|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
When I cross a bridge, I put faith in the bridge. Even if it's pretty rickety, it's the only way across. I wouldn't call that a "strong" faith.
... your reply does reemphasize how strongly you put your faith in humanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
If something we can't explain does happen, we don't say, "At present it sure looks like miracles can happen." We say, "I wonder how that happened." That's how science begins.
Just as we might say, "At present it sure looks like we understand the basics of electricity," were a miracle (event not explicable by natural or scientific laws) to happen we might say, "At present it sure looks like miracles can happen."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Keep looking.
And when there is no physical answer, "Then What"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes.
So, in essence, you are saying "I can't explain it!" I wonder how I can explain it? Phat writes:
Yes.
How long do you plan on wondering before you conclude anything? Your entire life?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Yes, "seen as a miracle" is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Jesus' face on a taco is also "seen as a miracle" but what "miracle" actually happened? The story also reinforces my point that there doesn't have to be any breaking of the laws of nature for it to be called a miracle.
The incident was seen as a miracle in Peru. ICANT writes:
Yes, indeed. Incidents attributed to "miracles" are pretty common. There are many other fantastic stories such as the one above. By the way, you know what "fantastic" means, don't you? Many stories of miracles are fanciful, imaginative, embellished, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
No, it's like science. Science is an ongoing process. It's a loop that justs keeps on looking. You could say that there's an escape hatch for, "We've got a pretty good answer so we can devote our time to something else for the moment." But there's no escape hatch for, "We can't figure it out so we'll stop trying."
When you have exhausted all avenues and there is no physical answer to say just keep looking when there is nothing to look for is like sticking your head in the sand and saying I know what I believe so don't bother me with the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You're kidding, right? Do you seriously think science would conclude a miracle?
When the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson, analysis could conclude miracle with perfect scientific validity since the conclusion is tentative. Percy writes:
So Tangle and [nobody] are in agreement on this?
Tangle and are in agreement on this. Percy writes:
But you did say, "... a miracle is not explicable by natural or scientific laws...." in Message 296. What's the difference between, "can't be explained by natural causes," and, "not explicable by natural or scientific laws"?
I would never say "can't be explained by natural causes" because some people might think that synonymous with "can be explained by supernatural causes." Percy writes:
There's a difference between a hypothetical discussion of whether or not miracles are possible and making up a hypothetical miracle to discuss. In science, the only thing that's hypothetical is the hypothesis. You don't get to make up the evidence. It goes back to when we were asking whether you'd be willing to discuss miracles hypothetically, or whether you'd insist on ruling them out out of hand. As I've said, the first step in the scientific study of a flying bridge is to find out if the reports are true. Since they're not, there's no reason to continue with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
If Phat wants to call "faith" in the only available option a "religion", he's welcome to.
... your reply reemphasizes how strongly you put your faith in humanity, and that from Phat's perspective it's all still religion, but with faith in humanity instead of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You've made up examples that have nothing to do with miracles. Those events did not happen. That's where the scientific investigation ends. Tangle and I have presented examples that are not explicable by currently understood natural or scientific laws. Miracles are events that are attributed to supernatural causes, such as healings, faces on tacos, etc. The topic is miracles, not fiction. Why can't you talk about real events that are actually called miracles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
No, that is not the definition of a miracle. Only the person who attributes the event to supernatural power is unable to explain it.
It's inexplicable by natural and scientific laws, and that's the definition of a miracle. Percy writes:
I don't see any difference. The "laws" are just a description of the causes.
The difference is the word "causes". Percy writes:
As I've already said, science would not consider it an "unambiguous miracle". The first question science would ask is, "Did it actually happen?" It's easily tested. Is the GW Bridge still where it's always been? Yes. Is it where you claim it is? No. Your "miracle" is doubly falsified.
Hypothetically, how would science respond were an unambiguous miracle to happen, such as the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson. Percy writes:
We certainly can talk about claimed miracles. There are plenty of them. You don't have to make up phoney ones to try to prop up an erroneous definition.
We can't talk about real miracles from a scientific perspective because there has never been a scientifically verified miracle. Percy writes:
That's a nonsensical question. Science can not verify miracles. If science can verify it, it's not a miracle.
We're asking what would it mean if a scientifically verified miracle *did* occur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
There are various things to which it may be attributed. It doesn't say attribution isn't necessary. And it does say "may be attributed," so attribution isn't a necessity. Look at the real reports of miracles. The events are inexplicable by the people who think it's a miracle. Pareidolia, for one example, is by no means inexplicable, so inexplicable is the part that is not necessary.
Percy writes:
You're playing fast and loose with the word "hypothetical". If it can't be tested, it isn't a hypothesis. It's just a silly fantasy.
But, hypothetically, how would science respond if tomorrow the George Washington Bridge moved 50 miles up the Hudson in the way I've described earlier: gently letting loose from its moorings, floating up into the air, moving 50 miles upriver, and settling back down to the ground near West Point. Percy writes:
All miracles are claimed miracles, just like all Bigfoot sightings are claimed sightings. It's the claims that can be scientifically studied.
But the title of this thread is The "science" of Miracles, not "claimed miracles." Percy writes:
Just Google "Jesus' face on a taco". We've been there and done that. It's the claims that can be scientifically studied.
... if you know of miracles that have the potential to be scientifically studied then we could look at those, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What hypothesis?
Assuming all of that had been carried out and was inconclusive, we then would have a hypothesis. Phat writes:
If the result was inconclusive, then science would describe it as inconclusive.
Percy may be arguing that the resulting hypothesis could tentatively be described as miraculous. Phat writes:
That's exactly my point. A miracle is what somebody thinks is inexplicable. As soon as objectivity is introduced, the whole concept of "miracle" disappears.
Different people would attach different labels to the event. Not everyone would call it a miracle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Again, you're talking about subjective conclusions. That has nothing to do with science.
Assume that you were Saul. You suddenly became blind. You had been persecuting certain people for whatever reason before this happened, but unlike Saul you were not a religiously inclined thinker. What would be your conclusions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
What it says is:
Actually it does say that attribution isn't necessary. That's what the word "may" means, a possibility, not a necessity.quote: The word "may" means that it may be one of the following list. It does not say "may or may not be".
Percy writes:
I've already answered that several times. Science would look at all of the evidence and if it was inconclusive, they would call it inconclusive. At no time would science ever consider it a "miracle".
So rephrasing, let us consider the possibility that tomorrow the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson in the way I described earlier. How would science respond? Percy writes:
ICANT told the story of the girl who escaped the plane crach as if he believed it was a miracle.
But nobody here believes those are miracles. Percy writes:
All miracles are just claimed miracles.
They're just "claimed miracles" of the religiously credulous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Name one claimed miracle that could not be studied with evidence-based experiments.
You cant hope to study everything that ever happens with evidence-based experiments. Phat writes:
By looking at the evidence.
how do you think they profile certain people at the FBI? Phat writes:
And science requires getting rid of it.
Subjectivity is very human and quite common.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024