Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 241 of 696 (826072)
12-21-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
12-21-2017 10:47 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
whats the harm in speculation? Logically, in my mind, if God exists He is the One who made the rules and laws, to begin with. He is not bound by anything except the logical reality of his existence.
Of course, it would not make sense for Him to whimsically make and unmake or break laws at will....but the point is that He is not bound by any law or rule by definition. Thus, in answer to the question of whether God could make a rock so big that He couldn't lift it...the answer would be yes. He could and also that yes a moment later He could lift it should he so choose to redefine the parameters.

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 240 by ringo, posted 12-21-2017 10:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 12-22-2017 10:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 242 of 696 (826074)
12-21-2017 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
12-21-2017 9:31 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
jar writes:
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.
The supernatural is not a place outside the natural world. We'd never be able to observe anything outside the natural world. The supernatural that is part of the natural world but that cannot be explained by the laws of nature.
...but what tools let us observe the supernatural; not the event itself but what caused the event?
If the George Washington Bridge moved 50 miles up the Hudson, let's say by gently letting go its moorings, floating up into the air, and then drifting north at a nice leisurely pace of 5 mph before gently settling down around West Point, we would have little difficulty studying this supernatural event. We wouldn't be prepared, of course, so we couldn't give it the kind of detailed study we'd like, but there would be images and videos galore, scientists would be hauling all kinds of detectors into helicopters, the Air Force would be conducting flybys, metallurgists would examine the point of separation, once back on the ground the bridge would be intimately studied, etc., etc., etc.
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's why Tangle and I have avoided examples like dark matter, the spectra of black body radiation and the photoelectric effect, which were always considered nothing more than phenomena not yet understood. We've instead described phenomena that clearly violate well established scientific laws and cannot be explained by the laws of nature, which is what the supernatural is.
Which reminds me, Alfred had to leave his time machine parked out on the street next to a hole that had been dug to repair a water main. As he turned while leaving the bank to yell out his triumphant message he tripped into the ditch and was captured, which is why we know today that a ditch in crime delays Stein.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 12-21-2017 9:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 12-21-2017 7:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 243 of 696 (826075)
12-21-2017 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
12-21-2017 10:47 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
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?
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?
But I thought *you* were speculating in a particular direction when you said, "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."
Believers can make up any plot point they choose to support their beliefs. What has that got to do with the science of miracles?
But you're not talking to believers. You're talking to Tangle and me. Miracles *do* have a definition, and the examples of miracles Tangle and I have described cannot be reasonably viewed as phenomena we don't yet understand, and they can be studied.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 12-21-2017 10:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ringo, posted 12-22-2017 10:49 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 244 of 696 (826076)
12-21-2017 6:42 PM


Couple of incidental ideas:
1. Effects with miracles are localalised. A single bridge moves, not the cars and houses next to it, wine in the chalice changes, not all wine, a single person is cured not the crowd around etc. General laws haven't changed, exceptions within them have.
2. It seems likely that no motive force will be detected when a bridge flies away - why should it, it's 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by ringo, posted 12-22-2017 10:50 AM Tangle has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 245 of 696 (826079)
12-21-2017 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
12-21-2017 4:30 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
If the George Washington Bridge moved 50 miles up the Hudson, let's say by gently letting go its moorings, floating up into the air, and then drifting north at a nice leisurely pace of 5 mph before gently settling down around West Point, we would have little difficulty studying this supernatural event.
Simply not true Percy. You can observe the bridge and the process but there is no evidence of anything supernatural. There you are writing checks your ass can't cash.
All you are doing is creating a definition of supernatural that is entirely natural.
Edited by jar, : fix quote box

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 12-21-2017 4:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 12-22-2017 1:32 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 246 of 696 (826100)
12-22-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Phat
12-21-2017 12:51 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phat writes:
whats the harm in speculation?
The harm is in things like creationism. If you fixate on your speculations and convince yourself that they're the "word of God", science and education go out the window. It could be another Dark Age.
Phat writes:
... the point is that He is not bound by any law or rule by definition.
That's a copout. You only use it when it's convenient. At other times you feel yourself free to claim that "we choose" Hell and God can't do anything about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Phat, posted 12-21-2017 12:51 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 247 of 696 (826101)
12-22-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
12-21-2017 5:02 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
But I thought *you* were speculating in a particular direction when you said, "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."
How is it a speculation to say I don't see how we can speculate?
Percy writes:
You're talking to Tangle and me. Miracles *do* have a definition...
As I've pointed out, Tangle's definition doesn't work. It doesn't even fit the miracles in the Bible. I'm not talking to Tangle; I'm talking to the people who have sense enough to see that.
Percy writes:
... the examples of miracles Tangle and I have described cannot be reasonably viewed as phenomena we don't yet understand....
Of course they can. How can you know ahead of time whether or not we can ever understand something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 12-21-2017 5:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 12-22-2017 2:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 248 of 696 (826102)
12-22-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Tangle
12-21-2017 6:42 PM


Tangle writes:
Effects with miracles are localalised.
Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Tangle, posted 12-21-2017 6:42 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Tangle, posted 12-22-2017 11:05 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 249 of 696 (826105)
12-22-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by ringo
12-22-2017 10:50 AM


Ringo writes:
Flood
Miracles can include the entirity of creation and anything beyond, below or above - of course.
But the ones we're talking of at the moment - wine, bridges, mountains are localised.

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 248 by ringo, posted 12-22-2017 10:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ringo, posted 12-22-2017 11:14 AM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 250 of 696 (826106)
12-22-2017 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Tangle
12-22-2017 11:05 AM


Tangle writes:
But the ones we're talking of at the moment - wine, bridges, mountains are localised.
So they're localised unless they're not? Another fine definition brought to you by Tangle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Tangle, posted 12-22-2017 11:05 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Tangle, posted 12-22-2017 12:38 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 251 of 696 (826109)
12-22-2017 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by ringo
12-22-2017 11:14 AM


ringo writes:
So they're localised unless they're not? Another fine definition brought to you by Tangle.
It's very obviously not a definition and was never intended to be.
We were talking about three examples of miracles, all of which had purely local effects. The fact that the effects were local is significant as the effects were not universal, all of gravity has not changed, all wine has not changed - they're all targeted suspensions of natural laws. The shaman spoke, there followed a suspension of a natural law - the definition of a miracle (whether you like it or not.)

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 250 by ringo, posted 12-22-2017 11:14 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 10:39 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 252 of 696 (826113)
12-22-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
12-21-2017 7:22 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
jar writes:
Simply not true Percy. You can observe the bridge and the process but there is no evidence of anything supernatural.
Since the supernatural is something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature, and since we'd be observing the bridge doing something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature, we'd therefore be observing a supernatural event.
All you are doing is creating a definition of supernatural that is entirely natural.
I'm using the definition from Wikipedia, which represents a consensus of interested parties. The Oxford Dictionary and Dictionary.com websites have essentially the same definition.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 12-21-2017 7:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by jar, posted 12-22-2017 6:38 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 253 of 696 (826115)
12-22-2017 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by ringo
12-22-2017 10:49 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
But I thought *you* were speculating in a particular direction when you said, "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."
How is it a speculation to say I don't see how we can speculate?
To me that has the opposite meaning of what you originally said that I was questioning ("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."), but maybe I'm misinterpreting what "I don't know if" means to you, so I'm fine with what you just said: you don't think we can speculate whether God can break his own laws of the universe. We're in agreement on that.
So let me try to pick up the thread of the discussion from before this diversion where you said in Message 198:
ringo in Message 198 writes:
I'm not willing to consider the re-definition of what a miracle is and always has been.
I replied that I thought you might not have the right definition of miracle, which I said I would define in my reply to Tangle that appeared in the very next Message 209. That definition of miracle was, "An event not explicable by natural or scientific laws." This is consistent with the definition of supernatural, and it makes a miracle a supernatural event.
You rejected Tangle's definition of miracle (your Message 194), but it should by now be clear that even if you don't like that definition, there's a pretty clear consensus out there that that is the proper definition. So even though you prefer to believe there can be no supernatural, no miracles, would you be willing for the sake of discussion to consider an example of a miracle using the definition you don't like, that a miracle is "an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws," an example so violently in violation of natural or scientific laws that it couldn't be anything else but a miracle, rather than something we just don't understand scientifically yet.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ringo, posted 12-22-2017 10:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 10:49 AM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 254 of 696 (826127)
12-22-2017 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Percy
12-22-2017 1:32 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
Since the supernatural is something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature, and since we'd be observing the bridge doing something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature, we'd therefore be observing a supernatural event.
Only according to your definition which actually seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 12-22-2017 1:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 12-22-2017 8:32 PM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 255 of 696 (826128)
12-22-2017 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by jar
12-22-2017 6:38 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
jar writes:
Only according to your definition...
It isn't my definition. I'm just using the standard definition of supernatural. I'm using the definition from Wikipedia, which represents a consensus of interested parties. The Oxford Dictionary and Dictionary.com websites have essentially the same definition.
...which actually seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
This characterization of the standard meaning of supernatural would be incorrect.
So, since the supernatural is something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature (this is the standard definition), and since we'd be observing the bridge doing something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature, we'd therefore be observing a supernatural event.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by jar, posted 12-22-2017 6:38 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024