Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 7:29 PM
351 online now:
kbertsche, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (3 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,104 Year: 28,710/21,208 Month: 776/1,847 Week: 151/475 Day: 44/17 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 36 (823756)
11-16-2017 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
11-16-2017 11:42 AM


Re: What Is Gods Science?
If God uses science, then he's an alien with a more advanced technology than ours. That's the most plausible kind of god.

The minute we can observe it, test it, and understand it, it becomes mundane (muggle) science.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 11-16-2017 11:42 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2017 1:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 17 of 36 (823774)
11-16-2017 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
11-16-2017 12:22 PM


What Is Mundane Science?
Mundane science is not necessarily tied to any scientific field of study ... rather it is defined by whether or not the scientific method can be applied:

Mundane science doesn't necessarily take the last step of documenting in a scientific peer reviewed journal ... because the results are mundane, expected, normal.

Every time we drop a pen on the desk we are testing whether gravity still applies. The expected results are that it does.

Every time we sit in a chair we test that our observation of chairs as safe places to sit is tested. Sometimes that expectation is false and the chair collapses, but the chair can be inspected for causes of failure (load to heavy, stress cracked or decayed structure, it's a folding chair that was improperly opened, etc) -- and that too is mundane science.

So we build up a worldview of pens, and chairs, and doors, and roads, etc etc from our experience and compare them to the experience of other people -- an unwritten peer review -- and by this method, we construct a view of reality that is then a fundamental element of our worldview.

But this worldview reality is a hypothesis of actual REALITY, it is a filter through which we view things.

This has advantages when new experiences fall inside our expectations, going new places and finding pens, and chairs, and doors, and roads, etc etc are similar enough to our experience that they are readily incorporated into our total experience of such observations, because we don't have to spend time on reinventing our understanding of how things work.

Problems arise, however, when a new experience, observation or information, is in conflict with our worldview and contradicts our worldview hypothesis of reality. Then we have two choices:

  1. Alter our worldview to include the new experience, observation or information,
    (this is like bubble 4 in yellow of the diagram)

    or

  2. Deny, reject or ignore the new experience, observation or information, and claim it is false
    (which has no place in the diagram)

The first choice is our common way of adding to our worldview. Say we come to a door with a latching mechanism we have never seen before and don't immediately know how to operate it. We can find out by testing different actions or by getting shown how it works: thereafter it is easily incorporated into our worldview.

The second choice only occurs when we have a strong, emotional, commitment to a core belief that is threatened by the new experience, observation or information, and it is emotionally less tumultuous to maintain the core belief than change it.

It should be noted that in the formal practice of science such new experiences, observations or information, contrary to expectations are readily and actively sought, and that denial is not an option.

This then gives us a measure of how well our personal worldview reality hypothesis matches actual REALITY by the inverse relationship of the degree of denial one must maintain.

A second measure is how well our personal worldview reality hypothesis matches those of other people, with high agreement and consilience showing a positive relationship.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2017 12:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 18 of 36 (823810)
11-17-2017 11:24 AM


Definition Of Terms
So what does google have to say regarding definitions of terms?

Miracle
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
"the miracle of rising from the grave"
synonyms: wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon, mystery
a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

This is why the idea of evidence conflicts with the very definition of a miracle.
It should also be noted that miracles are always welcome events.

NosyNed writes:

What is science then?

RAZD explained it with the critical thinking chart. There is no science regarding miracles. They are by definition unexplainable and/or unverifiable.

jar writes:

First, how would someone identify some event as a miracle?

I suppose that it would be a welcome surprise unexplainable via scientific rationale.

Second, why call something a miracle rather than calling it unexplained?
Depends on how dramatic it is and how many lives are affected. Back in the day, manna from Heaven was a miracle. These days it likely would be both unexplained and a miracle, if people actually benefitted from eating the stuff.

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 :)

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 11-17-2017 11:57 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2017 12:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 19 of 36 (823815)
11-17-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
11-17-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phatt writes:

It should also be noted that miracles are always welcome events.


Welcomed by whom? The Flood was clearly, "not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 11-17-2017 11:24 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5235
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 20 of 36 (823817)
11-17-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
11-17-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phat writes:

This is why the idea of evidence conflicts with the very definition of a miracle.

Not really. Without evidence we wouldn't know a miracle had happened would we? :-)

If a miracle cures an ill person we would expect at least two pieces of evidence; that the person was ill before the event and not ill after. Ideally, the event would be a woo-style intervention of some sort - the laying on of hands perhaps.

But so-called miracles never, ever involve something where a natural explanation is impossible and/or be objectively evaluated - a 'real' miracle. So in the case of miracle cures, an amputated arm never grows back, but back-ache can be easily cured.


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 18 by Phat, posted 11-17-2017 11:24 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by AlexCaledin, posted 12-13-2017 7:23 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2017 10:58 AM Tangle has responded

  
AlexCaledin
Junior Member
Posts: 18
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 21 of 36 (825328)
12-13-2017 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tangle
11-17-2017 12:34 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
"The caliph then ordered John's right hand be cut off and hung up in public view. Some days afterwards, John asked for the restitution of his hand, and prayed fervently to the Theotokos before her icon: thereupon, his hand is said to have been miraculously restored."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2017 12:34 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11841
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 22 of 36 (825332)
12-13-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tangle
11-17-2017 12:34 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phat writes:

This is why the idea of evidence conflicts with the very definition of a miracle.

Not really. Without evidence we wouldn't know a miracle had happened would we? :-)

You could. In the context of evidence and knowledge being scientific, you cannot "know" that a miracle happened. Miracles are inexplicable, if you have evidence and knowledge then it's not a miracle.

If a miracle cures an ill person we would expect at least two pieces of evidence; that the person was ill before the event and not ill after.

And if you witnessed the event but did not gather any record of the evidence, then you would be aware of the miracle occurring without having any evidence of it.

Then you would know the miracle happened and be without evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2017 12:34 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2017 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26711
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 23 of 36 (825335)
12-13-2017 11:12 AM


How can there be such a "science" anyway?
As has come up on other threads, the ability to study a phenomenon scientifically requires repeatability, and/or evidence that endures after each event. If you don't have that you can't study it, and in all the examples that have been brought up those conditions don't exist, all we have is witness evidence for single events, and since nobody here will accept that, what sense does it make even to talk about a science of miracles?
Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 12-13-2017 11:16 AM Faith has responded
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2017 2:19 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29763
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 24 of 36 (825337)
12-13-2017 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
12-13-2017 11:12 AM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
Faith writes:

As has come up on other threads, the ability to study a phenomenon scientifically requires repeatability, and/or evidence that endures after each event.

And as has been pointed out, change must leave evidence and the evidence that would support the miracles found in the Bible stories is totally missing.

The Sun did NOT stop in the sky.

The Conquest of Canaan did not happen.

The Exodus is a folk tale.

Jonah did not live inside a fish.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 11:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 11:20 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26711
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 25 of 36 (825338)
12-13-2017 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
12-13-2017 11:16 AM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
In the case of phenomena that do not leave evidence and are not replicable you can't just make that fact into evidence against it. Lack of evidence obviously is not evidence that the phenomenon did not occur at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 12-13-2017 11:16 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-13-2017 11:36 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 12-13-2017 4:10 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29763
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 26 of 36 (825340)
12-13-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
12-13-2017 11:20 AM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
Faith writes:

In the case of phenomena that do not leave evidence and are not replicable you can't just make that fact into evidence against it.

But for all the BIG miracles in the Bible stories there MUST be evidence and for the little miracles where evidence is not possible the reasonable action is to question their actuality.

Simply accepting that they happened and were miracles is silly.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 11:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5235
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 36 (825346)
12-13-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
12-13-2017 10:58 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
NCE writes:

You could. In the context of evidence and knowledge being scientific, you cannot "know" that a miracle happened. Miracles are inexplicable, if you have evidence and knowledge then it's not a miracle.

If someone waved a wand and said 'hocus pocus, grow a second penis' and you instantly grew a second penis, you'd be pretty convinced that something miraculous had happened.

ie the evidence and knowledge of the miracle is that something inexplicable has happened in the natural world that we can observe.

If nothing observable or detectable happened, then we couldn't say a miracle had happened.

And if you witnessed the event but did not gather any record of the evidence, then you would be aware of the miracle occurring without having any evidence of it.
Then you would know the miracle happened and be without evidence.

Yup. And?


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 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2017 10:58 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10119
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 28 of 36 (825348)
12-13-2017 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
12-13-2017 11:12 AM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
As has come up on other threads, the ability to study a phenomenon scientifically requires repeatability, and/or evidence that endures after each event.

Nicely summarized. And a major concession from your previous insistence that repeatability was required. Thanks for your honesty.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 11:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 4:39 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7277
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 29 of 36 (825354)
12-13-2017 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
12-13-2017 11:20 AM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
Faith writes:

In the case of phenomena that do not leave evidence and are not replicable you can't just make that fact into evidence against it. Lack of evidence obviously is not evidence that the phenomenon did not occur at all.

If there is no evidence for miracles, then why believe a miracle happened at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 11:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 4:38 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26711
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 36 (825355)
12-13-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taq
12-13-2017 4:10 PM


Re: How can there be such a "science" anyway?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 12-13-2017 4:10 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 12-13-2017 5:05 PM Faith has responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017