Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 181 of 696 (825880)
12-18-2017 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Tangle
12-18-2017 5:06 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
I cannot imagine any test that might lead to a conclusion that a miracle happened.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 5:06 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 5:19 PM jar has replied

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


Message 182 of 696 (825881)
12-18-2017 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by jar
12-18-2017 5:07 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Jar writes:
I cannot imagine any test that might lead to a conclusion that a miracle happened.
Your lack of imagination is not particularly relevant or even needed. I've provided the evidence, why is it inadequate? To me it seems like there's more evidence than for many scientific ideas, it's objective, measureable, repeatable and extensive.
You're objection seems to be the conclusion, not the evidence. That's not scoentific.

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 181 by jar, posted 12-18-2017 5:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 12-18-2017 5:33 PM Tangle has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 183 of 696 (825882)
12-18-2017 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Tangle
12-18-2017 5:19 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
No, you have not provided any evidence of a miracle. Like Faith, you have made claims but offered nothing in the way of evidence of a miracle.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 5:19 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(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: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

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


Message 186 of 696 (825886)
12-18-2017 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
12-18-2017 5:55 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
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.
Yes, but we've both given hypothetical examples of things that are not just stuff we don't understand yet because they're at the boundaries of our knowledge - dark energy being an obvious example - but stuff that we have a thorough understanding of; flying bridges, moving mountains and a wine turning into blood. If such things happened routinely our science would stop explaing reality around us. It would be suddenly useless.
We are not in the stone age, we now thoroughly understand many parts of our physical world.
Then there's the other argument, that miracles that are amenable to scientific study simply become part of the natural.
If the mountain did reposition itself we would have to accept that the supernatural was now part of our natural world. We would know that our world was being influenced by forces beyond the natural. We are no longer ignorant of how things work.
Why do we imagine that science is incapable of discriminating between the natural and the supernatural?

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 185 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 5:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 9:16 AM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 187 of 696 (825887)
12-18-2017 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by NoNukes
12-18-2017 3:14 PM


seeing apparitions
I guess you intend to ridicule that statement though on what basis is not clear. That I'm comparing Hindu demon watching to Catholic demon watching?
I saw the picture of the children walking backwards way back in the 90s. I thought it was Fatima but I can't find it in the Fatima video. Other pictures of children watching appoaritions show them looking up usually at a pretty steep angle but not as far as the picture I remember. So I guess you don't have to roll your eyes back completely to see the apparition. But here's a video where one of the children comes closest to what I remember, this one from an apparition at Garbandal Spain in 1961: at about 3:24 and then 6:13
It's amazing how many of these apparitions are reported to be occurring these days.
Here's Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, with his eyes rolled back:
I saw a painting of him with the eyes extremely rolled back but now can't find that.
Sri Chinmoy (this is more typical of what I remember)
Those pictures used to be easy to find. I wonder if internet censorship is removing them. The really intense ones are pretty creepy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by NoNukes, posted 12-18-2017 3:14 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2017 9:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 696 (825888)
12-18-2017 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
12-18-2017 5:45 PM


apparitions
As I started searching for images of these children I found out that there have been lots of Marian aspparitions since cell phones. But the images are not photographed and as I said I don't think they can be, because they are invisible to normal vision. I concluded they must be seen by spiritual vision or the third eye because of the way the seers roll their eyes back, which I know from my reading in Hindu listerature is how you look through the "third eye" or the spiritual eye. As I say in the post I finally put up on this subject, above, for some reason these images are hard to find now though I used to run across them all the time: gurus depicted with their eyes rolled back so far all you can see are the whites. And a painting of Ignatius Loyola looking just like that. Which I also can't find now. Which is really weird.
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?
Of course I "accept" them. They are seeing demons and calling them God or angels or "Mary."
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.
Actually it's my conclusions based on the Biblical descriptions of God's miracles and descriptions or illustrations like those posted on this thread of petty miracles that demons can do.
Yes you found the same film I ended up posting of Garabandal apparitions, the only images I could find at all similar to the film of the children I remember from the 90s with their eyes rolled back in their heads walking backwards while seeing a Marian apparition.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 5:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 9:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 189 of 696 (825889)
12-18-2017 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
12-18-2017 5:55 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Right. Faith keeps claiming that miracles can't be analyzed scientifically, but can't say why except by piling on another helping of goofiness.
Weird. This thread keeps going deeper and deeper into Wonderland.
What I said, which seems to me to be simple and straightforward and unimpeachable, is that the reason miracles aren't subject to scientific testing is that they are unpredictable ephemeral one-time events that don't leave enduring evidence. The minor miracles I say demons can do, that I call petty, such as bleeding statues and that sort of thing, may leave enough evidence if you want to test those.
You talk as if I'm happy miracles can't be tested but why should I be?. It's just my observation that they can't be. At least those described in the Bible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 5:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 10:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 190 of 696 (825900)
12-19-2017 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Tangle
12-18-2017 6:17 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
Yes, but we've both given hypothetical examples of things that are not just stuff we don't understand yet because they're at the boundaries of our knowledge - dark energy being an obvious example - but stuff that we have a thorough understanding of; flying bridges, moving mountains and a wine turning into blood. If such things happened routinely our science would stop explaining reality around us. It would be suddenly useless.
Right, I'm on your side, flying bridges and mountains clearly violate the laws of physics, violate them so violently that talk of tentativity and working at understanding the phenomena so as to modify science to include them seems ridiculous.
But you and I have to face it - that's exactly what scientists would do. Even if it's only after the fact, once the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson, what scientist wouldn't want to study the aftereffects, the margins where the steel and concrete of the bridge were separated from the steel and concrete that remained on the ground, the effects on the alloys and the welds, increases or decreases in heat, changes in the roadway or cars, the experiences of people on the bridge at the time, any photographs or videos that were taken, etc. Imagine having a for-real miracle to study. Any scientist would consider it the opportunity of a lifetime. And I bet most scientists would start with the initial assumption that there is a natural explanation.
But what if there isn't. What if, as you speculate, miracles become a commonplace? What if you always have to check that red wine before drinking to make sure it hasn't become blood? What if you never know when that bridge you use on your commute might change locations? What if the Internet suddenly turned into frogs, and the undersea cables digitally connecting the world became sea serpents?
Well, if you're like me, you agree that I've by now crossed over into the absurd. We live in the real world. Things like this are never going to happen, and if they did then they should be considered miracles. Study them if you like, it's at least a starting point, but something more fundamental, more profound, more subtle and momentous at the same time, is going on than just new laws of physics, and that's what really needs to be studied. For thousands of years no physical evidence of miracles, then suddenly physical miracles begin happening. What changed?
Why do we imagine that science is incapable of discriminating between the natural and the supernatural?
This is probably where my biggest differences with you lie. I believe anything we can observe, directly (a bridge) or indirectly (dark matter), is natural. I guess if an honest-to-God miracle occurred, I would at least begin with the initial assumption that it was natural. I can't imagine science being able to discriminate between the natural and the supernatural because in my own mind the supernatural isn't detectable or even existent. Science would have to provide evidence that the supernatural exists before I would accept it, sort of similar to the way most people have to study the evidence for wave/particle duality or entanglement and things like that before they accept it.
As a participant in this discussion I can accept the existence of the supernatural as a hypothetical and try to consider the implications, but it's hard. How does one even go about even defining something that is undetectable scientifically and therefore undoubtedly nonexistent. We may as well speculate about how science would discriminate between Oxford and Hogwarts.
If miracles begin to happen it won't mean we've discovered the supernatural. The word supernatural may be the label we eventually decide to apply to the occurrences of miracles, but since we had no idea of the nature of the supernatural beforehand we couldn't be said to have discovered it.
I fear I've created more confusion than clarity about my position, but I hope you find this post useful.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 6:17 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 11:14 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 191 of 696 (825902)
12-19-2017 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
12-18-2017 6:34 PM


Re: apparitions
Faith writes:
As I started searching for images of these children I found out that there have been lots of Marian apparitions since cell phones. But the images are not photographed and as I said I don't think they can be, because they are invisible to normal vision.
Again, apparitions have no Biblical support. They seem to be a Catholic concept, not a Protestant one.
If minor miracles are part of the natural world, as you've claimed, then any light perceptible by people can also be photographed. There is no such thing as "invisible to normal vision" - if people are seeing it then it is obviously not invisible. People have only one type of vision here in the natural world, and we understand it very well.
I concluded they must be seen by spiritual vision or the third eye because of the way the seers roll their eyes back, which I know from my reading in Hindu literature is how you look through the "third eye" or the spiritual eye.
If this "spiritual vision" exists in the natural world then it can be scientifically studied. In the natural world there is no such thing as "spiritual vision" or a "third eye."
As I say in the post I finally put up on this subject, above, for some reason these images are hard to find now though I used to run across them all the time: gurus depicted with their eyes rolled back so far all you can see are the whites. And a painting of Ignatius Loyola looking just like that. Which I also can't find now. Which is really weird.
Lady Gaga can roll her eyes back, too, but it's all part of a performance, just like gurus. And yes, it is weird in the extreme, and must involve some impairment, incompetence and total memory collapse, that you cannot find the image of the painting of Ignatius Loyola with his eyes rolled back, given that you posted that very image in the message you posted less than ten minutes earlier, Message 187, here's that image:
What craziness of interpretation of evidence is leading you to conclude that pictures of people with their eyes rolled back is evidence of "spiritual vision" or a "third eye"?
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?
Of course I "accept" them. They are seeing demons and calling them God or angels or "Mary."
This is something you couldn't possibly know. Besides, there is no evidence the Garabandal visions, or any visions, were anything more than fictions. The evidence is images and videos of children looking or acting weird - there's no evidence they saw anything. Plus do you really believe that a child was told this message in a vision and remembered it all word for word:
quote:
As my Message of the 18th of October has not been complied with, and as it has not been made known to the world, I am telling you that this is the last one. Previously, the Cup was filling; now, it is brimming over. Many priests are following the road to perdition, and with them they are taking many more souls. Ever less importance is being given to the Holy Eucharist. We should turn the wrath of God away from us by our own efforts. If you ask His forgiveness with a sincere heart. He will pardon you. I, your Mother, through the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel, wish to tell you that you should make amends. You are now being given the last warnings. I love you very much, and I do not want your condemnation. Ask Us sincerely and We shall grant your plea. You must make more sacrifices. Reflect on the Passion of Jesus.
Of course you believe it. You concede there's a great deal of religious flimflam out there, such as faith healing and donation abuse, but you apply none of that skepticism to things you want to believe, despite the total lack of evidence.
Actually it's my conclusions based on the Biblical descriptions of God's miracles and descriptions or illustrations like those posted on this thread of petty miracles that demons can do.
This is all something you believe on faith, and we haven't been discussing God's miracles. We've been discussing apparitions, for which you still haven't provided a Biblical foundation, which I wouldn't accept anyway, I'm just pointing out yet another of your invented extra-Biblical beliefs. You've obviously been influenced by the Catholics, which is so strange since you reject them as even Christian.
Yes you found the same film I ended up posting of Garabandal apparitions, the only images I could find at all similar to the film of the children I remember from the 90s with their eyes rolled back in their heads walking backwards while seeing a Marian apparition.
Did they *see* a Marian apparition, or did they only claimed they saw one? Did anyone else see it? How do children, indeed anyone, know what a Marian apparition looks like? Why couldn't it be a Mary Magdalene apparition? A Joan of Arc apparition? A ghost? Besides, even you don't believe they saw a Marian apparition. You think they saw a demon, for which there is also no evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 6:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 192 of 696 (825903)
12-19-2017 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
12-18-2017 7:04 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Faith writes:
What I said, which seems to me to be simple and straightforward and unimpeachable, is that the reason miracles aren't subject to scientific testing is that they are unpredictable ephemeral one-time events that don't leave enduring evidence.
Where are the studies that produced the evidence supporting the view that "miracles aren't subject to scientific testing" and that "they are unpredictable ephemeral one-time events that don't leave enduring evidence." There aren't any such studies. You're just making it up as you go along. There's not even any Biblical support for this view of miracles, let alone scientific.
The minor miracles I say demons can do, that I call petty, such as bleeding statues and that sort of thing, may leave enough evidence if you want to test those.
Many bleeding statues have been debunked. See the Wikipedia article on Weeping statue.
You talk as if I'm happy miracles can't be tested but why should I be?. It's just my observation that they can't be. At least those described in the Bible.
It's your observation that miracles can't be tested? You, who have experienced only a single one of these figments of imagination, and who has no evidence from anyone else of miracles, are able to conclude that? Amazing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 12-18-2017 7:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 193 of 696 (825910)
12-19-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Tangle
12-18-2017 12:43 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
We all know what a miracle is, it's a supernatural intervention, it breaks natural/scientific laws.
No, we do not know that. I've already referred you to the miracles in the Bible. Healing the sick does not require breaking any physical laws. And Jesus' face appearing to appear on a taco doesn't require breaking any physical laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2017 12:43 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2017 10:59 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 194 of 696 (825914)
12-19-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
12-18-2017 2:33 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
But your position refuses to consider the concept of a true miracle....
I don't refuse to recognize the concept any more than I refuse to accept the concept of fiction. I do refuse to acknowledge that fiction is true. I also reject Tangle's definition of a "true" miracle because it doesn't even fit the miracles in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 2:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 12-19-2017 11:00 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 195 of 696 (825916)
12-19-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ringo
12-19-2017 10:42 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
No, we do not know that.
Yes we do.
I've already referred you to the miracles in the Bible. Healing the sick does not require breaking any physical laws.
Healing the sick requires a miracle if it's done with a shaman's chant and on an amputee. If it's done by a doctor an aspirin and a patient with a head ache it doesn't. Causation not outcome.
And Jesus' face appearing to appear on a taco doesn't require breaking any physical laws.
Some things are just dumb.

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 193 by ringo, posted 12-19-2017 10:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ringo, posted 12-19-2017 11:06 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024