The "science" of Miracles

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. 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. 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

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." 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

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. 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

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: 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

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. 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

Attributed isn't part of the definition of miracle. Here are several definitions:

• Wikipedia: an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.
• Dictionary.com: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
• Oxford Dictionary: An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

So we can stop the back-and-forth about whether attributed is part of the definition of miracle. It isn't. The miracles Tangle and I have been describing are clearly and obviously inexplicable by the natural physical laws of the universe. Well, first, everything involving human ideas and perception is subjective. Science only *approaches* objectivity through replication and consensus.And there most certainly can be a consensus that something was a miracle. The George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson River. A leg lost in Afghanistan being suddenly restored. The water in the Nile River suddenly turning to blood. A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous. Naturally they'd study them to death, but Tangle and I have tried our best to define events that are undeniably miraculous. It's would be absurd to say, for example, "Someday scientists might discover a natural explanation for how a lost leg could be suddenly restored." As I showed above, that *is* the definition of miracle.--Percy

If you're talking about miracles in the Bible then all we have is stories, but that seems a better discussion for The Tension of Faith than for this thread. The Hudson Bridge? Is that like the Hudson International Airport? Ringo and Jar seem reluctant to agree on a definition of miracle for a discussion. What I personally would like to do is say, "For the sake of discussion let us use this definition of miracle," and then go from there.But maybe that isn't necessary. One can't know whether a natural explanation won't one day be found for what appears miraculous today (Ringo's position), meaning you can never conclude miracle with certainty, but science is tentative, so that's okay.--Percy

Geez, you're right. One would be hard put to find a better example of clear error. Sorry for the back and forth about this.But I proposed a different approach at the end of my previous post, Message 269. Because science is tentative it doesn't matter that we can't conclude miracle with certainty. When the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson, analysis could conclude miracle with perfect scientific validity since the conclusion is tentative.--Percy

But now imagine you're confronted with the "impossible" or (to use words I actually said) "an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws". There'd have to at least be a discussion. What happened took place in the natural world. Is it science? Something else?--Percy

I don't know if the cherubs are important to your argument, but cherubs weren't part of my scenario of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson. True. The way I would describe it is that it contains events and/or objects not explicable by the known laws of nature. I can't comment about the cherubs, but I don't suggest we "throw up our hands and give in." We don't think of it that way whenever we discover something new about the universe. We say, "Eureka, more knowledge!" Hopefully we already thought we knew very little, but actual miracles would be new science.--Percy

Define "rest of us." Miracles don't have to have a supernatural cause. Accoding to Wikipedia, a miracle "may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader."--Percy

How would you know that? Science is tentative. Nor can we predict what might be inexplicable tomorrow. Tentativity.--Percy

Ah, the lightbulb goes on. Calling Tangle "the only one" was a bit off. More accurately, it's you and Jar on one side, me and Tangle on the other, Phat and caffeine sort of auditing, and New Cat's Eye with a middle position where miracles are possible and supernatural and never scientific. I only went back as far as 12/20. Why is "can't be explained by natural causes" in quotes? It's not something anyone said but you, just now in your post. It isn't wording I used or would use, so I don't understand the quotes.What I would say and have said is that a miracle is not explicable by natural or scientific laws, but the miracle having taken place here in the natural world (the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson) is very much part of the natural. Miracles would attract a great deal of scientific scrutiny. It would also initiate intense discussion about what it means to be natural and what it means to be scientific, in other words, the kind of discussion Tangle and I are trying to initiate in this thread.--Percy

I understand the objection to characterizing your position "as a religion," but your reply does reemphasize how strongly you put your faith in humanity. I share your position, but from Phat's perspective it's still religion, based upon faith in humanity instead of God.--Percy

More accurately, we can't claim that something will remain inexplicable forever, just as we cannot claim that something will remain explicable forever.Just as we might say, "At present it sure looks like we understand the basics of electricity," were a miracle (event not explicable by natural or scientific laws) to happen we might say, "At present it sure looks like miracles can happen."--Percy