I miracoli - gli straordinari segni di Dio: Un discernimento filosofico - teologico dei miracoli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theological analysis shows that miracles are signs of extraordinary Divine Providence which testify and reveal God's salvific action in the world and which, as can be argued philosophically, are intrinsically rational because they are performed in accordance with the Eternal law (Lex aeterna) which transcends the lawfulness and rationality of the created world. Statements of the Magisterium of the Church which point to the rationality of miracles and their role in the history of salvation entail a theologically certain conclusion (theologice certa) that miracles can be recognized as such through rational argumentation. A philosophical-theological analysis of miracles shows that human responsibility in forming an attitude towards a miracle is of a different kind than the responsibility towards revelation, the credibility of which the aforementioned miracle signifies. The acceptance of miracles on the basis of their distinctive rationality, can be scientifically certain while their acceptance on the basis of revelation, which is always effected by faith, involves only a moral certainty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".