Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 280 of 696 (826312)
12-28-2017 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Percy
12-23-2017 1:11 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
The miracles Tangle and I have been describing are clearly and obviously inexplicable by the natural physical laws of the universe.
Where I'm not following you and Tangle, is why we should assume that the magical bridge-moving cherubs are not governed by some kind of natural laws.
Regardless of which way we look at it, we have to accept that the universe is fundamentally not as we thought it was. It contains magical bridge-moving cherubs. Your approach therefore seems to be to throw up our hands and give in - magical bridge-moving cherubs are not and cannot be subject to any natural laws.
But why would this be the case? I understand that Tangle keeps repeating that we 'know' how he natural world works and know that it cannot contain magical cherubs; and that may have been reasonable to think yesterday. But that was yesterday - before we all saw the flying bridge with cherubs on it. Clearly this is the time to accept that we know a lot less than we thought, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 12-23-2017 1:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 12-28-2017 2:38 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied
 Message 283 by Phat, posted 12-29-2017 8:42 AM caffeine has replied
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 12-29-2017 9:40 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 307 of 696 (826469)
01-02-2018 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Phat
12-29-2017 8:42 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
This also could (and should) apply to the concept of GOD. If you isolate the miracles and phenomena from GOD, they would appear to be eventually describable. Throwing the Big Guy into the equation means that science has a lot more work to do to explain Him.(or as jar may suggest, Her or It )
If there is a creator, I don't see why, in principle, it couldn't be comprehensible in terms of natural laws. If there's a God performing miracles; there must be some method by which he does it.
That doesn't mean the explanation is necessarily something we could comprehend of course; and assuming a creator god would be something outside of, or somehow separate to, our universe, it's entirely possible that we would not in principle be able to uncover its secrets from within.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Phat, posted 12-29-2017 8:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 317 of 696 (826500)
01-03-2018 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Percy
12-29-2017 9:40 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
I don't know if the cherubs are important to your argument, but cherubs weren't part of my scenario of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson.
Tangle threw some cherubs in the mix upthread somewhere, as part of demonstrating that this was clearly a proper miracle with divine intervention and whatnot. They're not essential to the point.
I can't comment about the cherubs, but I don't suggest we "throw up our hands and give in." We don't think of it that way whenever we discover something new about the universe. We say, "Eureka, more knowledge!"
Hopefully we already thought we knew very little, but actual miracles would be new science.
So it seems to me everyone's still a bit stuck on the actual definition of a miracle. It seems to me that you're saying it's something that's not comprehensible by the laws of nature as we currently understand them, but it's coming across as them being incomprehensible by laws of nature in principle. I think ringo was disagreeing with the latter; since how can you know whether something can be described in terms of laws you haven't thought of yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 12-29-2017 9:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Percy, posted 01-03-2018 10:46 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 325 of 696 (826527)
01-03-2018 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Tangle
01-03-2018 12:41 PM


Well it's just a hunch, but if that's what had happened I'm guessing she might have told us. Or there'd be witnesses. Absent that, we have no reason to suppose that is what happened have we?
It's very unusual but not unprecedented for people to fall out of planes and survive. So let's see the full story please.
She failed to report and cherubs, but to be fair she was unconscious:
quote:
I could see the canopy of the jungle spinning towards me. Then I lost consciousness and remember nothing of the impact.
She claims not to have been the only person to have survived the fall, which is actually slightly horrifying:
quote:
Later I found out that (her mother) also survived the crash but was badly injured and she couldn't move. She died several days later. I dread to think what her last days were like.
but the BBC article didn't explain how she knew this. She's written a book about it if you wanted to know more, (and speak German) but she's a biologist, so her understanding of events is probably distorted by the satanic dogma they learn in grad school.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 01-03-2018 12:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Tangle, posted 01-03-2018 3:38 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 328 of 696 (826530)
01-03-2018 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Percy
01-03-2018 10:46 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Or, since science is tentative, must we leave our minds open to the possibility that not all phenomenon follow what we call the laws of nature or even have laws, but that they still occur within our natural world, in which case miracles lie within science and can be studied. We can ask and try to answer the question of how and under what conditions the laws of nature are not followed. This is my and Tangle's position.
I think this sums up what I see as slightly incoherent about your position. If you are able to answer the question of 'how and under what conditions the laws of nature are not followed', then the laws of nature are being followed, otherwise there would be no coherent answer.
And I get further confused by:
But if they're non-deterministic in the way of the two-slit experiment and wave/particle duality, if they occur without cause, then the label of "miracle" seems valid.
Does this mean you think the quantum mechanical effects are miracles? If not, why would miracle be a valid label for other, non-deterministic effects?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Percy, posted 01-03-2018 10:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Percy, posted 01-03-2018 4:59 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 334 of 696 (826578)
01-04-2018 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Tangle
01-03-2018 3:38 PM


So rather than what you said....
Pretty sure I'm not ICANT. Even this soon after New Year's Eve I'd remember something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Tangle, posted 01-03-2018 3:38 PM 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