intent of the author was here. Would someone like to standardize the word usage?

67.49.147.148 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Leif Palmer, 9:50 AM Hawaii time, March 22, 2007[reply]

What about prophesying? Gottistgut (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Here is what I wrote:

C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and Christians who engage in jurisprudence Christian apologetics have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible. [1] [2] [3][4][5]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.115.88 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removed some of the less encyclopaedic elements at the end of 'In the New Testament'. Not sure that any of it is really NPOV, mind. 81.107.32.231 (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for language translations of the word Miracle. Preferably Swahili or Hawaii Translations. I am currently pregnant with the baby they said I would never have. Of course, Miracle is fine for a girl but not for a boy. I really need some help. Even if it's just pointing me in the direction of help. (Marvalla (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Certainly there are several different viewpoints of what consitutes a miracle and how people interpret stories about them. This is not covered well now and needs expansion. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to discuss more views of miracles other than just the European Christian view.Bless sins (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current standards and practices of the Catholic church in declaring miracles as evidence for sainthood are being documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien There have been some surprising revelations there recently. Lawn Chair Charlie (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How silly for any humans to try to declare what is a miracle and what is not. Leave that to God. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Damien case reveals the standards to be very low or nonexistent. Mother Inferior (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, Rlsheehan! In the Sainthood system, the miracle requirement shouldn't be there, in my opinion, because who has the right to judge a miracle aside from God and the person who claimed to recieve the miracle? I was reading up on Mother Teresa (big fan of her commitment to modern medicine and healing regardless of cash), and it said that she could only recieve Sainthood if she was attributed to two miracles.

I was reading that and thinking, "What in the universe?!". More importantly, the Blessed title was given because a portrait of her shined a light (*cough* reflection *cough*) on an ailing cancerous victim and eradicated her tumor. First off, God works miracles through secular means nowadays.

That tumor cure was probably the result of Mother Teresa's medical staff, the medicine, ect., something that she did or administered! It was at her hands and the hands of her staff that medicine was done, but shouldn't that be the miracle instead of a reflection from a potrait? Honestly, get your priorities right! I consider Mother Teresa's medical trek and various curings and assistents of the sick in need as a miracle, not some reflection.

As said in the article, miraculous occurences are things with little to no chance coming true, and to the religious, something that God helped. Jesus and the Apostles of the Bible are the last folks I can think of who did literal miracles (ressurection of Lazarus, water-to-wine, demon removal, Jesus Himself, Virgin Mary, Paul, ect.). The miracles of now are God's plan doing unbelivable things through non-divine measures. I consider miracles thing such as people with terminal illnesses surviving, those pronounced dead actually in comas and living on, premature infants surviving the odds, quadapalegics who eventually walk due to therapy... I've actually seen two of those firsthand.

A reflection shining on an ailing paitent? Not a miracle. Mother Teresa helping to eradicate that cancer? THAT'S a miracle.

By the current canonization standards, Billy Graham couldn't become a Saint (despite bringing TENS OF THOUSANDS TO CHRIST) because he didn't do a so-called "miracle". Isn't leading tens of thousands of people to Christ miraculous enough for the process? Nooooooooo. Quickly, get me a picture of Billy Graham!

Wikipedia's not a forum, so I'll shut up now.

--TurtleShroom! :) I like turtles. ^{THE TURTLE'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!} _{Madness? NO, THIS IS GOOMBA!} 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some events in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures can only be described as miracles but others might be open to natural explanations. The creation miracles described in the first two chapters of Genesis can only be accepted through subjective belief. They cannot be proven objectively by any means.

The parting of the Reed Sea described in Exodus, however, could have been a tsunami event. In a tsunami the sea typically recedes slowly from the shore and then comes roaring back in a wave or series of waves many meters high. This is what's described in Exodus. Couple this with the comment that the Israelites were led by a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, which could be a description of a volcano. Volcanoes and tsunamis are quite often linked. If the Israelites could have seen the Thera eruption from Egypt, the Exodus would have occurred ca. 1628 BCE. This doesn't denigrate God's involvement in the events of the Exodus but might help to establish the historicity of these events.

Mary's virgin pregnancy could have been a manifestation of, say, parthenogenesis in humans. Some vertebrates (e.g., amphibians and reptiles) reproduce asexually through the mechanism of parthenogenesis. Our genome could still contain the code for this but its occurrence would be exceedingly rare. The probability might be 1 in a trillon, say, but still finite. This hypothesis would be difficult indeed to prove but would have major ramifications for Marian theology if it were.

The resurrection of Jesus is more problematical. Based on the Gospel accounts, Jesus was dead when removed from the cross. The spear thrust into his side rules out the possibility of lapse into coma. Nevertheless, something happened that had a profound effect on his disciples that ultimately produced the Christian religion. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except most of the things you just mentioned (the exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth, etc) have no evidence to support that they happened, so why would there be a need to make an ad hoc explanation for them? SuperAtheist (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I inserted two short sentences and a reference about an event known as the miracle of Calanda under the section "Catholic Church claims", but this keeps getting deleted after a short time. Why is that? Guardaiinalto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.151.98 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the opposite of a miracle? Erudecorp ? * 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe Murphy's law ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.45.232 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found the bit about Christian miracles far too liberal to be "of neutral viewpoint" (neutral stance being of wikipedia's policy), therefore I added a little bit of Bible and "fundamentalism" to balance it out.... We can't exactly have a whole article on miracles criticizing miracles and call it "neutral", can we? Gottistgut (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is clearly labeled Fundamentalist, there is nothing wrong with that. Erudecorp ? * 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why is this empty?Robotpandazombie (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the strange features of the universe, none are stranger than these: time is transcended, laws are mutable, and observer participancy matters. ~ John Wheeler (born: 1911-12-09 died: 2008-04-13 at age: 96) Professor of Physics, Princeton University

Also when Einstein was working on his Superstring theory he interviewed a RC Priest at Princeton regarding transubstantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.76.65 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the word 'miracle' be in bold in the text (especially in the "Dismissal, Disbelief and Skepticism" section)? From my perspective, it provides an special emphasis on it, which is not justifiable in terms of neutrality. Also noted in the section 'Philosophers' explanations of miracles': "human God's" is also in bold. Flapointe (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To further add to the neutrality of this article, it would be useful to provide some statistical data for miracles, especially those mentioned here - how many 'true' miracles have occured since humans have been able to research/document such law-of-nature-defying phenomena? What is the scientific consensus on the matter? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of "true" miracles that have been verified to have happened is exactly zero. Funny how God stopped making blantant appearences right around the time people started keeping good historical records. SuperAtheist (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The present lead paragraphs are poorly worded and contradictory. I suggest:

A miracle is an unexpected event attributed to divine intervention. Sometimes an event is also attributed (in part) to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. Others suggest that God may work with the laws of nature to perform what we perceive as miracles. A miracle is often considered a fortuitous event: compare with an Act of God.

In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even which regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth. Other miracles might be: survival of a terminal illness, escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds.'

Comments? Citations and links can be added as needed. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to the lead section with citations. Grantmidnight (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This listing of individuals is excessive. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists) recommends not having lists like this. This section should be removed and the article tightened up. The article can link to appropriate individuals or existing WK lists. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some of the individuals are important to mention somewhere in here, such as Jesus and Mohammad. Others, such as Audrey Santo are of lesser importance. ThemFromSpace 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the excessive list but retained each of the links. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide reference for miracles of Swami Vivekananda? I could not find any thing online and yet he is in the list. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejithsasikumar (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

59.167.172.206 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC) AFAIK all the criticisms are by Americans, an effort should be made to balance this out, it is highly unlikely that in thousands of years America is the only notable country to have criticised miracles.[reply]

Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to have a line about Richard Dawkins planting the Occam's Razor flag in this article, when Occam himself was a Friar? Occam considered a select amount of spiritual matters (which would have included select miracles, like the Resurrection) to be immune to his Razor. Occam's Razor can indeed be used to seperate false miracles from genuine ones, but to use it to remove the possibility of miracles altogether whould be a gross abuse of the way Occam intended it to be used. And furthermore, even if the community considers it a worthy addition to the article, it most definitely belongs in the criticism section. --Jesspiper (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but a distinguished career in biology does not a religious expert make, you have to cut him some slack. It's only comic genius to those in the know, everyone else will just take it at face value. 78.149.140.249 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely cut ignorance of any kind slack, but at the very least I will be moving it to the criticism section where it belongs.--Jesspiper (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence leading into the Hinduism section of this article was an unverifiable, non-neutral, unsourced editorial that characterized Hindu miracles as "not superstition," was grammatically incorrect, and did not follow contain any information identifiably relevant to the subject except as pure speculation. As such, I have deleted it. 76.118.32.67 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that because this article seeems to be bias toward some religions that there should be a seperate section for each belief about miracles. This would remove need for further minute changes to help reduce bias in certain sections. This would also provide a broader view to all aspects of what could be considered a miracle. In addition miracle can be used in common speech as an event which is not completely un explainable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.57.115 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 6 people from this list as their articles did not mention them having performed miracles. There could be more I just picked 6 at random! Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do other religions BESIDES Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) contain miracles in their claims? Are the Abrahamic faiths the only religions worth mentioning? Buddhism is mentioned as well, but don't nearly ALL religions have miracles attributed to them? What makes the Abrahamic faiths so special? Where are the others, besides just the Abrahamic faiths and Buddhism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the lead starts with

A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.[1] Such an event may be attributed to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature.

Since the entire rest of the article implies, and in at least one place says, that miracles are beneficial, I think that the opening sentence above should begin

A miracle is a beneficial event not ascribable....

Duoduoduo (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add an Examples section, e.g. high temperature superconductors are not explicable by natural or scientific laws: "A sample of a cuprate superconductor (specifically BSCCO). The mechanism for superconductivity of these materials is unknown." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Condensed_matter_physics . Or does anyone think high temperature superconductors are not miracles? Then the definition of miracles is flawed. Darsie42 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did't notice any referance to hope /prayer in miricles? Thanks! Eddson storms (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word miraculum is a Latin word. It appears in the Vulgate from the late 4th century. In the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament the word terata is used. This means "wonder", not miracle. A wonder brings about a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable. Admiring the stars at night can cause a feeling of wonder or surprise, not necessarily miracle. Watching an ant can bring about wonder. In Hebrew the word נֵס (nes) today means miracle, but its meaning in Biblical Hebrew is a symbol of victory held high for all to see. The term "supernatural" is not used till about 1520-1530. I suggest reading: The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Asymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings by Martin Gardner, Revised Third edition, 1990 Miistermagico (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miracle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606165846/http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletters/Newsletter43.pdf to http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletters/Newsletter43.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128052924/http://vailankannishrine.org/miracle.php to http://www.vailankannishrine.org/miracle.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had upper cased Sun and Earth in the following sentence, which was reverted: "...witnessed the sun dim, change colors, spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet to earth." Not capitalizing 'earth' seems fine even though arguably it would have a case, and thanks for catching that. The word 'Sun' in the sentence, however, should be capitalized, as it does not refer only to sunlight (dim, change colors) but the actual star seen to '...spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet...'. So, earth, no, Sun, yes? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A miracle or "good luck" is a human conclusion reached a AFTER a beneficial event has occurred. An example is a single child surviving a catastrophic plane crash where the "miracle child" was the only survivor. Miistermagico (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this edit should be looked into and truly considered. It's already in political discussion amongst the United States Government/Politicians, Native American chiefs, world leaders, and will be a mainstream recognized miracle within the next few years. Religion here seems to have become more Political than its original objective, a common spiritual worldview, denied to none. Religions are all pointing in the same directions, yet with different words, names, and honored people. The truth is, there really is something, but it is beyond our possible understanding. Saint Tammany and Matthew Edward Hall's miracle is revealing a truly all knowing, all powerful God/Higher Order, or even in the deist Christian view, preset with clues in the grand design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger44223 (talk • contribs)

This edit consists of nothing more than bold claims about a miracle by "Matthew Edward Hall" and using his own websites as references. These are not reliable sources. The other claims about a prophecy by Gurdjieff consists of original research and WP:SYNTH by making claims not explicitly made by the references. Those references consist of a Goodreads page and some usergenerated quote sites. The goodreads "quote" is fake as a search of the actual book contents will show. This whole addition is an unreferenced hoax and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

even if there are no cited sources, we can add that angels of God or of Satan can do miracles. Demons don't act freely and for the good of people, but want to be worshiped in place of God and for a deal with the Devil which would ensure ethernal damnation of the human body and soul. Demons act by hand of a false prophet or witch, as it is explained in the film titled The Unholy. 151.18.1.138 (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]