Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 196 of 696 (825917)
12-19-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by ringo
12-19-2017 10:48 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
But your position refuses to consider the concept of a true miracle....
I don't refuse to recognize the concept any more than I refuse to accept the concept of fiction. I do refuse to acknowledge that fiction is true.
Do I understand correctly that you're saying you're willing to consider the hypothetical, for the sake of discussion, of true miracles?
I also reject Tangle's definition of a "true" miracle because it doesn't even fit the miracles in the Bible.
Well, yes, this has been very apparent. Tangle believes that a true miracle would be a violation of the physical laws of the universe, while you believe a miracle wouldn't really be a miracle but would only mean there's more to the natural universe than we yet know.
But does this mean that you're not willing to consider the hypothetical of a true miracle if a miracle is defined as a violation of the physical laws of the universe? Because if so it sounds like you're only willing to consider miracles as natural phenomena we don't understand yet, and that you're not willing to explore the other definition of miracle even hypothetically.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 12-19-2017 10:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 12-19-2017 11:14 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 197 of 696 (825921)
12-19-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Tangle
12-19-2017 10:59 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
Healing the sick requires a miracle if it's done with a shaman's chant and on an amputee.
Healing the sick in the Bible IS a miracle but it doesn't necessarily require breaking physical laws - e.g. curing blindness by putting mud (salve) on the eyes.
Tangle writes:
If it's done by a doctor an aspirin and a patient with a head ache it doesn't. Causation not outcome.
There is a fine line between what is attributed to a miraculous cause and what is not. The fact is that the miracles in the Bible do not necessarily require breaking any natural laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 10:59 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 198 of 696 (825922)
12-19-2017 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
12-19-2017 11:00 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
Do I understand correctly that you're saying you're willing to consider the hypothetical, for the sake of discussion, of true miracles?
Like jar, I don't see any way that we could recognize a "true" miracle if there was one. Our approach to everything should be, "Hmm, I wonder how that flashlight works...."
Percy writes:
But does this mean that you're not willing to consider the hypothetical of a true miracle if a miracle is defined as a violation of the physical laws of the universe?
I'm not willing to consider the re-definition of what a miracle is and always has been.
Hypothetically, if there was a God or other supernatural presence, I don't know if it could "break" the physical laws that it supposedly created. It makes no more sense to discuss that hypothetical than it does to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
If we're going to discuss miracles - particularly the science of miracles - we don't need to go off into fantasy la-la land with hypothetical definitions of miracles. Let's stick to the ones that we have.
Edited by ringo, : Spolling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 11:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 7:03 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 199 of 696 (825923)
12-19-2017 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
12-19-2017 9:16 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
But you and I have to face it - that's exactly what scientists would do. Even if it's only after the fact, once the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson, what scientist wouldn't want to study the aftereffects, the margins where the steel and concrete of the bridge were separated from the steel and concrete that remained on the ground, the effects on the alloys and the welds, increases or decreases in heat, changes in the roadway or cars, the experiences of people on the bridge at the time, any photographs or videos that were taken, etc. Imagine having a for-real miracle to study. Any scientist would consider it the opportunity of a lifetime. And I bet most scientists would start with the initial assumption that there is a natural explanation.
They sure would, they'd test it to death. But the question no one likes is what happens when it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that the event just wasn't natural? ringo just says it just can't happen. I agree with him, it never has and never will, but then all we've done is say miracles don't and can't exist.
Well, if you're like me, you agree that I've by now crossed over into the absurd. We live in the real world. Things like this are never going to happen, and if they did then they should be considered miracles. Study them if you like, it's at least a starting point, but something more fundamental, more profound, more subtle and momentous at the same time, is going on than just new laws of physics, and that's what really needs to be studied. For thousands of years no physical evidence of miracles, then suddenly physical miracles begin happening. What changed?
Yes. And science would be able to conclude that from the evidence.
This is probably where my biggest differences with you lie. I believe anything we can observe, directly (a bridge) or indirectly (dark matter), is natural.
I agree that everything that happens in the natural world is natural. Wine is wine and blood is blood. The magic is in the causation.
I can't imagine science being able to discriminate between the natural and the supernatural because in my own mind the supernatural isn't detectable or even existent.
I understand and Jar says the same. My answer is also the same, personal credulity is not proof or explanation of anything.
Science would have to provide evidence that the supernatural exists before I would accept it, sort of similar to the way most people have to study the evidence for wave/particle duality or entanglement and things like that before they accept it.
Many things in science are established with indirect evidence. The ToE was established that way. The pieces form a picture. In this case it would be the God theory.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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 190 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 9:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 12-19-2017 11:32 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 7:26 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 234 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2017 10:22 PM Tangle has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 200 of 696 (825926)
12-19-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Tangle
12-19-2017 11:14 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
Many things in science are established with indirect evidence. The ToE was established that way. The pieces form a picture. In this case it would be the God theory.
Except there is still no evidence of anything that is not natural. While the TOE actually explained a process, method, model, procedure to explain the evidence a God theory explains noting, cannot be used to make predictions, cannot be tested, cannot be verified.
Sorry but you still have presented no examples that show a miracle happened.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 11:14 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 11:51 AM jar has replied

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


Message 201 of 696 (825927)
12-19-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
12-19-2017 11:32 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Jar writes:
Except there is still no evidence of anything that is not natural.
Yeh, we've agreed that several times.
While the TOE actually explained a process, method, model, procedure to explain the evidence a God theory explains noting, cannot be used to make predictions, cannot be tested, cannot be verified.
You're having a hard time thinking hypothetically. If we had all the evidence I've spoken of in bridge and mountain moving, regrown limbs and wine and blood stuff it would be difficult to arrive at any other conclusion.
Sorry but you still have presented no examples that show a miracle happened.
There's no need to apologise, miracles haven't ever happened and they never will. Like I've said many times.

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 200 by jar, posted 12-19-2017 11:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by jar, posted 12-19-2017 12:40 PM Tangle has replied

  
Aussie
Member
Posts: 275
From: FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006


Message 202 of 696 (825929)
12-19-2017 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
12-14-2017 7:09 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
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.
Hi Faith,
I know this is just a sideline, and I won't derail the thread. Could you point out a few places I can read up on the resurgence of Paganism? If it's as you say I'll be interested in reading up on it, I have not heard anything like that at all.
Thanks!

"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 12-14-2017 7:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 12-19-2017 2:28 PM Aussie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 203 of 696 (825933)
12-19-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Tangle
12-19-2017 11:51 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
If we had all the evidence I've spoken of in bridge and mountain moving, regrown limbs and wine and blood stuff it would be difficult to arrive at any other conclusion.
Not true. It might be difficult for YOU to arrive at any other conclusion but I can conclude very easily that the evidence is unexplained.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 11:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 1:09 PM jar has replied

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


Message 204 of 696 (825934)
12-19-2017 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by jar
12-19-2017 12:40 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Jar writes:
Not true. It might be difficult for YOU to arrive at any other conclusion but I can conclude very easily that the evidence is unexplained.
Science would also say that it is unexplained.
That's how we know it's miraculous - we're dealing with things within our knowledge, basic, simple things, yet these things are not behaving naturally.
We'd say that these events are not only unexplained but are also inexplicable.

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 203 by jar, posted 12-19-2017 12:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 12-19-2017 5:00 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 205 of 696 (825939)
12-19-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Aussie
12-19-2017 12:17 PM


Rise of Paganism in the West
Faith writes:
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.
Hi Faith,
I know this is just a sideline, and I won't derail the thread. Could you point out a few places I can read up on the resurgence of Paganism? If it's as you say I'll be interested in reading up on it, I have not heard anything like that at all.
Thanks!
Hi Aussie,
I run across mentions of it quite a bit, but probably the main analyst of the situation is Peter Jones who has written many books related to the resurgence of paganism in the west. (It's totally irrelevant, but I've always enjoyed the fact that Peter Jones was best friends with John Lennon through their early teen years, and identifies some of the Beatles songs as pagan at core.)
Here's another reference. Albert Mohler is a well known Christian preacher and commentator.
And another. I've barely skimmed it but it looks like a nonChristian site that agrees that paganism is on the rise although they like it while the Christians don't. I suppose you might welcome it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Aussie, posted 12-19-2017 12:17 PM Aussie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 206 of 696 (825948)
12-19-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Tangle
12-19-2017 1:09 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
That's how we know it's miraculous - we're dealing with things within our knowledge, basic, simple things, yet these things are not behaving naturally.
We'd say that these events are not only unexplained but are also inexplicable.
Again, not true.
You may say they are inexplicable but I would say "They are unexplained and right now inexplicable".

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 1:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 5:35 PM jar has replied

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


Message 207 of 696 (825949)
12-19-2017 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by jar
12-19-2017 5:00 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Jar writes:
You may say they are inexplicable but I would say "They are unexplained and right now inexplicable".
I'm saying that science would be forced to say that based on the evidence. Denying evidence is not scientific.
You remember the ideal of following the evidence no matter where it leads? A principle much regurgitated here. Well this is the test.

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 206 by jar, posted 12-19-2017 5:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 12-20-2017 6:14 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 208 of 696 (825952)
12-19-2017 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by ringo
12-19-2017 11:14 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
Like jar, I don't see any way that we could recognize a "true" miracle if there was one. Our approach to everything should be, "Hmm, I wonder how that flashlight works...."
Sure it should. Any scientist would agree. But you're assuming that the answer will always be, "Once again, a natural explanation was found."
I'm not willing to consider the re-definition of what a miracle is and always has been.
I'm not sure you've got the right definition of miracle (see my upcoming reply to Tangle), but in any case we have to agree on definitions before we can have a discussion.
Hypothetically, if there was a God or other supernatural presence, I don't know if it could "break" the physical laws that it supposedly created.
According to our local expert, Faith, God can break the laws he created for us. I don't myself believe in a God like any traditional God, but if you're talking about the same kind of God as Faith, the one in the Bible, then he has broken the physical laws of the universe many times.
It makes no more sense to discuss that hypothetical than it does to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
If you explored this avenue one of two things could happen, both of them good. One is that you prove you're right (always nice), and the other is that you learn something (also always nice). Win-win.
If we're going to discuss miracles - particularly the science of miracles - we don't need to go off into fantasy la-la land with hypothetical definitions of miracles. Let's stick to the ones that we have.
Again, see my upcoming reply to Tangle.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 12-19-2017 11:14 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 12-20-2017 2:13 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 209 of 696 (825953)
12-19-2017 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Tangle
12-19-2017 11:14 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
I guess the problem I'm having is with definitions. Just to try to find a solid foundation, here are the definitions from Wikipedia:
  • Natural: The natural, physical or material world.
  • Supernatural: All that cannot be explained by the laws of nature.
  • Miracle: An event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.
Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I think these are definitions you and I agree with, so we're on fairly solid ground because a consensus of interested people have agreed on these definitions in Wikipedia.
This means that when the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson that it must be supernatural and a miracle.
That doesn't mean that Ringo and Jar don't have strong arguments, because I think they do. Ringo says he's exploring this from a scientific perspective, and this is a science thread. Science is tentative, which I think includes the idea that we can never say that we know all the laws of nature, and that even the well established ones might have aspects that aren't yet known.
But does tentativity also require that we can't know whether miracles are possible? I don't know, but if so then it forces the conclusion that something that violates well known physical laws could be either a miracle or something in science we don't understand yet.
Another question is whether it's possible to develop scientific definitions of the supernatural and miracles. Aren't they outside the realm of science, being either fictional or religious?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 11:14 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Tangle, posted 12-20-2017 3:05 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 210 of 696 (825961)
12-20-2017 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Percy
12-19-2017 7:26 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I think these are definitions you and I agree with,
Yes.
Science is tentative, which I think includes the idea that we can never say that we know all the laws of nature,
Yes
and that even the well established ones might have aspects that aren't yet known.
Well here's the rub. We say that our theories are tentative but we don't actually mean so much so that they can be totally overturned by some large and obvious effect in our day to day world. We mean in the way that Newton's gravity was improved by Einstein - a marginal effect to our day-to-day lives. When talk of rabbits in the Cambrian we know it will never happen but if it did, it wouldn't be miraculaous, it would be a puzzle.
But with your mountain and my bridge, gravity has been defied, not changed. The rest of the world works exactly the way it always has but a new force has been introduced - a very strong and local one. Something off the scale of anything ever seen before.
So science would do everything it could to examine this new force, but would find nothing because the cause is super-natural. Something just stepped in and did it. 'An event not explicable by nature or scientific laws'. Causation is everything in a miracle - it's not what happened, it's how it happened.
It would be non-scientific not to have a 'goddidit' hypothesis at that point.
But does tentativity also require that we can't know whether miracles are possible?
Tentativity says that we it would be bad science to exclude anything, regardless of likelyhood. We proceed on our discovered knowledge which tells us that miracles do not occur, but you can't exclude the black swan entirely. Particularly if a seemingly miraculous event like your mountain actually occurs.
I'm interested in my opponents' responses to increasing amounts of evidence. They remain moot on the subject, simply saying that such things are impossible. This is uber-unscientific. A single rabbit in the Cambrian would be a puzzle, but thousands of proven out of place fossils would force a change of mind. Cherubs, interveiews with God, as many fully evidenced moving mountains and flying bridges as are needed are provided, but divine intervention must be ruled out. Why?
Another question is whether it's possible to develop scientific definitions of the supernatural and miracles. Aren't they outside the realm of science, being either fictional or religious?
I don't see why not, but we have to wait for these things before we can define and describe them. V=IxR wasn't discovered without real evidence.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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 209 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 7:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 8:44 AM 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