Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 696 (825384)
12-14-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tangle
12-14-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Yes you can. You can observe and test the evidence. If it breaks natural laws it's a miracle.
Nope, you could just be wrong about the natural law.
And if you can test it, then it's natural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:01 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 47 of 696 (825385)
12-14-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tangle
12-14-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
You can observe and test the evidence. If it breaks natural laws it's a miracle.
If something "breaks" natural law, we change our understanding of the natural law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:01 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:26 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 48 of 696 (825387)
12-14-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2017 12:08 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
NCE writes:
Nope, you could just be wrong about the natural law.
We know with 100% certainty that wine can't and never can be turned into blood by a guy in dress simply talking at it. That would be a miracle by any definition. And we can test it.
And if you can test it, then it's natural.
A miracle must happen in the natural world. Anything that happens in the natural world can be observed. If it can't be observed, we can't know anything has happened.
You have to accept the paradox. If you don't you're just saying that miracles can't happen.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 3:55 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 49 of 696 (825389)
12-14-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
12-14-2017 12:14 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Ringo writes:
If something "breaks" natural law, we change our understanding of the natural law.
And when we discover that the something can not be explained by what we have a complete understanding of we call it a miracle.
We're not talking about quantum dynamics or dark matter, we're talking about an impossible event occurring in something we full understand. Wine can not be turned into blood by speaking at it. Or do you think it can?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 12-14-2017 12:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 12-14-2017 12:31 PM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 50 of 696 (825391)
12-14-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
12-14-2017 12:26 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
And when we discover that the something can not be explained by what we have a complete understanding of we call it a miracle.
If the observations don't fit our understanding, the first thing we question is the observations. Unless the observations can be verified, we have no business calling it a miracle.
Tangle writes:
Wine can not be turned into blood by speaking at it. Or do you think it can?
I think people can observe water turning into wine. I don't think we can make the leap from an isolated observation to a scientific fact OR a "miracle".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:26 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 1:07 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 51 of 696 (825392)
12-14-2017 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
12-14-2017 12:31 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Ringo writes:
If the observations don't fit our understanding, the first thing we question is the observations.
Of course.
Unless the observations can be verified, we have no business calling it a miracle.
Of course. This is why we've never seen a miracle. Oddly enough, the bleeding statues never get verification. But if they did, it would be called a miracle.
I think people can observe water turning into wine.
No they can't - water does not turn into wine. Nor wine to blood, as is claimed daily by Catholics.
I don't think we can make the leap from an isolated observation to a scientific fact OR a "miracle".
Neither do I.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 12-14-2017 12:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 12-15-2017 10:39 AM Tangle has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 696 (825399)
12-14-2017 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tangle
12-14-2017 12:19 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
We know with 100% certainty that wine can't and never can be turned into blood by a guy in dress simply talking at it. That would be a miracle by any definition. And we can test it.
If that event happened and you tested it then that would mean that you weren't 100% certain that it couldn't happen. And the response should not be to declare a miracle but to evaluate our understanding of what is possible.
A miracle must happen in the natural world.
How do you know? They could be happening in other worlds.
Anything that happens in the natural world can be observed.
How do you know? There could be things happening that you can't observe.
If it can't be observed, we can't know anything has happened.
An unobservable event could cause an observable consequence, then you'd know something happened even though you couldn't observe it.
You have to accept the paradox. If you don't you're just saying that miracles can't happen.
What I'm saying is that it could happen and someone could be aware of it even though they don't have scientific evidence.
Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:19 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 12-14-2017 4:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 5:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 696 (825402)
12-14-2017 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2017 3:55 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
New Cat's Eye writes:
A miracle must happen in the natural world.
How do you know? They could be happening in other worlds.
I think this point may have already been addressed upthread, but anyway, the context included the ability to observe the miracle, and so I assumed Tangle's meaning was, "A miracle that we can observe must happen in the natural world."
Sure, miracles could be taking place a mile a minute "in other worlds" (I'm assuming you mean other universes), but how would we ever know?
Anything that happens in the natural world can be observed.
How do you know? There could be things happening that you can't observe.
I thought this point was already addressed, too. What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent?
You have to accept the paradox. If you don't you're just saying that miracles can't happen.
What I'm saying is that it could happen and someone could be aware of it even though they don't have scientific evidence.
The vast majority of things that happen take place away from scientific observation. So of course a miracle could happen where no scientific observations are being made. But if miracles are part of the natural world then unless God is playing games with us it is possible for them to take place where scientific observations are being conducted.
Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous.
Yeah, I think that's the paradox that was mentioned above.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 5:17 PM Percy has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 696 (825404)
12-14-2017 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
12-14-2017 4:46 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
I think this point may have already been addressed upthread, but anyway, the context included the ability to observe the miracle, and so I assumed Tangle's meaning was, "A miracle that we can observe must happen in the natural world."
That phrasing makes more sense and is agreeable. "Must happen in" is a little strong for my taste but its not worth nitpicking. I know what you mean.
Sure, miracles could be taking place a mile a minute "in other worlds" (I'm assuming you mean other universes), but how would we ever know?
Ever? Go there and see
But yeah, from here we wouldn't know either way. But we can't just say they must happen here.
I thought this point was already addressed, too. What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent?
The undetectable can exist while the non-existent cannot.
The vast majority of things that happen take place away from scientific observation. So of course a miracle could happen where no scientific observations are being made.
Yeah, I'm not sure why there's disagreement and claims to the contrary.
But if miracles are part of the natural world then unless God is playing games with us it is possible for them to take place where scientific observations are being conducted.
Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous.
Yeah, I think that's the paradox that was mentioned above.
I'm not disagreeing with it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 12-14-2017 4:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 12-14-2017 6:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 55 of 696 (825405)
12-14-2017 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2017 3:55 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
NCE writes:
If that event happened and you tested it then that would mean that you weren't 100% certain that it couldn't happen.
An event that we figured couldn't happen would have to be tested before we could claim it happened at all.
And the response should not be to declare a miracle but to evaluate our understanding of what is possible.
To talk of miracles you have to imagine the impossible and suspend reality. We know wine can't turn into blood by a priest chanting a religious rune at it. We KNOW that. If it did turn we would be forced to declare it a miracle. It's not a matter of re-evaluating science, it would be a true supernatural event. We know enough about our world to know that what has happened is an impossibility. To deny that is non-scientific.
How do you know? They could be happening in other worlds.
I'm concerned with what is happening in the only world I or anyone else has knowledge of. Pickled onions could be kings and herrings queens on other worlds, but it seems a bit weird to worry ourselves overmuch about it here and now.
How do you know? There could be things happening that you can't observe.
Then no one is able to call them mirculous. (Or anything else.)
An unobservable event could cause an observable consequence, then you'd know something happened even though you couldn't observe it.
We would witness the miraculous event. The wine is chnged to blood. Who knows what caused it? It's a miracle.
What I'm saying is that it could happen and someone could be aware of it even though they don't have scientific evidence.
Which is supposedly the case for miracles in the bible. But as we have no objective evidence that the events described actually happened, we can't claim a miracle.
Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous.
Non sequitur.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 10:56 AM Tangle has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 56 of 696 (825408)
12-14-2017 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
12-13-2017 4:38 PM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
Faith writes:
Because of the tons of witness evidence. That's the point.
If you are talking about the gospels, those are second and third hand accounts, and are also suspect because they are coming from people who are trying to start a religion based on those gospels. You need disinterested (i.e. unbiased) first person eye witness accounts, not hearsay from biased authors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 4:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 12-14-2017 6:33 PM Taq has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 696 (825412)
12-14-2017 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2017 5:17 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
New Cat's Eye writes:
I thought this point was already addressed, too. What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent?
The undetectable can exist while the non-existent cannot.
Removing the ambiguity in my phrasing, what is the difference (to us the observers and experiencers of phenomena) between something that exists but is undetectable, that leaves no imprint on the universe, versus something that doesn't exist?
Given that our understanding of the universe is based upon evidence, upon things we can detect, how could we ever gain any knowledge about something that, being undetectable, leaves behind no evidence, or measure how it is different from the nonexistent, which identically also leaves behind no evidence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 12-14-2017 6:30 PM Percy has replied
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 10:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 696 (825415)
12-14-2017 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
12-14-2017 6:14 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Removing the ambiguity in my phrasing, what is the difference (to us the observers and experiencers of phenomena) between something that exists but is undetectable, that leaves no imprint on the universe, versus something that doesn't exist?
Given that our understanding of the universe is based upon evidence, upon things we can detect, how could we ever gain any knowledge about something that, being undetectable, leaves behind no evidence, or measure how it is different from the nonexistent, which identically also leaves behind no evidence?
This line of reasoning is cockamamie poppadoodle. We're talking about something WITNESSED by people that doesn't happen to leave physical evidence. It's been witnessed, it happened, but despite that screamingly obvious fact it's getting declared nonexistent because you don't have physical remains to show for it?. Some physical events don't leave that kind of evidence, therefore you declare them nonexistent? What?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 12-14-2017 6:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 6:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 12-14-2017 7:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 12-15-2017 4:31 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 59 of 696 (825416)
12-14-2017 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taq
12-14-2017 5:39 PM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
The gospels have been understood for two millennia to be honest accounts by honest people. Only revisionist idiots have decided otherwise in recent times.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 12-14-2017 5:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-14-2017 7:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 12-15-2017 4:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 60 of 696 (825417)
12-14-2017 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
12-14-2017 6:30 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Faith writes:
We're talking about something WITNESSED by people that doesn't happen to leave physical evidence. It's been witnessed, it happened, but despite that screamingly obvious fact it's getting declared nonexistent because you don't have physical remains to show for it?.
A story is not witness, it's a story. The stories in the bible have no evidential value.
Some physical events don't leave that kind of evidence, therefore you declare them nonexistent?
We declare them not proven.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 12-14-2017 6:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 12-14-2017 6:45 PM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024