The "science" of Miracles

Apparently we don't all agree that those phenomena, such as the George Washington Bridge floating 50 miles up the Hudson, are not miracles.And are you saying that regardless of the definition of miracle, you'd never accept any phenomenon as a miracle, so there's no point to agreeing on a definition? Given the brevity of your posts to this thread, I don't think you can claim to have explained anything in detail. I did reply in detail to your longest post, Message 336, but you responded to my Message 341 with just a couple brief paragraphs, leaving much of my response and explanation unaddressed. If it fits the definition of miracle then it's a miracle. If science advances and discovers that it wasn't a miracle then that's fine, since science is tentative.Let us not forget that this discussion about miracles is hypothetical. There seem to be two main sides. One side is that there can be no such thing as a miracle, case closed. The other side asks how, hypothetically, science would respond if confronted with an unambiguous miracle. Your contributions to this thread are so brief that I've just read them all a couple of times now while composing this response. Only one of your posts (Message 342) mentions dictionaries (keep in mind I'm using the Wikipedia definition), here's your detailed explanation: But I don't think the difference revolves around definitions. I think it centers on the reluctance of one side to consider miracles from a hypothetical standpoint.--Percy

There are various things to which it may be attributed. It doesn't say attribution isn't necessary.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. 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. All miracles are claimed miracles, just like all Bigfoot sightings are claimed sightings. It's the claims that can be scientifically studied. Just Google "Jesus' face on a taco". We've been there and done that. It's the claims that can be scientifically studied.

I think what Percy means is what would science do if the bridge had been discovered to have moved or been moved? How would the initial examination of the bridge and its moorings be conducted? Whom would be interviewed? Would there be any available video footage? Assuming all of that had been carried out and was inconclusive, we then would have a hypothesis. Percy may be arguing that the resulting hypothesis could tentatively be described as miraculous. Different people would attach different labels to the event. Not everyone would call it a miracle.

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?
Assume you heard a voice. It asked you why you were persecuting it.

What hypothesis? If the result was inconclusive, then science would describe it as inconclusive. 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.

Again, you're talking about subjective conclusions. That has nothing to do with science.

Actually it does say that attribution isn't necessary. That's what the word "may" means, a possibility, not a necessity.
The Wikipedia definition says that it "may" be attributed, just like one might say that it "may" rain. The bridge scenario is not a hypothesis but an event. I'm using hypothetical in the sense of conjectural or speculative. 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? But nobody here believes those are miracles. They're just "claimed miracles" of the religiously credulous. If you know of a real miracle science can study then it would be a welcome addition to the discussion, but if not then we'll have to consider what it would mean if a miracle *did* happen.--Percy

It has to do with psychology, which is a science.You cant hope to study everything that ever happens with evidence-based experiments. Some things have to be speculated. how do you think they profile certain people at the FBI? Did you ever watch Silence Of The Lambs?Subjectivity is very human and quite common. Sometimes it is all that one has to work with.

Perhaps that is why some people never conclude that a miracle has occurred precisely because they know from their studies that miracles don't actually exist.It appears that Percy is approaching the concept as a believer would----even though he himself is a nonbeliever. In that context, he asks why something should not ever be labeled as a miracle---even if tentatively.After all, if every conceivable experiment has been conducted and is thus far inconclusive, why not admit that a miracle certainly seems possible at that moment?Isn't that just another form of belief?(Belief in rationality and scientific explanations as yet undiscovered?)Perhaps you are right, though. Believers such as myself want miracles and are only to happy to claim them.

What it says is:

quote:

---

Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.

---

The word "may" means that it may be one of the following list. It does not say "may or may not be". 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". ICANT told the story of the girl who escaped the plane crach as if he believed it was a miracle. All miracles are just claimed miracles.

Name one claimed miracle that could not be studied with evidence-based experiments. By looking at the evidence. And science requires getting rid of it.

Saying "may or may not" just a more colorful way of saying "may", but they mean the same thing. "It may be true" means the same thing as "It may or may not be true." Look up "may". It means "expressing possibility." Wikipedia is only saying there's the possibility of attribution to some listed causes. But that's why I provided the example of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson. It is absolutely conclusive that known laws of nature and science were broken, which is the definition of a miracle. Science would tentatively conclude that miracles are possible. When I said "nobody here" I meant here in this subdiscussion, which would be you, me, Tangle and Jar. Phat is commenting on this subdiscussion, and ICANT as always has his eclectic views. He hasn't been part of this subdiscussion but has been trying to convince you and Tangle that miracles have really happened. I would say this is true of all miracles so far. But what if an unambiguous miracle *did* happen? How would science respond? Naturally they'd invent their own term for it rather than miracle, something like "noncompliant phenomenon".--Percy

It's a more precise way. You're assuming that "may" has a more precise meaning than it actually does. You're using some very nit-picky points to try to tweak the definition of "miracle' in the direction you want it to go.The fact is that the only distinction between a miracle and any other event is the attribution to "inexplicable" causes. When you say, "I'll see you on the weekend - it may be Saturday or it may be Sunday," you are restricting the possibilities to a list. That's the definition that you're clinging to. It isn't one that anybody uses. What if Santa Claus was elected President of the United States? Start a thread.

Whether and how a miracle is attributed seems a minor point for this particular discussion, but addressing your arguments anyway... No, it's not. No, I'm not. I looked it up in the dictionary and verified that it means precisely what I thought it meant: expressing possibility. I've documented my interpretation. Obviously if attribution to one of those causes is only a possibility, then there must exist other possibilities, of which non-attribution is one. True but irrelevant. Your example uses "may" differently than Wikipedia. Wikipedia did not say, "The attribution of such an event may be to a supernatural being (a deity), or may be to magic, or may be to a miracle worker, or may be to a saint or may be to a religious leader." It said, "Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader." You and NoNukes have both stated I'm using the wrong definition, but it's the one in Wikipedia, and neither of you have suggested an alternative definition.The numerous dictionaries on the Internet give pretty much the same definition as Wikipedia, though using different words of course. Many of them differ from Wikipedia in one aspect in that they unambiguously ascribe the cause to the supernatural or God.But I think it would be best to avoid discussion of possible attributions because it would draw us into off-topic discussions, such as whether the supernatural or God exists. You're just sarcastically restating your position without any supporting evidence or arguments. You don't believe miracles are possible. We get it. But what if a miracle *did* occur? How would science respond?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I conclude that this is one of those arguments that is itself subjective in that all of us could be right. There is no correct answer.Ringo claims that your definition is not one that anybody uses, but I think what he means is that it is not one that everybody uses.