|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
As I've said, if there was a hypothetical God, I don't know if it could hypothetically break its own hypothetical laws. You can't sum that many hypotheticals and get anything resembling sense. 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. All we know is that some people believe God has broken His own laws. As far as I'm concerned, that belief has no value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
jar writes: Nor did I suggest Black Matter is considered a miracle. Right, of course you didn't, and that's why I commented. You were trying to clarify the discussion for Phat, but no one does or ever did consider dark matter miraculous. In fact, what's most exciting about dark matter is it's potential for revealing new science, not any potential miraculous quality. Tangle and I have been suggesting examples that are unambiguously miraculous by the definitions provided by Wikipedia. About the miraculous example of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson you say:
I have no issue with the idea of "scientists baffled" but even looking closely I still see nothing that says miracle. So because of what you say next the problem must be that I'm insufficiently imaginative in coming up with miraculous ideas:
Remember Percy, I believe miracles actually happened but I sim It looks like the last part of your message got chopped off somehow, but this fragment does say that you believe in miracles, so since my ideas for miracles aren't working for you maybe it would be better if you suggested something that could happen today that you'd consider miraculous. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: As I've said, if there was a hypothetical God, I don't know if it could hypothetically break its own hypothetical laws. You can't sum that many hypotheticals and get anything resembling sense. There weren't a lot of hypotheticals. I just used the word hypothetical a lot because in your previous response you seemed to drift away from your earlier proposal to look at it hypothetically, in your words, "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 this time I won't even use the word "hypothetical," I won't use the God of the Bible as an example, and I'll take a different tack. Speculate that there's a God. Why would you further speculate that he can't break his own laws? I mean, there's absolutely nothing to go on, how could you speculate as to His qualities? (Unless you had a guidebook like Faith's Bible )
All we know is that some people believe God has broken His own laws. As far as I'm concerned, that belief has no value. I agree with you, but we're just speculating here. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I think it's the hypothetical aspect that is key. To me the supernatural and miracles are all just made up, but if you want to have a conversation with believers then you have to, at least part of the time, be willing to consider the possibility that they're real.
I haven't reached the point where I understand Jar's position yet. He appears to both accept and reject miracles, so I must be missing something. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is a difference between believing something is a miracle and something I would consider miraculous.
Even the George Washington Bridge moving to San Francisco Bay in an instant would not be evidence of a miracle in my opinion. The difference is the matter of evidence. I cannot imagine anything that would qualify as evidence that a miracle happened; honestly absolutely nothing IMHO would be evidence of a miracle. Yet I do believe simply on faith that miracles happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
jar writes: I cannot imagine anything that would qualify as evidence that a miracle happened; honestly absolutely nothing IMHO would be evidence of a miracle. Yet I do believe simply on faith that miracles happen. Don't take this the wrong way, but now your beliefs, or at least this one, are beginning to sound like my own in that they make little sense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I've said many times that some of my beliefs are not reasonable, rational, logical or evidenced based.
But in the world of science there must be testable evidence. We can test and verify that the GW Bridge moved to Oakland should that happen. What I can't see any possible way though of testing is the supernatural. If the GW Bridge suddenly moved to Oakland we could test and reach a consensus that it happened. But that's as far as we can go with The "science" of miracles. I might believe it a miracle. I might call it a miracle. But honestly I cannot say there was any evidence of a miracle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
jar writes: What I can't see any possible way though of testing is the supernatural. If the GW Bridge suddenly moved to Oakland we could test and reach a consensus that it happened. But that's as far as we can go with The "science" of miracles. Why is that "as far as we can go"? Anything that happens in the real world can be studied.
I might believe it a miracle. I might call it a miracle. But honestly I cannot say there was any evidence of a miracle. A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. So if something happened that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws, such as the GW bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson (I don't know why you prefer Oakland as a destination), how could it not, by definition, be a miracle? I did notice that back in Message 105 you provided your own definition of miracle:
jar in Message 105 writes: A Miracle is defined as a supernatural event, something impossible in the natural world. If something happens in the natural world then it is not impossible. That refutes the second part of the definition. But you misdefined supernatural. The supernatural isn't something impossible in the natural world, but something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sorry to just jump in, but I've been away. And you didn't reply to my last one.
But the question no one likes is what happens when it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that the event just wasn't natural? If you're talking about science then it doesn't come to that conclusion. It's methodological naturalism. The things that are explainable are natural. And the things that aren't are not supernatural. Thus, you cannot scientifically conclude that something is supernatural. Look, from wiki:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NCE writes: If you're talking about science then it doesn't come to that conclusion. My position is that it is forced to. There are no other explanations and the evidence of an intervention by some sort of all powerful being is overwhelming. Science concludes that goddidit. Or something indistinguishable from a god.
It's methodological naturalism. The things that are explainable are natural. And the things that aren't are not supernatural. That's a contradiction or at best a non-sequitur.
Thus, you cannot scientifically conclude that something is supernatural. Again, science follows the evidence wherever it leads. Wherever it leads.....
Look, from wiki: quote:In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Science doesn't concern itself with philosophy. It's only interest is in studying what is observable and determining cause and effect - understanding what is happening. If a direct line can be drawn between a cause and an effect there is no avoiding the conclusion. When the magisteria overlap, they can be studied. A priest turning wine into blood by speaking at it is not just unexplained - it's inexpliccale by all that is known. Science doesn't just walk away and say 'I can't explain that, I can see that it's non-natural, but as the supernatural isn't part of my domain I'm going back to study barnacles'. The equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going lalalallalalala. If such things actually happened there's no future in tackling it with semantics.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Why is that "as far as we can go"? Anything that happens in the real world can be studied. Science can study the evidence, the GW Bridge moving to Oakland but how do you study the supernatural?
Percy writes: But you misdefined supernatural. Yet the question remains; how do you study the supernatural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
First it's necessary to settle something really important, where the GW bridge moves to. It's my example, and I say the miracle is that it moved 50 miles up the Hudson. If you want to move a bridge to Oakland, pick your own bridge.
jar writes: Science can study the evidence, the GW Bridge moving [50 miles up the Hudson] but how do you study the supernatural? The supernatural is anything that can't be explained by the laws of nature, but it is still of the real world. The supernatural isn't a place with no ingress. It's an event or process or object that can't be explained by the laws of nature. So we study the supernatural the same way we study anything that happens or exists in the natural world. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Yet the question remains; how do you study the supernatural? Perhaps we do not have tools to study the supernatural. But the question here seems to be simply whether we can identify the supernatural. Can we determine which phenomena are simply not within our capacity to investigate? I agree that even the more simplified question is difficult to answer. But perhaps it is not impossible at least for some cases. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: The supernatural is anything that can't be explained by the laws of nature, but it is still of the real world. The supernatural isn't a place with no ingress. It's an event or process or object that can't be explained by the laws of nature. So we study the supernatural the same way we study anything that happens or exists in the natural world. Yes, you have said that. But that doesn't have any meaning that I can see. We often find things that seem to be inexplicable by the laws of nature and when we do, we change the laws. BUT, by definition, the supernatural is not natural; that is why it is a different word than natural. It is something attributed to forces or persons outside the natural world. We can study the event called "Where dat Bridge?" or the event called "Hold my Beer and watch this!" but what tools let us observe the supernatural; not the even itself but what caused the event? Applying a placeholder called "miracle" is about as useful as "goddidit" and neither tell us much at all. The galloping bridge (was found in Tacoma across the narrows) and we can study that event, but where is the study of the supernatural? In science when we have said "that simply cannot be explained by the laws of nature we have always been found to really mean "that simply can't be explained be the laws of nature as we understand them now." That reminds me of a favorite story. Alfred Stein was an inventor; many thought him a crackpot. He claimed to have invented a time machine. On day he walked into the local bank, robbed it and then flicked the switch on his time machine and with a last parting shout declared "I'll be back. Right after the Statute of Limitations has expired". Well, years past and sure enough, seven and a half years later Alfred reappeared at the same spot and asked to deposit a large sum of cash he happened to have on him. The guard at the bank immediately detained him and the police came and charged him with the robbery. The case went to court with the evidence of the video taken at the time of the robbery while his defense claimed that the Statute of Limitations had passed and so he could not be charged now for something he was not charged with seven and a half years earlier. The prosecution claimed that since for Alfred no time had passed the statute simply did not apply. Now of course Alfred was simply a nobody and really was crackpot but the Judges decision has gone down in history and all remember that "A niche in Time saves Stein." So that pretty much sums up the moving bridge. That happened in the real world and we can study the event and we can hang a label on it of "Miracle" or "that's strange!" but how do we study what caused the event? The label tells us nothing and can at best simply be a placeholder until we come up with a way to study the supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
That's what I'm saying. Why would you speculate one way or the other? You can make up arbitrary rules like, "God can break His own laws," or "God can't break his own laws," but what's the point of that? Speculate that there's a God. Why would you further speculate that he can't break his own laws? I mean, there's absolutely nothing to go on, how could you speculate as to His qualities? Believers can make up any plot point they choose to support thier beliefs. What has that got to do with the science of miracles?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024