The "science" of Miracles

Ahhh now I get it. ringo and I were debating whether my hypothetical God was a better source than ringo.Who will argue that he relies on science and human reasoning. Whereupon I will state that I believe in the Creator of humanity. Whereas we will drift off into a cosmological origins argument.Which by that time it will be time for dinner.Lets get back to Percys Bridge. Have we agreed that it is unexplainable and that it is up to the individual to label it a miracle or not?

Thus your hypothetical bridge example is an event that occurs and is observed by a hypothetical group of people. Perhaps one question we can ask is how this group of observers responds to the bridge event. And likely there would be no evidence for the floating bridge. Perhaps the question we would then address is how each observer reacted and whether the science-minded observers reached any other conclusions than did those who believed in miracles and in God (or even UFO's or other supernatural phenomena)Perhaps the purpose of your hypothetical event is to stir up a conversation as to how each one of us would hypothetically react were we to observe this bridge moving.Would we approach this event with a scientific mind or would we approach it with the awe that society might approach a hypothetical event such as The Rapture?As an added bonus question...what if we reframed your hypothesis and said plainly that God moved the bridge? Would that evoke a different reaction among our control group of observers? Would the science-minded approach the hypothesis in the same way or would they tend to laugh off the foregone conclusion? In other words is there any difference between an unnamed supernatural event and a named one?

Perhaps the purpose of Percys hypothetical event is to stir up a conversation as to how each one of us would hypothetically react were we to observe this bridge moving.Would we approach this event with a scientific mind or would we approach it with the awe that society might approach a hypothetical event such as The Rapture? That makes sense. Thus if millions of people *suddenly* disappeared, leaving piles of clothes behind, and the evidence showed that many of them were wearing crosses, we would still not properly conclude that any sort of Rapture happened, correct? We would simply seek to better understand the natural law of gravity. So what if the observations were verified? What if many witnesses reported seeing someone in front of them who reportedly vanished?

So you are suggesting that one cannot ever ascribe something as miraculous if they have any scientific education? Why is it so important to avoid the terminology? Why is it not simply a matter of choice? I wouldn't be too sure about that statement. You are giving science far more faith than it warrants. No wonder you never became a believer. You put way more faith in science than it has earned. The bigger philosophical questions will never be concluded by experiments. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Not really. You are saying that *you* don't use it.
You don't have the authority to speak for all who use science on a daily basis---either as a career or as a tool. Many of them attend churches, some are believers, and others are not, but the fact is that science as a discipline only extends as far into their daily lives as they choose to let it do. Thus to say that *science* doesn't use this or that nor do this or that is simply your linguistic hangup and not an actual fact of reality. Science is used as far as an individual takes it. There is no rule regarding where science stops and faith and belief begin. You are projecting. What you again seem to be saying is that *you* will never stop trying.This is similar to an argument that you and I once had regarding the term evidence. Thus the evidence in your mind was evident to you...but not by decree to everyone!

Seen in context with our discussion regarding the science of miracles... Can Science Prove The Existence Of God?A good article! Some notable quotes for fodder: The author, a scientist, voices his perspective on faith and science. The article that I quoted never referred to intelligent life as a miracle, but indicated that science has stopped at the evidence thus far and that nothing evidently has been proven regarding human uniqueness vs math probability of replication throughout the universe. For the time being, our existence is statistically rare, if not miraculous. (But what of the atomic clock?)Edited by Phat, : added clock comment

In essence, are you saying that we are never allowed to speculate? Or present a hypothetical scenario that has not actually occurred?

All that I have read indicates that a miracle is simply defined as an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Though more commonly ascribed to religious events, religion itself does not seem to need to be attached to the definition.Personally, I think you have a sort of vendetta against religion to the point that you are campaigning to get science to distance itself from any vocabulary hinting at such. As I told Pressie, you (also) are overreacting.

So that's essentially your whole point, then? That Percy chose the wrong word to define an unexplainable event that appeared to contradict natural and scientific laws? Are Miracles Possible ~ Some good discussions here.My conclusion is that people---scientists included---can use whatever word they want. There is no definite rule that says otherwise.

Since this debate/discussion is going nowhere, I gleaned similar arguments from the internet. Some of them are further food for thought: DO MIRACLES REALLY VIOLATE THE LAWS OF SCIENCE?
Your argument is nothing more than an informed opinion.Granted you have framed the parameters of how science should think and of what science should or should never conclude.While acknowledging your argument, I don't find it as the final word.

Ringo seems to argue that true science would never resort to using the M word. My counter-argument is that scientists speak as individuals and not as a group. Thus, some may use the M word and others would stick with currently unexplainable....

The participants in this argument are examples. Granted we are not scientists, so you do have a point in that science does not (currently) use the word.The reason that the argument continues is that you stay on one side of it and refuse to use the M Word. God knows why! Science has an excuse...but for the sake of our discussion, you have no excuse why to continue being stubborn.My point is that at least some of science would resort to using the word were a hypothetical scenario such as percy describes occur.While you have successfully argued that science, in general, does not use the word, you have failed to allow yourself to consider that hypothetically they may someday use it. Science, after all, is not chiefly atheistic.

I say that it would truly be a miracle if ringo agreed with anything said in this discussion by his opponents.He apparently never knows when to stop arguing.Reminds me of this:

Lets review the Bridge Analogy and fill in some details. Indeed. There would be loads of data to consider. The moorings where the seperation occurred would be examined to determine how the break occurred. Any and all witness testimony would be taken into consideration in order to see if any additional facts, such as a low flying aircraft could be found. The atmosphere and the weather would be reviewed at the time of the event. The bridge itself would be thoroughly examined and likely even dismantled for further study from its new location. The media would of course go nuts, and there would be a lot of fake news among the real news reports on the event.The media interviews with qualified scientists with appropriate credentials would likely have most of them cautious as to what they would say on the record. They likely would say that they were baffled and explain why it was that they arrived at this conclusion.Ringo is correct in that they likely would not go on record publically using the word Miracle but that the media would freely use it as the reality became apparent that there were no natural scientific explanations for what had occurred. As for off-the-record, it would be likely that the scientists involved with the ongoing two+ year study and followup on the event would have individual opinions as to what they would call this unprecedented event.

Following up on my last post, the study would likely take no longer than a few months or at most a couple of years. There is only so much that can be studied. some scientists would state that they were baffled and at a loss for any explanation. Others would, as you likely would, say that if it took them their entire career they would eventually solve the mystery.You must concede, however, that a fair number would actually give up further research and go on with their lives. What they privately chose to call the event would be as unique and individual as their very different lives and experiences.