|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry, the entire history of Chrsitianity says you're mistaken because the accounts of miracles in the Bible are understood to be actual events witnessed by many people. Sorry, you can't redefine things to suit yourself.
Others have been declaring them nonexistent, not just not proven. But for sensible fair minded people the miracles of the Bible have definitely been proven. That just creates two classes of people, though, doesn't it? The sensible fair minded people and the prejudiced self-deluded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: I'm sorry, the entire history of Chrsitianity says you're mistaken because the accounts of miracles in the Bible are understood to be actual events witnessed by many people. Sorry, you can't redefine things to suit yourself. Reality trumps what people understand or believe. It is irrelevant how many people understood to be actual events witnessed by many people when the reality is that they are at best hearsay accounts by anonymous authors that often include contradictory stories of the same event. Reality wins always Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: I'm sorry, the entire history of Chrsitianity says you're mistaken Yes, it does. But it does it on unsupported and unsupportable claims. That's why Christianity is dying. It's based on unfounded beliefs and we're now capable of proving it.
because the accounts of miracles in the Bible are understood to be actual events witnessed by many people. Only by belief, not by fact.
Others have been declaring them nonexistent, not just not proven.
If you're talking specifically about miraculous biblical events, I'm declaring them non-existant too. To start at the beginning, we've proven the dumb stories in Genesis plain wrong and we work forward from there.
But for sensible fair minded people the miracles of the Bible have definitely been proven. Nonsense, only fundamental Christians believe that - a tiny fraction of the world's population.
That just creates two classes of people, though, doesn't it? The sensible fair minded people and the prejudiced self-deluded. Correct.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Christianity is dying out in the west because Christians have become weak and compromised, which is why we are now having a resurgence of paganism. EvC is a wonderful case in point. Barring a great revival I don't expect Christianity to come back any time soon, but meanwhile I do try to keep the truth alive here. The miracles were quite real and Christendom was built on such truths.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The miracles were quite real and Christendom was built on such truths. Actually Christianity was based on the sword and economic domination; and of course on relics of the saints. Them miracles mean money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: This line of reasoning is cockamamie poppadoodle. Oooh, technical talk.
We're talking about something WITNESSED by people that doesn't happen to leave physical evidence. Uh, no we're not talking about something witnessed. New Cat's Eye posed the hypothetical situation of "things happening that you can't observe" (Message 52). We weren't talking about anything witnessed. You're not having a good evening in terms of accuracy and reading comprehension - maybe you should take a break. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: The gospels have been understood for two millennia to be honest accounts by honest people. Only revisionist idiots have decided otherwise in recent times. Oooh, a two-sentence two-liner, still not a good sign for you. You know the answers to the fallacies you're declaring because you've offered them dozens of times before, and they've been rebutted dozens of times before. When are you going to advance beyond declaring your position and move on to making actual arguments? Quit your preaching and start debating. The topic of the thread is whether there's any science behind miracles. Got anything to say about that? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
No, it would be called something we can't explain.
Oddly enough, the bleeding statues never get verification. But if they did, it would be called a miracle. Tangle writes:
What people can observe has nothing to do with whether it can happen or not. People see things happening all the time that didn't happen. That's why eyewitness evidence is so unreliable.
ringo writes:
No they can't - water does not turn into wine. I think people can observe water turning into wine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The topic of the thread is whether there's any science behind miracles. Got anything to say about that? Already said it many times. No. Just witness evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Already said it many times. No. Just witness evidence. Yet you have provided no "witness evidence" of any miracles or shown why the miracles you claim happened are different then the miracles you claim are not miracles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
We know enough about our world to know that what has happened is an impossibility. If it has happened then it wasn't impossible.
Then no one is able to call them mirculous. Scientifically, you can never call anything a miracle; for if you can test and prove it then it is not miraculous and if you cannot then you can't call it anything.
We would witness the miraculous event. The wine is chnged to blood. Who knows what caused it? It's a miracle. Okay, so my disagreement stemmed from this:
quote: There's two ambiguities there: evidence and knowledge. Either they're scientific or they're not. You can't have scientific knowledge of a miracle, because then you're in the realm of a natural phenomenon, so that's out. I'm saying that you could be aware of a miracle and not have any scientific evidence for it. I don't understand why that is disagreeable. In the above, where you witness wine changing to blood, you don't have scientific evidence and knowledge. Yet, you are still calling it a miracle. So there's an instance of you having unscientific knowledge of a miracle without scientific evidence, which goes against what I'm disagreeing with that without evidence you wouldn't know a miracle happened.
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. So we know of these miracles without evidence, but we don't know if they actually happened or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? From our point of view there is no difference. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing happening that we cannot detect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: No, it would be called something we can't explain. A bleeding statue, water into wine, wine into blood would all be something we couldn't explain. The important point is that we know enough about basic science to know that these things are impossible; therefore miracle.
What people can observe has nothing to do with whether it can happen or not. But it does have everything to do with whether we can know about it - and we're talking about what we can know, that wine turns to blood, here, today.
What people can observe has nothing to do with whether it can happen or not. People see things happening all the time that didn't happen. That's why eyewitness evidence is so unreliable. "Observe" is not confined to casual witnesses evidence. It has a scientific meaning. It's what the entire edifice of science is built upon.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
The important point is that if we know it's impossible, we also know it didn't happen - i.e. the observation must be wrong. Attempts to replicate the observation fail. That's not a miracle; it's a mistake.
The important point is that we know enough about basic science to know that these things are impossible; therefore miracle. Tangle writes:
But miracles are. That's why "therefore miracle" is a nonsense statement, like "therefore leprechaun". Nothing can validly lead to that conclusion.
"Observe" is not confined to casual witnesses evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: The important point is that if we know it's impossible, we also know it didn't happen - i.e. the observation must be wrong. Hohum... It's the fact that the thing is impossible that makes it a miracle. It total bollocks but that's the paradox.
Attempts to replicate the observation fail. That's not a miracle; it's a mistake. You have to start with the fact that the thing has been proven to happen - if you can't do that, then it ain't no miracle. That's how we know that transubstantiation is not a miracle - wine did not turn to blood. But if it ever did in a reproducible and testable manner it would be a miracle.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024