|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
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? 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? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
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.
whats the harm in speculation? Phat writes:
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.
... the point is that He is not bound by any law or rule by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How is it a speculation to say I don't see how we can speculate?
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." Percy writes:
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.
You're talking to Tangle and me. Miracles *do* have a definition... Percy writes:
Of course they can. How can you know ahead of time whether or not we can ever understand something?
... the examples of miracles Tangle and I have described cannot be reasonably viewed as phenomena we don't yet understand....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Flood.
Effects with miracles are localalised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
So they're localised unless they're not? Another fine definition brought to you by Tangle.
But the ones we're talking of at the moment - wine, bridges, mountains are localised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
ringo writes: Percy writes:
How is it a speculation to say I don't see how we can speculate? 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." 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024