Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 32 of 696 (825358)
12-13-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
12-13-2017 4:38 PM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
Faith writes:
Because of the tons of witness evidence. That's the point. You don't have the scientific kind of evidence you all insist on, but you have lots of witness evidence that you deny out of sheer prejudice.
No, it's not true that prejudice has anything to do with it. Those of us doubting miracles are doubting all miracles from all religions. Your "tons of witness evidence" isn't worth a pence because of all we know about the unreliability of eyewitness reports, and the general flim-flamery of religion in general. Some religions are simple, some elaborate, some ancient, some new, but they all share the same quality of being completely unverifiable.
Why don't you find it strange that miracles never leave evidence behind. The evidence might be photons of light impinging upon credulous believers retinas and down the optic nerve to the brain to be stored there. Or it might be somebody ill becomes well, except that there's no evidence of a miracle except that someone is well (they all die eventually, but I guess that isn't considered a flaw in the miracle).
Why does a miracle never leave behind hard evidence? I thought the limb-restoration miracle was a good example. I'd like to see that one. That's one I could believe. You go to a good faith healing and afterwards you find crutches and canes galore, but I'd like to see a faith healing that when all is said and done there's a bunch of prosthetics on the ground.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 4:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2017 5:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 5:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 6:12 PM Percy has replied

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


(2)
Message 36 of 696 (825364)
12-13-2017 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
12-13-2017 6:12 PM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
You posted two replies to my one message, so I'm replying here to both your Message 34 and Message 35.
Faith writes:
If you found Egyptian chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea would that be evidence that it was miraculously parted and then closed over the Egyptian army?
Ron Wyatt already found the Egyptian army's chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea (e.g., CHARIOTS IN RED SEA: 'IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE'). Don't you believe him?
If you have a jug with dried dregs of wine in it, would there be any evidence that it was miraculously changed from water?
I don't know. Are you prepared to say whether miracles leave evidence behind that is amenable to scientific study, say in the nature of the wine or on the sides of the jar or the presence of special isotopes and so on? Whatever way you answer, please explain how you know.
I don't think it is possible to have physical evidence of a miracle that anyone would accept as evidence for a miracle even if it happened to be, as I keep saying, even though reports of a lot of witness evidence certainly suggests there was a miracle.
As NoNukes clarified, obviously we're talking about stories about eyewitnesses.
But there are plenty of eyewitnesses of modern miracles. Why are you so quick to dismiss them and not the eyewitnesses of a much more credulous time 2000 and 3000 years ago, not to mention the likelihood of simple myth making?
Faith healings are bogus.
Of course they are. And most of Jesus' miracles were faith healing.
A photo of a person with a missing limb followed by a photo of a restored limb then? Would that do it?
The limb wasn't mysteriously lost. There was clearly an accident or disease that resulted in loss of the limb, and there would be copious doctor records and hospital records and X-Rays and CAT scans as well as records of fitting for the limb, rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement parts, etc. So we have clear evidence for the loss of the limb.
After the miracle, we have the evidence of the person himself, who can be examined by doctors and technicians.
Yeah, that sounds like pretty good evidence of a miracle. Got one of those?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 6:12 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 53 of 696 (825402)
12-14-2017 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2017 3:55 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
New Cat's Eye writes:
A miracle must happen in the natural world.
How do you know? They could be happening in other worlds.
I think this point may have already been addressed upthread, but anyway, the context included the ability to observe the miracle, and so I assumed Tangle's meaning was, "A miracle that we can observe must happen in the natural world."
Sure, miracles could be taking place a mile a minute "in other worlds" (I'm assuming you mean other universes), but how would we ever know?
Anything that happens in the natural world can be observed.
How do you know? There could be things happening that you can't observe.
I thought this point was already addressed, too. What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent?
You have to accept the paradox. If you don't you're just saying that miracles can't happen.
What I'm saying is that it could happen and someone could be aware of it even though they don't have scientific evidence.
The vast majority of things that happen take place away from scientific observation. So of course a miracle could happen where no scientific observations are being made. But if miracles are part of the natural world then unless God is playing games with us it is possible for them to take place where scientific observations are being conducted.
Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous.
Yeah, I think that's the paradox that was mentioned above.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 5:17 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 57 of 696 (825412)
12-14-2017 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2017 5:17 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
New Cat's Eye writes:
I thought this point was already addressed, too. What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent?
The undetectable can exist while the non-existent cannot.
Removing the ambiguity in my phrasing, what is the difference (to us the observers and experiencers of phenomena) between something that exists but is undetectable, that leaves no imprint on the universe, versus something that doesn't exist?
Given that our understanding of the universe is based upon evidence, upon things we can detect, how could we ever gain any knowledge about something that, being undetectable, leaves behind no evidence, or measure how it is different from the nonexistent, which identically also leaves behind no evidence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 12-14-2017 6:30 PM Percy has replied
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 10:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 66 of 696 (825429)
12-14-2017 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
12-14-2017 6:30 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Faith writes:
This line of reasoning is cockamamie poppadoodle.
Oooh, technical talk.
We're talking about something WITNESSED by people that doesn't happen to leave physical evidence.
Uh, no we're not talking about something witnessed. New Cat's Eye posed the hypothetical situation of "things happening that you can't observe" (Message 52). We weren't talking about anything witnessed.
You're not having a good evening in terms of accuracy and reading comprehension - maybe you should take a break.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 12-14-2017 6:30 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 67 of 696 (825430)
12-14-2017 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
12-14-2017 6:33 PM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
Faith writes:
The gospels have been understood for two millennia to be honest accounts by honest people. Only revisionist idiots have decided otherwise in recent times.
Oooh, a two-sentence two-liner, still not a good sign for you.
You know the answers to the fallacies you're declaring because you've offered them dozens of times before, and they've been rebutted dozens of times before. When are you going to advance beyond declaring your position and move on to making actual arguments? Quit your preaching and start debating.
The topic of the thread is whether there's any science behind miracles. Got anything to say about that?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 12-14-2017 6:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 12-15-2017 10:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(3)
Message 94 of 696 (825539)
12-15-2017 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
12-15-2017 5:19 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
jar writes:
I happen to believe that there have been miracles but at least do not think there is any evidence or support or reason or logic for that belief.
Well said. I would describe my own particular spiritual beliefs the same way. I'll add a detail or two. I have faith. No more is needed or wanted, for faith between me and my God is plentiful provender. I do not yearn for fellow travelers, fortunate because my beliefs make little sense even to me.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 12-15-2017 5:19 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 12-15-2017 6:32 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 110 of 696 (825588)
12-16-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
12-15-2017 6:32 PM


Re: Faith in what?
Faith writes:
I have faith. No more is needed or wanted, for faith between me and my God is plentiful provender.
This is completely baffling to me.
Baffling to you? What about me, who just finished saying, "my beliefs make little sense even to me."
But I'll try to answer your questions.
Faith in what?
My strongest faith is that there is purpose to the universe.
What does your faith do for you? Does it give you some kind of strength or hope or promise for the future?
What does my faith do for me? Is there something it is supposed to do for me? My faith isn't a resource I draw upon. It just is. It's part of who I am.
What's the point of it?
See previous paragraph.
Does your God have any grounding in any kind of reality,...
By "grounding in any kind of reality" are you asking if I have any evidence for my God? No, I don't.
...or even any kind of religion?
My beliefs have probably been strongly influenced by my social/cultural milieu, especially Unitarianism, but my beliefs are so uncommon and so ill defined that I don't think they could be said to be grounded in "any kind of religion."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 12-15-2017 6:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 12:05 PM Percy has replied
 Message 333 by Phat, posted 01-04-2018 9:26 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 113 of 696 (825591)
12-16-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Tangle
12-16-2017 9:16 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
You and Jar are on a merry-go-round, what you're both saying is very repetitive, but I just wanted you guys to know that I personally am fascinated. I'm just looking for a place to grab on but will remain silent until then.
I've been in repetitive discussions myself, and one thing I've always found difficult is making sure that I'm always saying the same thing. Every time the context makes even just a slight adjustment, if you say what you just said before in the same way then the changed context changes the meaning. It's a bitch, at least for me. I don't know if you guys think this is a real issue, but I do think I have detected changes in position that weren't really changes, but only appeared to be changes because of coming at something from a slightly different angle without making the necessary adjustments in language.
An aside: participants who cut-n-paste text from old posts to answer arguments raised in new discussions are a pet peeve of mine. The contexts are never the same, the old text is almost never appropriate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2017 9:16 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2017 11:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 120 of 696 (825625)
12-16-2017 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
12-16-2017 12:05 PM


Re: Faith in what?
I'll try to answer your questions, but don't forget, my beliefs don't make sense even to me.
Faith writes:
Sorry to be so persistent but I'm having a problem understanding where you could get that kind of faith for starters, how it would even come into your head.
Where does any inspiration come from?
Surely you wouldn't just invent it?
Consciously? No.
How could you actually have faith in something your own mind came up with?
I never sought faith, never gave it any conscious thought. Wherever I've ended up spiritually is not the result of any effort or research or investigation or questioning or anything like that.
Given that I haven't developed my faith through any process of conscious thought, the implied path to it sounds kind of Eastern. Clear your mind of all thought, and what's left is what you truly believe.
But belief isn't faith...
I wouldn't be so sure. Any dictionary defines each in terms of the other.
...faith implies some kind of trust...
Yes, I guess so.
...but the supernatural isn't exactly trustworthy,...
But you say that only God is supernatural, so surely you don't mean this. You must be referring to that kind of supernatural that has a definition peculiar to yourself, where it isn't really supernatural but is actually part of the natural.
I think your beliefs are much like mine in that they make little sense, except yours insist they make sense and have evidence, so you believe your beliefs are rational and can be proved. A sound basis to this belief would make success your destiny, but failure has been your fate among the so-called (by you) pagans and atheists. This should be instructive.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 12:05 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 166 of 696 (825843)
12-18-2017 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by ringo
12-18-2017 10:56 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
You're the only one in the thread who doesn't seem to understand the definition. Once again, a "miracle" is an extraordinary event that is ATTRIBUTED to supernatural intervention. Somebody THINKS it breaks the laws of nature. For something to be CALLED a "miracle", all that is necessary is ignorance of the cause.
I just want to say again (last time I replied to Tangle) that I am still fascinated with this discussion, that I'm just looking for a point to jump in. I don't think it's time yet, but I do want to say that Tangle isn't the "only one in the thread who doesn't seem to understand the definition." For example, I'm having difficulty with the distinction between "is a supernatural intervention" and "is ATTRIBUTED to a supernatural intervention." and sometimes I'm not sure you guys are even talking about the same things, for instance where you say that all that is necessary for "something to be CALLED a 'miracle'" is "ignorance of the cause," which doesn't sound like much of a miracle.
I don't understand how someone just seeing something, like the Virgin Mary, could call it a miracle with any kind of assurance or confidence. If Pike's Peak suddenly moved from Colorado to Kansas, that's something that anyone could judge a miracle just by looking at it, but what is usually deemed a miracle is either an unexplained recovery from illness or something seen, and we know how bad eyewitness testimony is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 12-18-2017 10:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 12-18-2017 11:33 AM Percy has replied
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 1:11 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 172 of 696 (825865)
12-18-2017 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by ringo
12-18-2017 11:33 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
I'm having difficulty with the distinction between "is a supernatural intervention" and "is ATTRIBUTED to a supernatural intervention."
It's the same as the distinction between "the Pentateuch was written by Moses" and "The Pentateuch is ATTRIBUTED to Moses."
It's the same as the distinction between "Christmas gifts are brought by Santa" and "Christmas gifts are ATTRIBUTED to Santa."
It's not the English that I'm having a problem with, but the reason behind drawing the distinction when you're talking about the supernatural. I can see now by what you say next that it's just another way for you to say, in essence, "We might *think* it's supernatural, but it's not, it's just something we don't understand yet."
A flashlight is a miracle to people who don't know how it works.
Perhaps you and Tangle are interested in talking about two different things. You want to treat miracles as natural phenomena that we don't understand yet. Tangle wants to talk about real miracles, like what Faith considers a miracle.
If that's correct then somebody's got to make a move. One of you will have to say, "Well, I don't agree with the way you're approaching this, but for the sake of discussion let me follow along with you for a ways." I think you both agree that miracles aren't real. But your position refuses to consider the concept of a true miracle, and so would only result in a discussion of how science expands our knowledge. Tangle accepts the concept (but not the reality) of a true miracle, thinks he knows how to define it ("breaks the laws of nature"), and wants to discuss why miracles aren't real from a scientific perspective, which seems much more appropriate for this thread.
Sorry if I've got this all wrong. If I get feedback I'll take another swing at it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 12-18-2017 11:33 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 3:47 PM Percy has replied
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 12-19-2017 10:48 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 173 of 696 (825866)
12-18-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
12-18-2017 1:11 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Faith writes:
What if three children claimed to see her [the Virgin Mary]? What if a whole crowd then gathered and also saw her?
Did anyone in the crowd think to pull out their cell phone and record a video?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 1:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 2:42 PM Percy has replied

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


(1)
Message 184 of 696 (825884)
12-18-2017 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
12-18-2017 2:42 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Faith writes:
I think the last apparition preceded cell phones,...
First, how convenient.
Second, you still haven't established any Biblical foundation for apparitions. I don't understand why you believe in them.
...but I also think apparitions can't be photographed.
And you know this how?
In fact I think they can only be seen with the "spiritual eye," or the "third eye"...
And you know this how?
...and I think this because one film I watched of the children looking at "Mary" showed them walking backwards with their eyes rolled back in their heads the way many Hindu gurus are often depicted.
You mean this film about the apparitions of Garabandal:
These are Catholic visions. If you're willing to accept Catholic visions, which in your view is not a Christian religion and whose leader is the antichrist, then are you also willing to accept Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu visions?
I think it is how you look when you are looking through the "third eye" which is supposedly located in the forehead. You get to see demons that way.
And you know this how?
I've never wanted to see demons, the idea creeps me out, and the experience I did have was not something I sought. But if you would like to test the idea I think if you meditated quietly on the idea and and concentrated very hard and rolled your eyes back in your head maybe you could do it.
Put on your ruby slippers, click the heels together three times, and say, "There is no place like reality."
abe: Seeing apparitions and other demonic miracles is what I've been calling petty or second rate miracles. God's miracles occur in real physical space and can be seen by the naked eye. So can some demonic miracles though, such as bleeding statues; they're just not on a par with God's miracles as to meaning or presentation.
That is all something you believe on faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 2:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 6:34 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 185 of 696 (825885)
12-18-2017 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Tangle
12-18-2017 3:47 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
Nearly. I'm saying that we know what a miracle is, or would be - equivocation apart - and should one occur in a way we can test to destruction, science would be forced to accept it.
Makes sense to me.
I'm trying to get beyond the silly definitional tactics to the scientific one - what kind of evidence would it take for science to throw its hands in the air and say ok, not only is this unexplained but it's also inexplicable? Why would the miraculous be non-susceptible to scientific enquiry?
Right. Faith keeps claiming that miracles can't be analyzed scientifically, but can't say why except by piling on another helping of goofiness.
I think Ringo's point is that there's no way to tell the difference between actions that break the laws of nature versus laws of nature that we don't understand yet.
Then there's the other argument, that miracles that are amenable to scientific study simply become part of the natural.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 3:47 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 6:17 PM Percy has replied
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 7:04 PM Percy 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