Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 696 (825962)
12-20-2017 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Tangle
12-19-2017 5:35 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
You remember the ideal of following the evidence no matter where it leads? A principle much regurgitated here. Well this is the test.
But again, so far there has been no evidence that leads to the conclusion of miracle.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 5:35 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Tangle, posted 12-20-2017 11:37 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 212 of 696 (825967)
12-20-2017 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Tangle
12-20-2017 3:05 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
I agree with everything you say, right down to the details. Well said. I wanted to comment on this:
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.
Yes! Yes! How can we say what a miracle or the supernatural is without a hint of evidence of their true nature? Right now aren't they just made-up concepts? Certainly they're very familiar as words, but they're very ill-defined words. Are they really any better defined than a crocoduck?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Tangle, posted 12-20-2017 3:05 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Phat, posted 12-20-2017 9:19 AM Percy has replied
 Message 220 by Tangle, posted 12-20-2017 11:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 213 of 696 (825968)
12-20-2017 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Tangle
12-18-2017 5:00 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
OK now I think I see where this is going.
Miracles by definition are hypothetical rather than documented events that are unexplained.
The latter are simply awaiting confirmation.
Some would argue that the stories of miracles already alleged to have occurred are in a similar pile.
But since we have none that are at that level of documentation they remain hypothetical....right?
And of course the Bible folks insist that eyewitness testimony is enough documentation to place their book in the pile awaiting confirmation. You would argue, however, that for all intents and purposes the stories be placed in the mythos pile. Which is also where miracles belong. Strictly speaking.
However...you also argue that IF a miracle actually occurred and was no longer hypothetical, it should properly be distinct from being simply unexplained for now... similar to how the concept of God is viewed.
In other words, you agree that God by definition...should God exist...be supernatural and not merely unknown for the present moment...as a placeholder.
Am I close?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 5:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Tangle, posted 12-20-2017 12:44 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 214 of 696 (825969)
12-20-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
12-20-2017 8:44 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
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.
Percy writes:
Yes! Yes! How can we say what a miracle or the supernatural is without a hint of evidence of their true nature? Right now aren't they just made-up concepts? Certainly, they're very familiar as words, but they're very ill-defined words. Are they really any better defined than a crocoduck?
so jar and ringo argue that miracles by definition are best explained as unknown or unexplainable for now and that no conclusion should ever be made regarding supernatural origin, whereas Tangle is saying that if an event occurred that was unmeasurable by scientific means and could be confirmed it would be properly a miracle. Seems as if jar and ringo have faith in science as the eventual answer where Tangle draws a distinction between what science can and cannot do. (while admitting that it is all hypothetical at this point)

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 8:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 12-20-2017 9:38 AM Phat has replied
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 5:01 PM Phat has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 696 (825972)
12-20-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
12-18-2017 6:26 PM


Re: seeing apparitions
I guess you intend to ridicule that statement though on what basis is not clear. That I'm comparing Hindu demon watching to Catholic demon watching?
I don't intend to add any commentary to my statement. Your words speak for themselves.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 6:26 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 216 of 696 (825973)
12-20-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Phat
12-20-2017 9:19 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phat writes:
so jar and ringo argue that miracles by definition are best explained as unknown or unexplainable for now and that no conclusion should ever be made regarding supernatural origin ...
Not quite. If someone could come up with an way to test for the supernatural then the results of those tests might lead to a conclusion that the supernatural exists.
Let me give an example.
Back in the 1970s IIRC a young astronomer named Vera Rubin was looking at galaxies when she noticed that the stars away from the center were moving at nearly the same speed as stars closer to the center. That simply should not have happened. It was impossible, impossible on a really big scale, bigger than flying bridges or moving mountain.
It broke the laws. It is as inexplicable as a miracle. Unfortunately within a decade others had confirmed he observation.
Today we assign the name Dark Matter to the force that is responsible for the observation, but we are still pretty much clueless what Dark Matter is. Now. almost a half century later we are beginning to get some hints about what Dark Matter might be.
My position is not that no conclusion of Supernatural should ever be made, but just as with Dark matter, we place the cause of things like the examples mentioned in the "Unknown category" just as we admit we still don't know what Dark Matter is or how it works or why it exists or ...
I firmly believe that one day we will actually understand Dark Matter and more importantly, it is not a hypothetical. If and when something inexplicable does come up it seems to me to be more reasonable to label it "Unexplained" and allow folk to believe it is a miracle or a fraud or a carny trick or magic or illusion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Phat, posted 12-20-2017 9:19 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Phat, posted 12-20-2017 9:46 AM jar has replied
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 3:06 PM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 217 of 696 (825976)
12-20-2017 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
12-20-2017 9:38 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Do you believe that we someday..(could be millions of years) we will be able to understand GOD?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 12-20-2017 9:38 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by jar, posted 12-20-2017 10:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 218 of 696 (825978)
12-20-2017 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Phat
12-20-2017 9:46 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Not while we are still alive.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Phat, posted 12-20-2017 9:46 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 219 of 696 (825982)
12-20-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
12-20-2017 6:14 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Jar writes:
But again, so far there has been no evidence that leads to the conclusion of miracle.
It must be groundhog day.

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 211 by jar, posted 12-20-2017 6:14 AM jar has not replied

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


(1)
Message 220 of 696 (825984)
12-20-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
12-20-2017 8:44 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
Yes! Yes! How can we say what a miracle or the supernatural is without a hint of evidence of their true nature?
We have to talk of them hypothetically I think.
Right now aren't they just made-up concepts?
Absolutely they are!
Certainly they're very familiar as words, but they're very ill-defined words.
I'm always loath to worry over much about definitions, generally if we have to get deeply into them they'll be used disingenuously to wriggle around the material point. But the simple words you used in your last post would satisfy all but the most semantically challenged and the charlatans that knows they've lost the argument but can't stop arguing.
Are they really any better defined than a crocoduck?
Both are imaginary but both would be easily recognised if they showed up ;-)

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 212 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 8:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 221 of 696 (825989)
12-20-2017 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Phat
12-20-2017 9:01 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phat writes:
Miracles by definition are hypothetical rather than documented events that are unexplained.
Not by definition, by reality. We have no evidence that proves a miracle or even gets close to it.
Some would argue that the stories of miracles already alleged to have occurred are in a similar pile.
Or are actually miracles eg Faith
But since we have none that are at that level of documentation they remain hypothetical....right?
Right!
And of course the Bible folks insist that eyewitness testimony is enough documentation to place their book in the pile awaiting confirmation.
Most bible bashers would put them in the 'proved' category, but yes.
You would argue, however, that for all intents and purposes the stories be placed in the mythos pile.
Yes
Which is also where miracles belong. Strictly speaking.
It's where *stories* of miracles belong. If it was ever the case that miracles became evidenced enough to be be accepted as miraculous, they would then fit into the category marked miracle. (And I'd fall down dead of shock and embarrassment.)
However...you also argue that IF a miracle actually occurred and was no longer hypothetical, it should properly be distinct from being simply unexplained for now... similar to how the concept of God is viewed.
Yes.
In other words, you agree that God by definition...should God exist...be supernatural and not merely unknown for the present moment...as a placeholder.
Am I close?
Very, except for this last which is messing with my head.
This god thing would be an entity that could and did intervene with our natural laws. We would call this thing supernatural simply because he can fiddle with nature in ways that contravene natural laws - hence supernatural. We would call this miraculous.
Now then, in a step towards my opponents, who's to say that this god thing is not natural? Maybe this entity is from another galaxy far, far away where such powers are routine and our knowledge is so primitive and parochial that we automatically grasp the word miracle to apply to them. But they say that there's nothing miraculous about them. 'We're all like this back home.'
But, you know, if it walks like a duck etc.
As far as these discussions are concerned I think we need to include god in the miracle somewhere to diferentiate it from mere physics that we don't yet understand like dark matter. That's why I normally introduce a sharman of some sort - turning the wine into blood, moving bridges and cherubs and the like. That is what we really call miraculous - someone from an ancient myth turning up, claiming to be the god of the myth - directly or indirectly - and performing such tricks.

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 213 by Phat, posted 12-20-2017 9:01 AM Phat has not replied

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


(1)
Message 222 of 696 (825997)
12-20-2017 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Percy
12-19-2017 7:03 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
But you're assuming that the answer will always be, "Once again, a natural explanation was found."
No, I'm assuming that the answer will always be, "There's no reason to think we'll never find a natural explanation."
Percy writes:
... 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.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the events described are the perception of the authors. They thought physical laws had been broken. They attributed the cause to the supernatural. Ian Fleming thought James Bond was the good guy and Goldfinger was the bad guy. That doesn't make it so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 7:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 3:26 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 223 of 696 (826007)
12-20-2017 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
12-20-2017 9:38 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
jar writes:
Back in the 1970s IIRC a young astronomer named Vera Rubin was looking at galaxies when she noticed that the stars away from the center were moving at nearly the same speed as stars closer to the center. That simply should not have happened. It was impossible, impossible on a really big scale, bigger than flying bridges or moving mountain.
I have a couple comments about the dark matter example.
First, about the history, I knew the discovery of the first evidence of dark matter preceded the 1970s by a good bit but didn't recall the details, so I looked up dark matter at Wikipedia. The section on Early History of Dark Matter has a brief description. I mention this only in case you're interested - it isn't really germane to the discussion.
Second, about dark matter as an example of something that didn't follow our understanding of the natural universe at the time, it was never viewed as a potential miracle. The same is true of the problem of the energy distribution of black body radiation (required the concept of quanta of energy to solve) and the photoelectric effect (again, quanta was the solution) that at the turn of the 20th century were considered some of the major unsolved problems of physics. It seemed obvious to all scientists that these were merely unsolved problems of science, not potential miracles.
The examples of miracles that Tangle and I have been suggesting, like moving mountains and bridges and turning wine to blood, bear no resemblance to these. They wouldn't seem to any scientist like unsolved problems of physics. They would seem impossible, inexplicable, incomprehensible, unfathomable. They would be the first examples of the headline "Scientists Baffled" being accurate.
As Tangle and I argue, the George Washington Bridge suddenly moving 50 miles up the Hudson is not an indication of not-yet-understood physics. It breaks dozens of laws of physics nine ways from Sunday. The only natural explanation I can think of is aliens using their advanced technology to entertain themselves at our expense. Naturally scientists would spring into action to study the seemingly miraculous event, which is exactly the possibility that would get mentioned endlessly. I think many scientists would be willing to characterize the event as "Miraculous until a natural cause is found" rather than "Natural until proven miraculous."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 12-20-2017 9:38 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 12-20-2017 3:10 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 224 of 696 (826009)
12-20-2017 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
12-20-2017 3:06 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
Second, about dark matter as an example of something that didn't follow our understanding of the natural universe at the time, it was never viewed as a potential miracle. The same is true of the problem of the energy distribution of black body radiation (required the concept of quanta of energy to solve) and the photoelectric effect (again, quanta was the solution) that at the turn of the 20th century were considered some of the major unsolved problems of physics. It seemed obvious to all scientists that these were merely unsolved problems of science, not potential miracles.
The examples of miracles that Tangle and I have been suggesting, like moving mountains and bridges and turning wine to blood, bear no resemblance to these. They wouldn't seem to any scientist like unsolved problems of physics. They would seem impossible, inexplicable, incomprehensible, unfathomable. They would be the first examples of the headline "Scientists Baffled" being accurate.
Nor did I suggest Black Matter is considered a miracle.
I have nbo issue with the idea of "scientists baffled" but even looking closely I still see nothing that says miracle.
Remember Percy, I believe miracles actually happened but I sim

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 3:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 12-20-2017 3:45 PM jar has replied

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


Message 225 of 696 (826011)
12-20-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ringo
12-20-2017 2:13 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
But you're assuming that the answer will always be, "Once again, a natural explanation was found."
No, I'm assuming that the answer will always be, "There's no reason to think we'll never find a natural explanation."
We were trying to say the same thing, but I like the way you said it better.
Percy writes:
... 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.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the events described are the perception of the authors. They thought physical laws had been broken. They attributed the cause to the supernatural.
So you're not talking about the same kind of God as Faith, at least not now. You're talking about the kind of God that is the invention of the Bible's authors. But when you wrote, "Hypothetically, if there was a God or other supernatural presence..." you seemed to be talking about the same kind of God as Faith, so let me try again quoting you from your Message 198:
ringo in Message 198 writes:
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.
So if, hypothetically, there were such a thing as a supernatural God like the one Faith believes in from the Bible, in other words, if, hypothetically, God exists and the Bible is his story, then the hypothetical situation under consideration includes that God has broken the physical laws of the universe many times.
Ian Fleming thought James Bond was the good guy and Goldfinger was the bad guy. That doesn't make it so.
What is the point of invoking something true of everything anyone thinks, including of all parties to this discussion?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 12-20-2017 2:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by ringo, posted 12-20-2017 3:43 PM Percy 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