|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Whether the effects were local or not is irrelevant. The fact is that "miracles" do NOT require a suspension of natural laws, local or universal, temporary or permanent. Healing the sick does NOT require suspension of natural law. 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. You're making the same mistake that creationists make - fixating on one or two examples that support your position and ignoring the ones that don't. In your case it's even worse because your "examples" are entirely fictional. The examples in the Bible of what people actually call "miracles", do not support your position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You and Tangle are missing an important part of the definition: that "miracles" are attributed to supernatural causes. When somebody calls something a "miracle", it's because he can't explain it according to natural laws, not because nobody can or ever will be able. 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. Miracles are subjective, not objective. There can not be a consensus that something was a miracle.
Percy writes:
That would not be how miracles are actually defined, so no. You might as well ask me to consider "for the sake of discussion" that leprechauns are eighty feet long and swim around Loch Ness.
... 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,"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
You like to base your definitions on things you can explain...whether today or next week. Miracles are based on things that cannot be explained...not now and not next week. Perhaps you believe that everything can be explained eventually.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
ringo writes: The fact is that "miracles" do NOT require a suspension of natural laws, local or universal, temporary or permanent. Yes they do. If the didn't, they wouldn't be miraculous now would they?
Healing the sick does NOT require suspension of natural law. Yes it does, IF long dead people are brought back to life instantly by command, limbs regrow on demand etc etc.
You're making the same mistake that creationists make - fixating on one or two examples that support your position and ignoring the ones that don't. I can create a million imaginary miracles - how many do you need before they're enough? But in any case you're wrong - it would only take a single miracle to throw the whole of science out of joint. It's the black swan, the rabbit in the Cambrian. You say that miracles are impossible - or whatever semantics you need - I therefore just need one.
In your case it's even worse because your "examples" are entirely fictional. It's noticable that you have refused to engage with these miracles. The conclusion is that they show that your position is invalid.
The examples in the Bible of what people actually call "miracles", do not support your position. Of course they do, the events occurred on demand by someone claiming miraculous talents. Seas parting, dead rising, water to wine, floods forming etc etc etc. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Not "cannot be explained" - "HAVE not been explained". They're coming out with an explanation of flashlights next week.
Miracles are based on things that cannot be explained...not now and not next week. Phat writes:
How can you possibly know what will be explained in the future?
Perhaps you believe that everything can be explained eventually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Well, they're not miraculous. They're called miraculous because the caller can't explain them.
ringo writes:
Yes they do. If the didn't, they wouldn't be miraculous now would they? The fact is that "miracles" do NOT require a suspension of natural laws, local or universal, temporary or permanent. Tangle writes:
Some blindness can be cured. Some lizards can regenerate their tails and some tissue can be grown in the lab; who's to say that limbs won't be regrown in the future?
Yes it does, IF long dead people are brought back to life instantly by command, limbs regrow on demand etc etc. Tangle writes:
That's the point; a million imaginary tales are no better than one.
I can create a million imaginary miracles - how many do you need before they're enough? Tangle writes:
Nonsense. There are lots of things that we haven't explained yet. Indeed, there may be an explanation that causes a paradigm shift but that's the exact opposite of what you're claiming.
it would only take a single miracle to throw the whole of science out of joint. It's the black swan, the rabbit in the Cambrian. Tangle writes:
I haven't said any such thing. I've said that it's impossible to be sure that something is impossible.
You say that miracles are impossible.... Tangle writes:
It's interesting that you've refused to engage the miracles that are actually described in the Bible, the ones that can be explained by modern science. They show that your premise is false.
It's noticable that you have refused to engage with these miracles. Tangle writes:
They do not support your claim that miracles require breaking natural laws.
Of course they do, the events occurred on demand by someone claiming miraculous talents. Seas parting, dead rising, water to wine, floods forming etc etc etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ringo writes: Well, they're not miraculous. They're called miraculous because the caller can't explain them. You're tying yourself in semantic knots for no good purpose. We've gone past this and not making any progress because you're too stubborn to accept the simple idea that we do know stuff. We know that a human limb can not spontaneously regrow on the command of a shaman. Please note the qualifiers - human, command of a shaman, spontaneously - they're important. We KNOW beyond doubt that this can't happen. It it did it wouldn't just be unexplained; it would be inexpliccable. There is no scenario where this is possible and you know it. It's the definition of a miracle. It's unscientific to shrug your shoulders and say that it's a matter of definition and philosophy. It's not, it's a matter of forming conclusion from evidence, regardless of how much you might not like it.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Yes, you keep adding new qualifiers. Your definition of "miracle' doesn't fit the usage of the word, so you keep trying to prop it up with new patches. Please note the qualifiers - human, command of a shaman, spontaneously - they're important. Only a creationist thinks that human limbs are special. The events in the Bible do not require a shaman - they're all attributed directly to God. And "spontaneously" is just circular.
Tangle writes:
I'm not saying it's a matter of definition. I'm saying your definition is factually wrong.
It's unscientific to shrug your shoulders and say that it's a matter of definition and philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ringo writes: Yes, you keep adding new qualifiers. Your definition of "miracle' doesn't fit the usage of the word, so you keep trying to prop it up with new patches. I add them because you keep trying to make a miracle ordinary - which is not the situation we're discussing. A lizard growing back a limb is ordinary, a human doing it would be extraordinary but within the bounds of what might be possible. A human doing it instantly on the command of a shaman (or a god) would be miraculous.
Only a creationist thinks that human limbs are special. Only someone struggling with words would say that the spontaneous regrowth of a human limb on the order of a shaman was not miraculous. You've got nowhere to go with this except to say that miracles aren't possible.
The events in the Bible do not require a shaman - they're all attributed directly to God. Shaman, Jesus, Saint, Priest, god himself, whatever...
And "spontaneously" is just circular. Spontaneous, as opposed to something growing back over 10 years - you know, something you'd attempt to make mundane by changing the scenario. Just wondering, do you have anything but semantics to bring to this discussion?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
ringo writes: You and Tangle are missing an important part of the definition: that "miracles" are attributed to supernatural causes. Attributed isn't part of the definition of miracle. Here are several definitions:
So we can stop the back-and-forth about whether attributed is part of the definition of miracle. It isn't.
When somebody calls something a "miracle", it's because he can't explain it according to natural laws, not because nobody can or ever will be able. The miracles Tangle and I have been describing are clearly and obviously inexplicable by the natural physical laws of the universe.
Miracles are subjective, not objective. There can not be a consensus that something was a miracle. 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."
Percy writes:
That would not be how miracles are actually defined, so no. ... 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," As I showed above, that *is* the definition of miracle. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
How can you possibly know what will be explained in the future? I am just showing where your faith lies. You believe in science and human potential because its all you have chosen to believe in.God, if God exists is special...not mundanely describable and definable as one might define Loki or Coyote or any other human-created god. Miracles by definition are special. They are woo, basically. And just because you try and define woo as unwoolike does not make the definition fit your framework. You try too hard to disprove any possibility that the stories in the Bible are actually miraculous, whereas Tangle, though he does not believe any of it, at least holds to the definition within the story that is itself miraculous...whereby you try and discredit the whole story as naturally explainable. There is no science involved concerning the issue of miracles by definition. Human wisdom cannot nor ever will capture the solution for a miracle or of God. You can claim that there is no such thing, but I have said that there is. A belief can be a belief regardless of evidence---indeed--there can be no evidence or the belief would no longer be a belief but a fact. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Let me see if I understand your point of view:
First, all that we have are stories. I have often asked jar to consider the motives and intent of the authors. Were the authors embellishing certain events as part of the story? OR...were the stories an accurate consensus of the observers present within the story at the time the story was recorded? People may well have had a different mental framework for declaring a miracle a miracle then vs now, but your Hudson Bridge argument brings the issue into the present moment. If an event such as this happened, the scientists could study it well beyond when the cows came home,but while you and Tangle say that such an event could be properly labeled as miraculous, Ringo seems to hold out that such an event would not now nor ever be regarded by him as miraculous since he chooses to refrain from committing to such a definite pronouncement....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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: First, all that we have are stories. I have often asked jar to consider the motives and intent of the authors. 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.
People may well have had a different mental framework for declaring a miracle a miracle then vs now, but your Hudson Bridge argument brings the issue into the present moment. The Hudson Bridge? Is that like the Hudson International Airport?
If an event such as this happened, the scientists could study it well beyond when the cows came home, but while you and Tangle say that such an event could be properly labeled as miraculous, Ringo seems to hold out that such an event would not now nor ever be regarded by him as miraculous since he chooses to refrain from committing to such a definite pronouncement....am I close? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
On the contrary, many of the "miracles" that we're discussing are ordinary. Many things that were called "miraculous" in the past are considered ordinary today. The important point is that somebody thinks it's impossible, not that it is.
I add them because you keep trying to make a miracle ordinary - which is not the situation we're discussing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024