Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:14 AM
326 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8802
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 20 (119382)
06-28-2004 2:35 AM


Arkathon has suggested:

quote:
Miracles are very scientific. It's just that our science is still quite backward to grasp how God's science does these things.

from:
Message 72

My questions are:
What is science then?
How are miracles to be included in this kind of "science"?
How will this be a better way to learn about the natural world?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2004 2:45 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Lammy, posted 06-28-2004 8:00 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 11-16-2017 10:45 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 11-16-2017 11:06 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 20 (119383)
06-28-2004 2:36 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 20 (119557)
06-28-2004 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
06-28-2004 2:35 AM


questions for arkathon
what's the evidence for miracles?

what is the hypothesis for how they {occur \ act}?

what is a testable prediction for the hypothesis that cannot be answered by scientific means?

the foundation needed for science ....


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 06-28-2004 2:35 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3577
From: Florida
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 4 of 20 (119698)
06-28-2004 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
06-28-2004 2:35 AM


I don't understand what is scientific about miracles if the only answer you can give is "goddunit". What's the point of investigating something miraculous then? Goddunit, period.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 06-28-2004 2:35 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2004 8:17 PM Lammy has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Abshalom, posted 06-28-2004 9:39 PM Lammy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 20 (119705)
06-28-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Lammy
06-28-2004 8:00 PM


untestable, ergo not scientific.

heh


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Lammy, posted 06-28-2004 8:00 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 20 (119721)
06-28-2004 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Lammy
06-28-2004 8:00 PM


Scientifically Explained "Miracles"
quote:
Lam: "What's the point of investigating something miraculous then? Goddunit, period."

How about when a person perceives a miracle due maybe to a phenomenum that can be explained scientifically. Oh, say for example, the person unknowingly ingests a substance like Jimsom weed, or some rainforest root emulsion, that trips a miraculous occurance in that person's perception. Now, you might be hard pressed to convince that person that the perception of a miracle was tripped by the accidental ingestion of an herbal substance, but an outside observer could be convinced by an appropriate scientific explanation. I think this is not an uncommon reality in the world of "miracles."

I think other miraculous occurances can be and have been tripped by gaseous fumes (Oracles), high intensity electric and microwave transmissions (UFOs), blowfish bladders (Voodoo), and lightening strikes (St. Paul) just for a few examples.

The point of investigating something of supposed miraculous or supernatural origin is to arrive at: 1) a scientific explanation, or 2) a faith-based acceptance (if only until a scientific explanation is provided). After all, we're only human.

{Added quote box and removed long line of -'s, to restore page width to normal - AM}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-28-2004 09:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Lammy, posted 06-28-2004 8:00 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Lammy, posted 06-28-2004 11:39 PM Abshalom has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3577
From: Florida
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 20 (119755)
06-28-2004 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Abshalom
06-28-2004 9:39 PM


Re: Scientifically Explained "Miracles"
Very good answer for my question. However, I'm not the person you should be telling that to. Almeyda, Arkathon, steve, and DarkStar are some of the people you should be telling that to.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Abshalom, posted 06-28-2004 9:39 PM Abshalom has not yet responded

    
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 20 (119798)
06-29-2004 1:45 AM


What do you mean by miracles exactly?. Are you talking about extradinary intervention by God in our world?. Contradictory to the normal laws of nature?. Being a christian we must believe in miracles because the Bible tells us they happened. Miracles can happen because God made them happen and God is beyond our 'natural laws', Also there is nothing better than to authenticate your religion by performing miracles. But when talking about miracles & science we must ask what is science, and what is not science. Philosophers cant agree on what science is, which is strange because they continue to tell us that creation science is not science, and also contradict themselves when saying creation science is not science because its not testable. They then say the various claims of scientific evidence for creation have been examined & proven false, but examined means tested doesnt it?. So which is it?. Some people say if you believe in miracles you wont be able to do science properly. But many founders of modern science were christians who believed in miracles. But what they believed was that the miracles were finished, for example Gods creation. They believed that God did not intervene with random miracles so that means there natural science could work and the natural world could be investigated. So natural law may be just our own description of how God normally upholds things. This does not necessarily mean miracles cannot happen, ever.

Secular philosopher argue there is no absolute truth, but is what he just said an absolutely true statement?. Others say 'how can you be sure, nothings for sure'. Well then how do you know what you just said is for sure??. So besides a bias against the supernatural, God, the Bible, miracles etc. One cant know for sure miracles cannot be a part of this world. Unless a materialistic,naturalist bias. Another thing i can mention about sceptics and 'natural law' is this. If the athiesm is true and the world is not created why should there be natural law? Why should there be regularity?. I mean wasnt it God that taught man that the earth is orderly,consistent,and possible to investigate?. What if there was more than one God, and there were competing natural laws?. Its possible since nothing is for sure right?. What if 'new age' thoughts is right and the universe is a massive thought? well it could change its mind at anytime right???. And going back to origins like big bangs and pond scum, well these are mere accidents therefore our thought processes are also mere accidents. Why should one acident be able to give account of all the other accidents?. Weres all this proud humanistic and athiestic thoughts coming from? Why should an athiests views be greater than a christian if he cant even justify his own reasoning process. Going back to natural law however, the only reason its natural is because its an isolated system, left as it is without any outside input. But can this system really be isolated if God exists?. If God exist he can do what he likes with his creation.

Sceptics argue Jesus cannot walk on water for something denser than water would sink to the bottom, but only if something else is not acting on it. So Jesus being God could certainly apply a force that could counteract the gravitational force. So miracles should not be thought of as exceptions to natural law but as additions to them. So Jesus being outside the system can add something to the system. So how can scientist perform science if miracles happen? Well the answer is simple, We have an orderly God, not a God of confusion. So real science is very much possible while believing in miracles. So to convince a sceptic about miracles being possible there isnt much reasons to give except the Bible which tells us miracles happen and the fact that theres no logical reason to disprove a miracle besides a bias to materialism, and circular reasoning.

So we can see that Gods power and intervention may not be limited to the capacity of mans mind. Miracles are additions to natural law, but in the same place christian theology seems to be the one that justifies natural and orderly law in the first place. Confusing topic much?. It is for me.


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Lammy, posted 06-29-2004 4:07 AM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 06-29-2004 9:14 AM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 06-29-2004 1:37 PM almeyda has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3577
From: Florida
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 20 (119835)
06-29-2004 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by almeyda
06-29-2004 1:45 AM


And all of that have what to do with science?


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by almeyda, posted 06-29-2004 1:45 AM almeyda has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3998
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 10 of 20 (119907)
06-29-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by almeyda
06-29-2004 1:45 AM


What do you mean by miracles exactly?. Are you talking about extradinary intervention by God in our world?. Contradictory to the normal laws of nature?.

Yes, and (if they indeed exist) other supernatural occurences.

Philosophers cant agree on what science is, which is strange because they continue to tell us that creation science is not science, and also contradict themselves when saying creation science is not science because its not testable. They then say the various claims of scientific evidence for creation have been examined & proven false, but examined means tested doesnt it?.

No contradiction. The core of current "creation science", the axioms that God created the world about 6,000 years ago and intervened in various ways since then, is indeed untestable within a scientific pardigm and renders "creation sicence" unscientific. However, some of the individual claims of "creation scientists", such as "radiometric dating must be false" or "Flood waters could have come from a vapor canopy" can be tested for their conformance with natural laws and consistently fail those tests. Faling those tests does not mean that they could not have happened ... it does mean that they could not have happened without miraculous intervention, which is outside the realm of science.

But many founders of modern science were christians who believed in miracles.

As are many current scientists.

So how can scientist perform science if miracles happen? Well the answer is simple, We have an orderly God, not a God of confusion.

There's the nub of the problem. You are trying to constrain your God to doing only what you think makes sense. Well, if indeed your God does exist, He's not constrained by your hopes that He won't do something that you don't like. If we admit God and miracles to science, there is no reason to believe that God will not interfere at any particular time, and there is no reason to beleive the core axiom of science; that there is a real world that behaves in a consistent manner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by almeyda, posted 06-29-2004 1:45 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 20 (119997)
06-29-2004 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by almeyda
06-29-2004 1:45 AM


quote:
Philosophers cant agree on what science is, which is strange because they continue to tell us that creation science is not science, and also contradict themselves when saying creation science is not science because its not testable.

Philosophers fully realize what science is. It is the explanation of natural phenomena through natural mechanisms. Science relies on theories/hypotheses that are tested through empirical data and observations. Creation "science" relies on either untestable, supernatural mechanisms (ie miracles) or ignores empirical data and observations that falsify their position. The theory that they rely on is the inerrancy of the bible, which they have yet to demonstrate as a reliable relfection of the natural world.

quote:
Some people say if you believe in miracles you wont be able to do science properly. But many founders of modern science were christians who believed in miracles.

Show me one "founder of science" whose theories are used today and require a belief in a diety or miracles for the theory to be true. Show me one scientific theory used today that requires the intervention of any diety. Show me how not believing in God makes Newton's laws of motion fall apart. Sorry brother, you are barking up the wrong tree.

quote:
So natural law may be just our own description of how God normally upholds things. This does not necessarily mean miracles cannot happen, ever.

But this necessarily means that evolution is wrong and the earth is only 6,000 years old? How about God created the natural laws at the creation of the universe (Big Bang) which he knew would result in the life-forms we see today over billions of years? Why doesn't this fit into your world-view? Is the inerrancy of a literal reading of Genesis so important that you feel that it is necessary to limit God?

quote:
Secular philosopher argue there is no absolute truth, but is what he just said an absolutely true statement?

It's like saying "Never say never." Philosophers are absolutely right in saying that they will never be absolutely right. Mind bender, ain't it.

quote:
One cant know for sure miracles cannot be a part of this world.

No we can't know for sure. However, we are still able to predict things within the natural world without resorting to miracles. Why is that? If miracles are necessary, then predictions that ignore miracles should not come true. But they do. The correlation between the DNA of living species and the fossil record is just one of those predictions that did not require miracles but yet still came true. Predicting orbits for satellites requires mathematics, not prayer or miracles. Science has had a lot of success with a bias against miracles, and absolutely no success when it includes them.

quote:
Sceptics argue Jesus cannot walk on water for something denser than water would sink to the bottom, but only if something else is not acting on it.

And skeptics argue that Mohammed Ali was not a true prophet of God. Which skeptics is science supposed to listen to? Why should science be limited to christianity? Why don't "creation scientists" try to apply Native American creation stories into their theories? It would seem that scientific skeptics only discount one more diety than creation scientists do. Either you include all of them as being equal or exclude all of them. Science has had the greatest success when it excludes all religions and dieties. Can you show us how science has been successful when a diety is an integral part of a theory?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by almeyda, posted 06-29-2004 1:45 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 12 of 20 (823744)
11-16-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
06-28-2004 2:35 AM


How Can A Miracle Be Identified?
NosyNed writes:

My questions are:
What is science then?
How are miracles to be included in this kind of "science"?
How will this be a better way to learn about the natural world?

Also adding jars line of questioning from The Tension Of Faith:

jar writes:

First, how would someone identify some event as a miracle?

Second, why call something a miracle rather than calling it unexplained?

Some interesting responses in this 13 year old EvC Topic.....

The point of investigating something of supposed miraculous or supernatural origin is to arrive at: 1) a scientific explanation, or 2) a faith-based acceptance (if only until a scientific explanation is provided). After all, we're only human.

What do you mean by miracles exactly?. Are you talking about extraordinary intervention by God in our world?. Contradictory to the normal laws of nature?. Being a Christian we must believe in miracles because the Bible tells us they happened. Miracles can happen because God made them happen and God is beyond our 'natural laws', Also there is nothing better than to authenticate your religion by performing miracles.

But when talking about miracles & science we must ask what is science, and what is not science. Philosophers cant agree on what science is, which is strange because they continue to tell us that creation science is not science, and also contradict themselves when saying creation science is not science because it's not testable. They then say the various claims of scientific evidence for creation have been examined & proven false but examined means tested, doesn't it?. So which is it?. Some people say if you believe in miracles you won't be able to do science properly. But many founders of modern science were Christians who believed in miracles.

But what they believed was that the miracles were finished, for example, Gods creation. They believed that God did not intervene with random miracles so that means there natural science could work and the natural world could be investigated. So natural law may be just our own description of how God normally upholds things. This does not necessarily mean miracles cannot happen, ever.(...)Sceptics argue Jesus cannot walk on water for something denser than water would sink to the bottom, but only if something else is not acting on it. So Jesus being God could certainly apply a force that could counteract the gravitational force. So miracles should not be thought of as exceptions to natural law but as additions to them. So Jesus being outside the system can add something to the system. So how can scientist perform science if miracles happen? Well, the answer is simple, We have an orderly God, not a God of confusion. So real science is very much possible while believing in miracles. So to convince a skeptic about miracles being possible there isn't many reasons to give except the Bible which tells us miracles happen and the fact that there's no logical reason to disprove a miracle besides a bias to materialism, and circular reasoning.

So we can see that Gods power and intervention may not be limited to the capacity of man's mind. Miracles are additions to natural law, but in the same place, Christian theology seems to be the one that justifies natural and orderly law in the first place.

Thus the argument resumes 13 years later. Here is another one:

The core of current "creation science", the axioms that God created the world about 6,000 years ago and intervened in various ways since then, is indeed untestable within a scientific paradigm and renders "creation science" unscientific. However, some of the individual claims of "creation scientists", such as "radiometric dating must be false" or "Flood waters could have come from a vapor canopy" can be tested for their conformance with natural laws and consistently fail those tests.

Comments?

Edited by Phat, : spelling and paragraph corrections


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 06-28-2004 2:35 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 13 of 20 (823749)
11-16-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
06-28-2004 2:35 AM


Arkathon writes:

Miracles are very scientific. It's just that our science is still quite backward to grasp how God's science does these things.


Self-contradiction. Predicting what science might uncover in the future is not scientific.

It did take us a while to figure out miracles like lightning. Our ability to raise people from the dead is improving every day. But that's no reason to think we'll ever be able to flood whole planets with water that doesn't exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 06-28-2004 2:35 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 11-16-2017 11:21 AM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 14 of 20 (823751)
11-16-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
11-16-2017 11:06 AM


What Is Gods Science?
I'm still trying to figure out what Gods Science is.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 11-16-2017 11:06 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 11-16-2017 11:42 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 15 of 20 (823753)
11-16-2017 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
11-16-2017 11:21 AM


Re: What Is Gods Science?
Phat writes:

I'm still trying to figure out what Gods Science is.


If God uses science, then he's an alien with a more advanced technology than ours. That's the most plausible kind of god.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 11-16-2017 11:21 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2017 12:22 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017