Isn't this law a complete bullshit?

That was not directed at you Boomer… Thought I was responding once again to Seeker. Apologies for the misunderstanding. As it turns out… we will certainly express our differences in another forum but let’s do so intentionally. LOL All due respect to you…

@Cognostic I am getting the impression…and correct me if I am wrong, that @Seek3R does not properly understand what a miracle is.

Ahh… I see my mistake… You would think I was blind not to notice the little Cockatoo.

I literally thought I was responding to Seeker once again. Sorry to get your ire up. The author he references “Little…(something)” who I have cited above and left a link. He clearly states what he means by Miracle. If Seeker is not talking about that, then they are just not talking about the same thing. All seeker is doing is refusing to accept the definition of Miracle as it is being used.

Monkey brains strikes again…

I don’t think that is a fair assessment. He has his definition of a miracle and he assumes it is the only definition. On the other hand the author he references clearly indicated exactly what was meant by “Miracle” and it fits easily within the dictionary definition that Seeker is using; however, because it is also more restrictive and natural in nature, 'earthquake, disease, disaster, etc…" Seeker refuses to accept it. Still, these things commonly occur all over the planet and are the cause of endless strings of miracles. (The tornado destroyed my neighbors house, jumped over my house, and then destroyed the other neighbors house. It was a miracle.) (The entire house burned down but look, our bible is only scorched. It’s a miracle!) I don’t know that there is a good definition for “miracle.” I do know that the author offered one and that is the one he is using.

@Cognostic So then the problem, it seems, is @Seek3R not accepting a valid definition of the term miracle, because it does not conform to his views. How can he use the definition of a word, when he disagrees with it? Something does not add up here. It is, as if @Seek3R is jumping around wildly here and there, hoping that we would catch him.

I can now see why you guys are frustrated with him.


@Seek3R not accepting a valid definition of the term miracle, because it does not conform to his views.

And what views would those be?

@Seek3R not accepting a valid definition of the term miracle

So, I suppose all the dictionaries in the world are giving the invalid definition?

@Seek3R is jumping around wildly here and there, hoping that we would catch him.

Perhaps you blindly jumped inside a debate you don’t understand a word of, as evident by how your first reply is citing dictionary links to define a miracle when I’ve clearly mentioned that I’m not looking for a definition of the miracle.

I’m looking forward to someone proving to me that Littlewood’s law is NOT based on assumptions.

The extent of your blindness is such that you’re unable to distinguish who is replying to who.

The caps, the frustration, the impatience and the resort to words like “pigheaded”.

Perhaps you should take a chill pill, let the effects sink in and come back when you’ve completely calmed down.

Was someone speaking? Nope, unless you are speaking, I cannot “listen” to what you are saying. But I am reading, so go on.

Unless you have a diagnosed disease that mentions you are likely to die any day by now, it was not a miracle.

The likelihood of you getting out of the bed this morning was highly likely. Unless, as I mentioned above, there’s evidence to suggest otherwise i.e. a disease that you’re going to die any day, or your legs may suffer complete paralysis due to which you are unable to “get out” of bed.

Oh yes, thank you, that’s what I’m trying to say. The definition used by Littlewood is nonsense.

Yes, yes, I’m with you. Except, Cognostic is refusing to understand any of this. What do I mean by “this”?

That Littlewood has no evidence to prove this definition of his: " a miracle is an event that has 1 in a million odds of happening ." Which, as I’ve concluded and demonstrated in one of the replies above, is based on an imaginary formula with nothing but assumptions.

Yes, it does make him sound like one. Except that now I’m doubting whether Littlewood was actually serious.

As @Whitefire13 and @Nyarlathotep confirmed, the so-called Law of Miracles is nothing but a joke. But some of us here taking it seriously and missing the point.

In other words, @boomer47, everything you’ve written, I agree with you.

That’s not Littlewood’s words. Unless you want to paste the law here and highlight where he has used these words.

Also, his definition is nothing more than “a miracle is an event that has one in a million odds of happening”. Where exactly did he specify “a disaster”, “an act of god”? Which god’s act is it? Are you even reading what you’re writing?

Umm, nope, just because the survivors label it as a miracle doesn’t mean it’s a miracle.

Is it inexplicable by natural and scientific laws as to how the survivors survived the tragic event?

The odds of anyone surviving such an event is dependent on far too many factors one of which is how many shooters were present, their skills, the type of guns used, how familiar the politicians were with protocols that need to be followed in such circumstances, the presence of body guards, the number of body guards, the armor and weapons used by body guards.

I think it was very likely that someone survived the shooting or whatever it was. Hence, it’s not a miracle, according to my definition, which is the same as Whitefire, Nyar and Boomer’s.

Nope, not a miracle. Every year, 50-70 volcanoes erupt. The likelihood of a volcano erupting is much more than the likelihood of what Littlewood describes as a miracle. And ironically, his likelihood is subject to change.

Okay, now you’re just being ridiculous. According to that cited article, “There were 33 entries in the 200-lap race…”.

Therefore, the odds of any of them winning were 1 in 33. Thousands of times more likely than a miracle happening. Hence, once again, not a miracle.

A tip for you here. You don’t have the burden of proof to prove anyone’s god. The burden of proof is on the claimant who claims the existence of god.

No, not really. Littlewood’s definition deduced from his own imaginary law does seem to have enough odds to loosely match the odds of a miracle.

So no, Littlewood’s self-made definition can also be applied to miracles. My only problem is how he comes with this self-made definition. I came up with mine too, if you bothered to read my previous replies where I demonstrated what the man’s formula is and how he comes to his definition.

I don’t “disbelieve” in Littlewood’s definition. All I’m doing is labeling his definition to be a “subjective” one because he has no evidence to back the number used to deduce that definition, and I’m labeling the dictionary definition as an “objective” one because no numerical claims have been made.

Once again, if you do notice, the dictionary definition is what the majority (myself, boomer, nyar, white) of us are agreeing with here, whilst disagreeing with Littlewood’s definition.

1 Like

What are the odds for the “miracle” of birth which happens every blessed day?



  1. an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

So the dictionary definition is itself a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

NB the emboldened text clearly demonstrates it is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. This makes the definition irrational in itself, and would be reason enough to disbelieve any claim using that rationale.

However I’d love someone to explain how they know any event cannot be explained ny natural or scientific laws?

Just because we don’t currently have a natural or scientific explanation for something, doesn’t remotely suggest that none exist. That’s pure assumption, no matter how unlikely the event is claimed or perceived to be.


You don’t prove definitions.

1 Like

@Seek3R It seems to me, that Mr. Littlewood should do some more research on what a miracle actually is, before he says anything about it. Sheesh.

@Seek3R So would the very fact that I am able to wake up every morning and enjoy another day of life on this beautiful planet that we live on, a miracle, then?

You’re repeating what Cognostic said. Read what I wrote to him.

It’s more of a claim than a definition. It was used as a definition by Shermer.

A miracle is an event that has one in a million odds of happening.

The bolded part needs evidence. But there won’t be any, since it was deduced from a set of assumptions.

Kindly read this debate from the start. You’ll find out the answers to all your questions as well as the fact that many people are questioning how Littlewood deduced his definition of a miracle. Since the formula he used (I’ve already demonstrated it) is also based on assumptions, Littlewood’s definition is completely subjective.

I’m only questioning the reliability of the so-called law and the definition deduced from it.

I have read this thread multiple times, so then my question is, if the definition of miracle by Littlewood so problematic, then why did Shermer use it at all? Why use something that is faulty? Something does not seem right, here.

Of course the context in which it is used will have a say in the interpretation, but on its own, this is a defective definition. The semantics here suggest that low odds are enough to call an event a miracle. Winning a lottery with winning chances less than one in a million can then be considered a miracle, yet people win such lotteries all the time. Clearly, one needs more than just the statistical odds for something to be called a miracle.


The dictionary already has a definition. Creating an arbitrary one is hardly a good start for any argument.

No it isn’t, that isn’t remotely what the word means. If I claimed a miracle meant apple pie with cream, then pointed to apple pie with cream, I haven’t remotely evidenced a miracle. That’s not how things work.

Not really, as demonstrating the odds that an event matched his arbitrary definition, still wouldn’t evidence an even has no natural or scientific explanation.

All definitions are derived from common usage, and I care less that his is subjective than that it clearly differs entirely from the one in common usage.

I am dubious it’s a scientific law, and I simply don’t believe his claim is valid anyway. How do a million to one shot, just suddenly switch from natural causes to supernatural ones by a deity?

Well that’s clearly true, it sounds like an arbitrary figure, and an arbitrary definition that doesn’t remotely match the definition in common usage.

I don’t see what the odds, or any odds or the likelihood of an event happening, have to do with it being miraculous, or a supernatural event?


I am not sure who is more at fault here: Littlewood for his rather wanky definitely of a miracle, or Mr. Shermer for using it, as it seems to be causing trouble. Maybe they should both have stuck with the dictionary definition of “miracle”. That would have saved them from all of this committed and controversy. SMH