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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 256 of 696 (826143)
12-23-2017 4:10 AM



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 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 257 of 696 (826154)
12-23-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Tangle
12-22-2017 12:38 PM


Tangle writes:
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Tangle, posted 12-22-2017 12:38 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Tangle, posted 12-23-2017 11:05 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 258 of 696 (826155)
12-23-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
12-22-2017 2:11 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
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.
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.
Miracles are subjective, not objective. There can not be a consensus that something was a miracle.
Percy writes:
... 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,"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 12-22-2017 2:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Phat, posted 12-23-2017 11:00 AM ringo has replied
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 12-23-2017 1:11 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 259 of 696 (826157)
12-23-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by ringo
12-23-2017 10:49 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 10:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 11:19 AM Phat has replied

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


(1)
Message 260 of 696 (826158)
12-23-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by ringo
12-23-2017 10:39 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 10:39 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 11:34 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 261 of 696 (826160)
12-23-2017 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Phat
12-23-2017 11:00 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phat writes:
Miracles are based on things that cannot be explained...not now and not next week.
Not "cannot be explained" - "HAVE not been explained". They're coming out with an explanation of flashlights next week.
Phat writes:
Perhaps you believe that everything can be explained eventually.
How can you possibly know what will be explained in the future?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Phat, posted 12-23-2017 11:00 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Phat, posted 12-23-2017 3:32 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 262 of 696 (826162)
12-23-2017 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Tangle
12-23-2017 11:05 AM


Tangle writes:
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?
Well, they're not miraculous. They're called miraculous because the caller can't explain them.
Tangle writes:
Yes it does, IF long dead people are brought back to life instantly by command, limbs regrow on demand etc etc.
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?
Tangle writes:
I can create a million imaginary miracles - how many do you need before they're enough?
That's the point; a million imaginary tales are no better than one.
Tangle writes:
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.
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.
Tangle writes:
You say that miracles are impossible....
I haven't said any such thing. I've said that it's impossible to be sure that something is impossible.
Tangle writes:
It's noticable that you have refused to engage with these miracles.
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.
Tangle writes:
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.
They do not support your claim that miracles require breaking natural laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Tangle, posted 12-23-2017 11:05 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Tangle, posted 12-23-2017 11:55 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 263 of 696 (826163)
12-23-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by ringo
12-23-2017 11:34 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 11:34 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 12:09 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 264 of 696 (826164)
12-23-2017 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Tangle
12-23-2017 11:55 AM


Tangle writes:
Please note the qualifiers - human, command of a shaman, spontaneously - they're important.
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.
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:
It's unscientific to shrug your shoulders and say that it's a matter of definition and philosophy.
I'm not saying it's a matter of definition. I'm saying your definition is factually wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Tangle, posted 12-23-2017 11:55 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Tangle, posted 12-23-2017 12:37 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 265 of 696 (826165)
12-23-2017 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
12-23-2017 12:09 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ringo, posted 12-27-2017 2:07 PM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 266 of 696 (826166)
12-23-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by ringo
12-23-2017 10:49 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
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:
  • 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.
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:
... 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,"
That would not be how miracles are actually defined, so no.
As I showed above, that *is* the definition of miracle.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 10:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Phat, posted 12-23-2017 4:12 PM Percy has replied
 Message 271 by ringo, posted 12-27-2017 2:14 PM Percy has replied
 Message 280 by caffeine, posted 12-28-2017 2:19 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 267 of 696 (826171)
12-23-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
12-23-2017 11:19 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 12-23-2017 11:19 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 12-27-2017 2:20 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 268 of 696 (826174)
12-23-2017 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Percy
12-23-2017 1:11 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 12-23-2017 1:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 12-23-2017 4:38 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 269 of 696 (826175)
12-23-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Phat
12-23-2017 4:12 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Phat, posted 12-23-2017 4:12 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 270 of 696 (826258)
12-27-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Tangle
12-23-2017 12:37 PM


Tangle writes:
I add them because you keep trying to make a miracle ordinary - which is not the situation we're discussing.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Tangle, posted 12-23-2017 12:37 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2017 3:24 PM ringo 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