|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry I really have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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 Witness testimony is evidence. But are stories about witness testimony evidence? In my opinion, that is the easiest criticism to level at claims of "tons of witnesses" evidence. Very little of the Bible is a witnessed account of anything or even purports to be such an account. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Even if hard evidence was left behind, there isn't going to be evidence that it was caused by a miracle is there? 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? 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 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. (This refrain that it's so untrustworthy is silly when there are so many reports of so many witnesses to so many miracles. They might get some details wrong but no, all that is not going to simply be totally wrong.) I asked a while back if anyone can think of the sort of evidence that would show a miracle had happened and nobody came up with any.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith healings are bogus. A famous Christian quadriplegic who is now in her sixties tells of going to a Kathryn Kuhlman faith healing event when she was young, only to be shunted off in her wheelchair to a part of the auditorium that was not close to the stage, along with a lot of other hapless sick people, while Kuhlman did some phony antics with other "sick people" in another location and claimed to heal them.
A photo of a person with a missing limb followed by a photo of a restored limb then? Would that do it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. But every religion and most every claimed miracle has witness evidence. How is Biblical witness evidence, particularly when the witness stories vary and are contradictory, better than the witness evidence from Greek and Roman mythology and Hindu and Buddhist and Taoist and Islamic stories?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Even if hard evidence was left behind, there isn't going to be evidence that it was caused by a miracle is there? Exactly Faith. That is why it is just silly to claim there is evidence of miracles. Edited by jar, : fix quotebox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. But that would be considered an unexplained natural phenomenon rather than a miracle.
If nothing observable or detectable happened, then we couldn't say a miracle had happened. When can you say a miracle has 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? And so the answer to your question {Without evidence we wouldn't know a miracle had happened would we?} is that yes we could.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
The same time as you can say God exists: When you believe it.
When can you say a miracle has happened?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
New Cat's Eye writes:
The same time as you can say God exists: When you believe it. When can you say a miracle has happened? Technically you could say it even if you didn't believe it. But this is beside the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
Actually, that IS the point. You can say anything and believe anything but neither has any bearing on reality. The word "miracle" has no more to do with reality than the word "hobbit". There can be no "science of hobbits" or "science of Long John Silver" or "science of miracles" because they're all fiction.
Technically you could say it even if you didn't believe it. But this is beside the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NCE writes: But that would be considered an unexplained natural phenomenon rather than a miracle. It would be inexplicable not unexplained and it *would* be called miraculous. There's no escape from the definition of a miracle - to be miraculous it must be outside natural law.
quote: Of course the argument is rather hindered by the fact that miracles don't occur so we're left discussing hypotheticals. Still, turning wine into blood by talking at it would be a pretty good example of a repeatable and testable miracle.
When can you say a miracle has happened? When something miraculous happens.
And so the answer to your question {Without evidence we wouldn't know a miracle had happened would we?} is that yes we could. Well this gets more and more like Alice in Wonderland. Your first attempt is to define miracles away by claiming that a miracle is simply something as yet unexplained. Then you do a 180 and infer that miracles *can* happen and what's more we don't even need any evidence of them.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Your first attempt is to define miracles away by claiming that a miracle is simply something as yet unexplained. Then you do a 180 and infer that miracles *can* happen and what's more we don't even need any evidence of them. You've misunderstood. You can't scientifically know that a miracle occurred. If you can study it scientifically then its natural and if you can't then you don't know. But, you could witness a miracle and not have any scientific evidence for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NCE writes: You've misunderstood. Nope, I disagreed.
You can't scientifically know that a miracle occurred. Yes you can. You can observe and test the evidence. If it breaks natural laws it's a miracle.
If you can study it scientifically then its natural and if you can't then you don't know. No, not by the definition of a miracle. You're just trying to define it away which is kind of sillier than the idea itself. To talk about miracles at all you have to accept the paradox.
But, you could witness a miracle and not have any scientific evidence for it. Then you wouldn't know it was 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024