Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2018 6:49 PM
247 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,580 Year: 15,403/29,783 Month: 1,347/1,502 Week: 104/241 Day: 57/47 Hour: 4/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
45NextFF
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
Percy
Member
Posts: 17750
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 331 of 671 (826535)
01-03-2018 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by ringo
01-03-2018 2:34 PM


I'll respond to your three replies in this single message.

First responding to Message 326:

ringo writes:

Percy writes:

When the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson, analysis could conclude miracle with perfect scientific validity since the conclusion is tentative.


You're kidding, right? Do you seriously think science would conclude a miracle?

It's inexplicable by natural and scientific laws, and that's the definition of a miracle.

Percy writes:

Tangle and are in agreement on this.


So Tangle and [nobody] are in agreement on this?

This was in the context of where you said Tangle was "the only one" - I quoted it in the Message 313 that you were replying to. Obviously I meant to type "Tangle and I".

Percy writes:

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."


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"?

The difference is the word "causes". As I explained, I wouldn't want people to think I was saying anything synonymous with "can be explained by supernatural causes."

Percy writes:

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.


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.

But I do - we're speaking hypothetically, or at least some of us are trying to. Hypothetically, how would science respond were an unambiguous miracle to happen, such as the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson. It's fine if you don't want to engage in discussion of a hypothetical miracle, but you don't get to place limits on what can be considered hypothetically.

Moving on to Message 327:

If Phat wants to call "faith" in the only available option a "religion", he's welcome to.

In this thread we're considering additional hypothetical possibilities.

Moving on to Message 329:

Percy writes:

Tangle and I have presented examples that are not explicable by currently understood natural or scientific laws.


You've made up examples that have nothing to do with miracles. Those events did not happen. That's where the scientific investigation ends.

Of course the examples of miracles we're making up have not happened. We're looking at how science would respond if, hypothetically, they did.

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?

We can't talk about real miracles from a scientific perspective because there has never been a scientifically verified miracle. We're asking what would it mean if a scientifically verified miracle *did* occur.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 01-03-2018 2:34 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by ringo, posted 01-04-2018 2:03 PM Percy has responded
 Message 336 by NoNukes, posted 01-05-2018 4:54 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17750
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 332 of 671 (826536)
01-03-2018 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by caffeine
01-03-2018 2:41 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
caffeine writes:

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.

We can ask the question and try to answer it, because that's what science does, but we could fail to answer it. Tentatively, that would mean miracles (events inexplicable by natural and scientific laws) can happen.

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?

My intended emphasis was on non-determinism. Quantum mechanics was just an example of something that has non-determinism. In other words, just as we can't know which slit an electron will pass through, neither can we know when a miracle will occur or what form it will take.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by caffeine, posted 01-03-2018 2:41 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11328
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 333 of 671 (826551)
01-04-2018 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Percy
12-16-2017 10:28 AM


Re: Faith in what?
Percy writes:

What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent?

Good question. As a believer, I would of course prefer that I at least believe in something undetectable rather than non-existent.

jar,in another thread writes:

Just another example of the CCoI belief in source over content.


Some emphasize the source of a miracle (or unexplained event) while others focus on the content and/or effect of the event itself.

Percy writes:

Sure, miracles could be taking place a mile a minute "in other worlds" (I'm assuming you mean other universes), but how would we ever know?

More to the point, will we ever know? Perhaps ringo has a point in that a miracle need never be defined as such until and unless one believes that it should be.

Percy writes:

But if miracles are part of the natural world then unless God is playing games with us it is possible for them to take place where scientific observations are being conducted.

One would think that we should at one point get the opportunity.

Percy writes:

Given that our understanding of the universe is based upon evidence, upon things we can detect, how could we ever gain any knowledge about something that, being undetectable, leaves behind no evidence, or measure how it is different from the nonexistent, which identically also leaves behind no evidence?

The standard creo answer is that we were left with an ancient book which explains it all. If that's all we have to work with, however, I don't blame some for concluding that the undetectable is in fact non-existent.

Percy writes:

My strongest faith is that there is purpose to the universe.

Thus it logically follows that all miracles should have purpose. Would there hypothetically be such a thing as a random miracle?


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 110 by Percy, posted 12-16-2017 10:28 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1504
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 334 of 671 (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 yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 335 of 671 (826586)
01-04-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Percy
01-03-2018 4:42 PM


Percy writes:

It's inexplicable by natural and scientific laws, and that's the definition of a miracle.


No, that is not the definition of a miracle. Only the person who attributes the event to supernatural power is unable to explain it.

Percy writes:

The difference is the word "causes".


I don't see any difference. The "laws" are just a description of the causes.

Percy writes:

Hypothetically, how would science respond were an unambiguous miracle to happen, such as the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson.


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.

Percy writes:

We can't talk about real miracles from a scientific perspective because there has never been a scientifically verified miracle.


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.

Percy writes:

We're asking what would it mean if a scientifically verified miracle *did* occur.


That's a nonsensical question. Science can not verify miracles. If science can verify it, it's not a miracle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Percy, posted 01-03-2018 4:42 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Percy, posted 01-05-2018 12:20 PM ringo has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 336 of 671 (826609)
01-05-2018 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Percy
01-03-2018 4:42 PM


It's inexplicable by natural and scientific laws, and that's the definition of a miracle.

I don't think this is a useful definition. Scientific laws are merely descriptive, and many of them are not linked to any ultimate cause. For 200 years after Newton formulated the law of universal gravitation, the actual mechanism for gravity was a complete mystery; in short inexplicable. Should attraction at a distance have been characterized as a miracle during that time? Now we have accepted that gravity is an effect generated by the warping of space by mass, but is that warping miraculous? Why should mass or energy distort the geometry of space-time?

For lots of science, it is accepted on faith that things we have no mechanism for actually do have a natural cause even when we are absolutely clueless regarding what that cause is. We can only verify after we successfully explain them to some arbitrary degree that such things are explicable.

If magic actually worked and was repeatable, would an explanation that saying phrase x and making gesture y creates an effect by sufficient to make the magic not miraculous?

In short, we cannot explain the miraculous. But often we cannot even explain the mundane. Hence inexplicability is insufficient to categorize the two.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Percy, posted 01-03-2018 4:42 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2018 6:07 AM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 341 by Percy, posted 01-05-2018 12:40 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6186
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 337 of 671 (826610)
01-05-2018 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by NoNukes
01-05-2018 4:54 AM


NoNukes writes:

In short, we cannot explain the miraculous. But often we cannot even explain the mundane. Hence inexplicability is insufficient to categorize the two.

I've used two hypothetical examples of what I claim would be miraculous to try to get beyond this point.

1. The priest chanting over a cup of wine changing it to blood on demand. Repeatedly. Chosen because Catholics claim this to be a real miraculous event and one that we know is not.

2. A bridge being lifted into the air by winged cherubs on the command of a priest.

These events could be tested to destruction by science and no natural causation would be found. The thing that makes these obvious miracles is that laws that we fully understand are being broken on demand through a human agent.

These are not universal events like gravity, they're localised and specific. They're also not effects at the edge of our understanding like quantum physics or dark matter, they're local interventions in stuff we fully understand. And they involve powers that we fully know that humans do not possess.

It's more than a little absurd to pretend that these things are just effects we don't understand yet, we're not stone age ignorants, we know a lot of stuff for sure about our world and we know for sure that it's impossible for materials to behave in that way. We'd be forced to conclude some form of magical intervention.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by NoNukes, posted 01-05-2018 4:54 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by AlexCaledin, posted 01-05-2018 10:03 AM Tangle has responded

  
AlexCaledin
Member (Idle past 128 days)
Posts: 41
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 338 of 671 (826613)
01-05-2018 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Tangle
01-05-2018 6:07 AM


- "magic intervention" hardly makes sense, considering the truth that everything is already pervaded and sustained by the Spirit from the very beginning. When some event looks like "intervention", it's actually just a change - allowed by the Spirit - in the game rules, or just an improbable but quite natural event. Our common problem, ever since Adam, is overestimating the reality of the "material" aspect. This problem comes from nowadays devils' tactic to conceal themselves playing the "scientific" game whenever possible. This forms, in the atheist heart, the Sacred Hope to repose in perfect non-existence after death.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2018 6:07 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2018 10:10 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6186
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 339 of 671 (826614)
01-05-2018 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by AlexCaledin
01-05-2018 10:03 AM


AC writes:

magic intervention" hardly makes sense, considering the truth that everything is already pervaded and sustained by the Spirit from the very beginning.

Magic intervention and stuff being “pervaded and sustained by the Spirit” are both bonkers ideas.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by AlexCaledin, posted 01-05-2018 10:03 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Phat, posted 01-08-2018 7:28 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17750
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 340 of 671 (826619)
01-05-2018 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by ringo
01-04-2018 2:03 PM


ringo writes:

Percy writes:

It's inexplicable by natural and scientific laws, and that's the definition of a miracle.


No, that is not the definition of a miracle. Only the person who attributes the event to supernatural power is unable to explain it.

An event inexplicable by natural and scientific laws *is* the definition of miracle. It may be attributed to various things, of which Wikipedia provides a few examples:

quote:
A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.

There's no reason that list of possible attributions should be considered complete. And it does say "may be attributed," so attribution isn't a necessity. Just as which slit an electron passes through has no attribution, neither does a miracle require attribution.

Percy writes:

The difference is the word "causes".


I don't see any difference. The "laws" are just a description of the causes.

Natural and scientific laws describe how the universe behaves in response to causes - the laws are not causes in themselves. For example, a moving cue ball may strike another billiard ball and cause it to move, but the moving cue ball is not a law, it is a cause. "Law" and "cause" are not synonyms.

Percy writes:

Hypothetically, how would science respond were an unambiguous miracle to happen, such as the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson.


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.

Why are you ignoring the word "hypothetically"? Of course the George Washington Bridge is still at it's original construction location. 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.

Tangle provides a somewhat similar example in Message 337 that has a religious motif: A bridge being lifted into the air by winged cherubs on the command of a priest.

Percy writes:

We can't talk about real miracles from a scientific perspective because there has never been a scientifically verified miracle.


We certainly can talk about claimed miracles. There are plenty of them.

But the title of this thread is The "science" of Miracles, not "claimed miracles." We don't have any scientifically validated miracles to discuss that I know of. If you know of a scientifically validated miracle then please bring it into the discussion, or if you know of miracles that have the potential to be scientifically studied then we could look at those, too. I provided a list to Faith at one point in the The Tension of Faith thread, she didn't like it (no surprise) but provided no examples of her own, in fact denying that miracles happen anymore, but anyway, here's the link to the list: Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles. I liked #9, the incorruptible corpses, as the one that provides the best opportunity for scientific study.

But there are usually obvious problems with what some people call miracles, like that they're something people claimed to see but there's no hard evidence, or if there's evidence then it's sacred (like the incorruptible corpses) and though people like you and I are sure there's a scientific explanation, scientists will not be permitted to study them.

You don't have to make up phony ones to try to prop up an erroneous definition.

"Hypothetical" and "phony" are not synonyms, and I'm using the definition of miracle from Wikipedia.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by ringo, posted 01-04-2018 2:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by ringo, posted 01-07-2018 2:23 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17750
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 341 of 671 (826621)
01-05-2018 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by NoNukes
01-05-2018 4:54 AM


NoNukes writes:

It's inexplicable by natural and scientific laws, and that's the definition of a miracle.

I don't think this is a useful definition.

It's the one from Wikipedia. Definitions from dictionaries are shorter but basically the same.

Scientific laws are merely descriptive, and many of them are not linked to any ultimate cause.

Yes, agreed, I just said pretty much the same thing to Ringo in my previous message.

For 200 years after Newton formulated the law of universal gravitation, the actual mechanism for gravity was a complete mystery; in short inexplicable.

But the definition of miracle isn't that which is inexplicable. The definition is an event that is inexplicable by known natural and scientific laws. We don't know what laws govern the nature of the laws we've established, so though they are inexplicable in this way, they aren't inexplicable by known natural and scientific laws. And a law isn't an event.

Should attraction at a distance have been characterized as a miracle during that time?

I assume you're referring to the law, not an example of something being attracted to something else at a distance.
Since the law wasn't inexplicable by known natural and scientific laws, in other words, since it wasn't in violation of already established science, no.

Now we have accepted that gravity is an effect generated by the warping of space by mass, but is that warping miraculous?

No, for the same reason.

Why should mass or energy distort the geometry of space-time?

No, not miraculous, for the same reason.

For lots of science, it is accepted on faith that things we have no mechanism for actually do have a natural cause even when we are absolutely clueless regarding what that cause is. We can only verify after we successfully explain them to some arbitrary degree that such things are explicable.

Agreed, but again, "inexplicable" is only part of the definition of miracle.

If magic actually worked and was repeatable, would an explanation that saying phrase x and making gesture y creates an effect by sufficient to make the magic not miraculous?

I used a different example, but I asked the same question upthread. If we study miracles and find that they follow certain principles and rules, does that make them no longer miracles? My answer is yes, they could no longer be considered miracles. And it's okay that science at one point considered them miracles and then later decided that they weren't, because of tentativity.

In short, we cannot explain the miraculous. But often we cannot even explain the mundane. Hence inexplicability is insufficient to categorize the two.

Yes, I agree that inexplicability is insufficient for distinguishing between the miraculous and the mundane, but inexplicable is only one aspect of the definition of miracle.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by NoNukes, posted 01-05-2018 4:54 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by NoNukes, posted 01-05-2018 1:03 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 342 of 671 (826622)
01-05-2018 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Percy
01-05-2018 12:40 PM


It's the one from Wikipedia. Definitions from dictionaries are shorter but basically the same.

I don't care where it came from. The definition has some rather obvious flaws in it.
Dictionaries have their limits.

But the definition of miracle isn't that which is inexplicable. The definition is an event that is inexplicable by known natural and scientific laws.

The problem is that we don't know everything. I tried to demonstrate that with an example or two, but that does not seem to have made the slightest impression. The moon orbiting the earth was never a miracle no matter what we thought back when.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Percy, posted 01-05-2018 12:40 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Percy, posted 01-05-2018 1:49 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 01-05-2018 1:57 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17750
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 343 of 671 (826624)
01-05-2018 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by NoNukes
01-05-2018 1:03 PM


NoNukes writes:

It's the one from Wikipedia. Definitions from dictionaries are shorter but basically the same.

I don't care where it came from. The definition has some rather obvious flaws in it.

Such as?

You're offering the same objection as Ringo - the definition I've offered is wrong, but in what way it is wrong is left unsaid.

But the definition of miracle isn't that which is inexplicable. The definition is an event that is inexplicable by known natural and scientific laws.

The problem is that we don't know everything. I tried to demonstrate that with an example or two, but that does not seem to have made the slightest impression.

Of course it made an impression, which is why I replied to it, explaining why they weren't examples of miracles.

The moon orbiting the earth was never a miracle no matter what we thought back when.

Yes, I agree. But a miracle isn't just "inexplicable," it's "inexplicable by any known natural or scientific laws." The law of attraction of bodies with mass was not inexplicable by any known natural or scientific laws.

Your point has a somewhat similar feel to the question, "Why something instead of nothing?" and you could follow this question with another more germane to this thread: "Is it a miracle that there is something instead of nothing?" It does seem inexplicable, but does it break any known natural or scientific laws? I don't think we know enough at present to answer that question in the affirmative.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by NoNukes, posted 01-05-2018 1:03 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by NoNukes, posted 01-05-2018 8:49 PM Percy has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11328
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 344 of 671 (826625)
01-05-2018 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by NoNukes
01-05-2018 1:03 PM


A Rose By Any Other Name
The moon orbiting the earth was never a miracle no matter what we thought back when.
However, if back then the known scientific law had not been discovered, the event would fit Percys definition.

Could we thus agree that miracles are subjective by definition and tentative by definition?


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 342 by NoNukes, posted 01-05-2018 1:03 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 345 of 671 (826643)
01-05-2018 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Percy
01-05-2018 1:49 PM


You're offering the same objection as Ringo - the definition I've offered is wrong, but in what way it is wrong is left unsaid.

What I said about the definition was that it was useless and what I mean is that consulting those definitions in the dictionary will not advance the discussion here in any way. The problem is that phenomena can fit the dictionary definition and yet we will all agree that those phenomena are not miracles.

And I have explained in detail why I think that is the case. To summarize, even when things cannot be explained at the time by the knowledge of the day, we still do not call those things miracles as long as we are willing to speculate that science is merely not currently advanced enough.

The explanations I am giving here are not new. They are in my previous posts. Your statement that I am not explaining why the dictionary is unhelpful is just plain wrong.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Percy, posted 01-05-2018 1:49 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Percy, posted 01-06-2018 11:17 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
45NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018