Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 94 (8832 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2018 6:22 PM
191 online now:
Coragyps, Modulous (AdminModulous), ooh-child (3 members, 188 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,609 Year: 5,432/29,783 Month: 1,364/1,467 Week: 250/311 Day: 30/89 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
45NextFF
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
ringo
Member
Posts: 14516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 376 of 671 (826772)
01-09-2018 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Phat
01-09-2018 11:50 AM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:

Its like playing Simon Says with him, though he calls it Science Says.


What better source can you name?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 11:50 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:12 PM ringo has responded
 Message 396 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 5:07 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 377 of 671 (826773)
01-09-2018 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by ringo
01-09-2018 11:58 AM


Re: Consensus
Perhaps the creator of science.

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 376 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 11:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 12:17 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 378 of 671 (826774)
01-09-2018 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Phat
01-09-2018 12:12 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:

Perhaps the creator of science.


Humans created science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:12 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:21 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 379 of 671 (826775)
01-09-2018 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by ringo
01-09-2018 12:17 PM


Re: Consensus
Exactly. But science existed before we did. We just formalized it.

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 378 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 12:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 12:25 PM Phat has responded
 Message 385 by frako, posted 01-10-2018 8:15 AM Phat has responded
 Message 392 by NoNukes, posted 01-11-2018 11:15 AM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 380 of 671 (826776)
01-09-2018 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Phat
01-09-2018 12:21 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:

But science existed before we did.


Nope. In fact, we were around for a long time before we figured it out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:21 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:26 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 381 of 671 (826777)
01-09-2018 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by ringo
01-09-2018 12:25 PM


Re: Consensus
So are you saying that nothing exists until we figure it out? That would explain why you are an unbeliever.

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 380 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 12:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 12:32 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 382 of 671 (826778)
01-09-2018 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Phat
01-09-2018 12:26 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:

So are you saying that nothing exists until we figure it out?


Nothing that humans created existed before humans created it. Is that so hard to understand?

Phat writes:

That would explain why you are an unbeliever.


You're trying too hard to figure out what makes me an unbeliever. I'm an unbeliever because beliefs like yours are so empty.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:26 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:41 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 383 of 671 (826780)
01-09-2018 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by ringo
01-09-2018 12:32 PM


Re: Consensus
The only reason you see them as empty is that you count on evidence to fill up your every uncertainty. I realize that evidence is not always available and is usually not plentiful even if available.

Everyone is trying to get you to accept the possibility of miracles. You evidently conclude that belief without evidence should be discarded. I am trying to find out why you feel this way.


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 382 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 12:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Taq, posted 01-09-2018 4:33 PM Phat has responded
 Message 405 by ringo, posted 01-26-2018 10:48 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7421
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 384 of 671 (826795)
01-09-2018 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Phat
01-09-2018 12:41 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:

Everyone is trying to get you to accept the possibility of miracles. You evidently conclude that belief without evidence should be discarded. I am trying to find out why you feel this way.

Accepting a possibility and believing something to be true are not the same thing.

Is it possible that you have won the Powerball twice in the last 10 years? I guess it is possible, but I don't believe you have. Without evidence, is there any reason why I should believe you have won the Powerball lottery twice in the last 10 years? Just because something is possible does not mean it happened, and no amount of begging is going to make them into the same ting.

If all we have is a bare assertion that something is true, then why shouldn't we discard that assertion until there is evidence to support it? Otherwise, anything we make up at the drop of the hat would have to be considered true until proven otherwise, and that makes no sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:41 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 12:05 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2766
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 385 of 671 (826803)
01-10-2018 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Phat
01-09-2018 12:21 PM


Re: Consensus
Exactly. But science existed before we did. We just formalized it.

Science is an idea that you can figure out the world by observing testing and objective measurement. Just an idea it does not exist in reality, And that idea did not exist until someone thought it up.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 12:21 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 12:08 PM frako has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 386 of 671 (826804)
01-10-2018 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Taq
01-09-2018 4:33 PM


Re: Consensus
Taq writes:

If all we have is a bare assertion that something is true, then why shouldn't we discard that assertion until there is evidence to support it? Otherwise, anything we make up at the drop of the hat would have to be considered true until proven otherwise, and that makes no sense.

Good point. You are defending ringos position quite well. Percy wants us to think in terms of hypotheticals rather than waiting for evidence, however...and I see no reason why not to entertain that frame of mind in order to better understand what makes a believer conclude tentatively that something is true. After all, if you discard everything you may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

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 384 by Taq, posted 01-09-2018 4:33 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 387 of 671 (826805)
01-10-2018 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by frako
01-10-2018 8:15 AM


Re: Consensus
frako writes:

Science is an idea that you can figure out the world by observing testing and objective measurement. Just an idea it does not exist in reality, And that idea did not exist until someone thought it up.

Your philosophy sounds too human-centric for my beliefs. It is hubris to think that ideas don't exist in reality apart from human conception. They may not exist to us but that does not mean they don't exist. Niagara Falls was obeying the law of gravity before there was a law and before gravity was defined as an idea.

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 385 by frako, posted 01-10-2018 8:15 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by frako, posted 01-11-2018 6:34 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 393 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2018 2:40 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2754
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 388 of 671 (826806)
01-10-2018 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Phat
01-09-2018 11:50 AM


Re: Consensus
Hi Phat,
I get what Ringo is saying. And I think I get what you are saying.
I think you may be conflating "science/physics" with "the laws of universe/nature".
Humans did not create the laws of nature, but they did create physics which is a way to explain how universe/nature operates.

If what we call a miracle happens that violates the laws of physics as we know it, then scientist will most likely incorporate this phenomenon into the known body of scientific work. The way the universe operates is being investigated. The language used to describe it is called physics and the way it is being investigated is through what is called the scientific method. Which is a self correcting method that renders all previous information subject to change. The universe will either give up all it's secrets or it wont.
Believe in your miracles Phat, believe in them because you choose to do so and for no other reason. Peace be with you.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 11:50 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16994
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 389 of 671 (826813)
01-10-2018 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by ringo
01-09-2018 10:54 AM


ringo writes:

Percy writes:

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 doesn't have to. It's clear from the context that a miracle is attributed to something. George sees a bright light, thinks it's a miracle and attributes it to the demon Wormwood. Jim sees the same bright light, understands how a flashlight works and attributes it to the laws of physics. The attribution is inherent.

George sees an electron travel through the left slit. To what does he attribute the choice of slit?

A miracle is an event that the observer can not explain, so he attributes it to supernatural causes.

That doesn't disagree with Wikipedia.

This makes whether something is miraculous dependent upon the observer's (rather than science's) knowledge and expertise, so it both isn't a useful definition and does disagree with Wikipedia.

Percy writes:

they unambiguously ascribe the cause to the supernatural or God.


Even you can't say it without using words like "ascribe",...

That's an odd objection. It would be impossible to sum up dictionary definitions that ascribe miracles to a cause without using a word like "ascribe."

...and yet you claim that that isn't an important aspect of the definition.

Because it isn't an important aspect of the definition of miracle. If a miracle occurred, how would it make it any less a miracle if the cause remained unknown?

Percy writes:

But what if a miracle *did* occur? How would science respond?


The same way it responds to anything else. What it would not do is call it a "miracle". If the results were inconclusive, they would be called inconclusive.

But the results are not inconclusive. I provided the example of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson, thereby unambiguously and inexplicably breaking at least several scientific laws, which is the definition of miracle. How would science react?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 10:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by ringo, posted 01-26-2018 10:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16994
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 390 of 671 (826815)
01-10-2018 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by ringo
01-09-2018 11:06 AM


Re: Consensus
Replying to a few of your messages...

In Message 367 you said:

ringo in Message 367 writes:

What people are actually calling miracles - and in this case is confirmed as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church - is not what we can't explain. It's what they can't explain.

I agree with you on this point. What gets called a miracle is generally something that a person or group can't explain, not what science can't explain.

In Message 371 you said:

ringo in Message 371 writes:

As far as I know, it's science that doesn't include the possibility of miracles.

More accurately, science accepts that for which it has sufficient evidence to form a consensus. Like the rabbit fossils in the Cambrian that we continually cite to creationists as the type of evidence that would call evolution seriously into question, if sufficient evidence is there, science is obligated to accept it. So it's not that "science...doesn't include the possibility of miracles," it's that there's insufficient evidence (approximately none) for miracles.

In Message 373 you said:

ringo in Message 373 writes:

As I've said, if science calls it a miracle, I have no problem with calling it a miracle. If somebody calls something "inexplicable", that doesn't mean it's inexplicable to everybody.

But if a scientific consensus calls it "inexplicable" that pretty much does mean it's inexplicable to everybody.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by ringo, posted 01-09-2018 11:06 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Phat, posted 01-13-2018 2:22 PM Percy has responded
 Message 407 by ringo, posted 01-26-2018 11:00 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
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