Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2018 2:27 AM
290 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,476 Year: 15,299/29,783 Month: 1,243/1,502 Week: 0/241 Day: 0/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3233
34
3536
...
45NextFF
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
Phat
Member
Posts: 11320
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 496 of 671 (828074)
02-09-2018 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by ringo
02-09-2018 12:08 PM


Re: Bridge Analogy Re-examined
A couple of hypothetical questions:

  • Are all scientists agnostic by definition?

  • Can there ever be a science regarding miracles?

  • When you went to church, you never found evidence. Will you remain agnostic your entire life or will you declare atheism and stop looking?

    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 495 by ringo, posted 02-09-2018 12:08 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 497 by ringo, posted 02-09-2018 12:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 498 by Taq, posted 02-09-2018 5:22 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
  • ringo
    Member
    Posts: 15412
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.8


    (1)
    Message 497 of 671 (828078)
    02-09-2018 12:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 496 by Phat
    02-09-2018 12:17 PM


    Re: Bridge Analogy Re-examined
    Phat writes:

    Are all scientists agnostic by definition?


    When doing science, I think they are. Can all drivers see? It's kind of a prerequisite.

    Phat writes:

    Can there ever be a science regarding miracles?


    How?

    Phat writes:

    Will you remain agnostic your entire life or will you declare atheism and stop looking?


    Agnosticism is not a step on the road to atheism. It's a constant state, like the curiosity of scientists. You can "declare atheism" but you're still really agnostic. A scientist can be temporarily stumped but he/she is still looking for answers. There is no reason for scientists to consider the concept of "inexplicable" at all.

    An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 496 by Phat, posted 02-09-2018 12:17 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    Taq
    Member
    Posts: 7575
    Joined: 03-06-2009
    Member Rating: 3.6


    Message 498 of 671 (828092)
    02-09-2018 5:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 496 by Phat
    02-09-2018 12:17 PM


    Re: Bridge Analogy Re-examined
    Phat writes:

    Are all scientists agnostic by definition?

    I don't know.

    Can there ever be a science regarding miracles?

    Sort of, I guess. Miracles are little more than arguments from ignorance, so science could start with "I don't know" and then try to figure it out. Miracles are also often based on poor observations, so science could easily ferret those out.

    When you went to church, you never found evidence. Will you remain agnostic your entire life or will you declare atheism and stop looking?

    Atheism and agnosticism are two different things. There are agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, and gnostic Christians. Agnosticism is a statement about what we know. Atheism is a statement about what we believe.

    "Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know."--American Atheists

    Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 496 by Phat, posted 02-09-2018 12:17 PM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 499 by Tangle, posted 02-09-2018 5:49 PM Taq has responded

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 6182
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.0


    (1)
    Message 499 of 671 (828093)
    02-09-2018 5:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 498 by Taq
    02-09-2018 5:22 PM


    Re: Bridge Analogy Re-examined
    Agnostics don't exist. You either believe in god(s) or you don't. If you don't know whether you believe in god(s) or not, you don't believe in god(s).

    Neither atheists nor agnostics nor deists nor theists have knowledge of god(s). If anyone had knowledge of god(s) we'd all have knowledge of god(s). If such knowledge existed it would be published in Nature and peer reviewed to death.

    All we have is knowledge of what we believe.

    Agnosticism is an invented cop-out to avoid a social and intellectual problems.

    /off rant.

    Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

    Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


    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 498 by Taq, posted 02-09-2018 5:22 PM Taq has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 501 by Phat, posted 02-09-2018 7:05 PM Tangle has not yet responded
     Message 525 by 1.61803, posted 02-12-2018 4:29 PM Tangle has responded
     Message 540 by Taq, posted 02-14-2018 4:30 PM Tangle has responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 17748
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 500 of 671 (828095)
    02-09-2018 6:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 492 by ringo
    02-09-2018 11:17 AM


    Re: Consensus
    Responding to a couple of your recent messages...

    Regarding your Message 492 to me:

    ringo in Message 492 writes:

    Percy writes:

    ... but what if nothing panned out?


    As you seem to understand, there is no point at which scientists stop. Nothing panned out yesterday but they keep looking today.

    Of course they keep looking. But for as long as nothing pans out the violations of known natural or scientific laws would remain, for the time being, inexplicable.

    Percy writes:

    We already discussed the Miracle of the Sun, and it doesn't support your contention.


    Explain why you think it doesn't support my contention. It's called a miracle by the Catholic Church but it's explained by scientists. My contention is that scientists don't call events miracles.

    You're back to your broken record again, reintroducing old arguments as if they hadn't already been addressed.

    Percy writes:

    How many times are you just going to forget or ignore the many descriptions of how hard scientists would work to understand things.


    I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to figure out why you don't understand your own words. You say that scientists would work very hard to understand the phenomenon and than you say that they would stop working and call it a miracle.

    My dear boy, nobody implied that calling it a miracle would bring research to a halt. Giving dark energy a name didn't end research, why would giving inexplicable violations of natural or scientific laws a name end research?

    Or are you saying that they would call it a miracle and go on working anyway?

    Yes, of course.

    in that case, why call it a miracle at all? Why not just call it something they're working on?

    I kinda think you know they'd give it a name and that it wouldn't be "something we're working on."

    Percy writes:

    "Insert miracle here" is from a comic and implies no effort was made to study the phenomenon.


    No it doesn't. The comic shows a lot of figures on the blackboard which clearly took a lot of effort.

    You think the comic implies they put a lot of effort into the miracle step? Hmmm, interesting. In any case, the answer to your original question about the difference between "no explanations are forthcoming" and "insert miracle here" remains the same, that "no explanations are forthcoming" means that no ideas have panned out so far, while "insert miracle here" means just declaring something a miracle.

    I get the feeling that you view them as synonymous terms. If so then I of course disagree, but it doesn't seem worth arguing about.

    Percy writes:

    ringo writes:

    Everything is unprecedented until it happens.


    Obviously false. The sun will rise tomorrow. Unprecedented? I don't think so.

    Huh? The sun rising is not unprecedented.

    The sun rising tomorrow hasn't happened yet and therefore according to your statement is unprecedented. Perhaps you meant "every phenomenon" rather than "everything," but that doesn't work either. The history of science is of discovering new phenomena that in some way add to what we know of existing phenomena. That's why we made sure that the suggested scenarios represent phenomena that violate existing phenomena, something unprecedented in the history of science.

    Percy writes:

    They follow the evidence where it leads.


    When they come to the end of the trail, they don't just stand there. They ask, "Where to now?"

    Agreed.

    Percy writes:

    The "tentative explanations" don't pan out. Now what.


    More tentative explanations.

    I think we may be using the word "explanation" differently. When you say "explanation" I think you mean an idea or proposal or unproven hypothesis. When I say "explanation" I have in mind something more complete around which, at a minimum, a consensus has begun to form. Relativity is an explanation. Ideas about, for example, why there's more matter than antimatter, don't seem like explanations to me, since they haven't uncovered enough evidence to build a consensus.

    I don't think this is a case where one of us is right and the other wrong. It just points out the need to agree on a definition.

    Please make up your mind. Do they stop looking or not?

    I don't think I've ever said or implied that scientific research ever ends. Science never stops questioning. Naturally investigation is directed into areas that appear to have the most promise for new knowledge, with the result that areas that appear well established tend to receive very little attention, but that seems okay to me.

    ringo writes:

    Percy writes:

    Do you seriously not know that your inability to move beyond your original arguments makes clear how bereft your position is?


    It indicates my inability to move you forward.

    You mean backward.

    But you're the guy who denied that the word "attributed" was there, even though you quoted it.

    Yes, that was me, but your current arguments must stand on their own merits and not on accusations that I'm not perfect, because I'm sure that's a quality you also do not share.

    And you're the guy who refuses to acknowledge that attribution is important in miracles even though it's mentioned in virtually every definition. And you're the guy who doesn't see that actual events are called miracles by believers but not by scientists.

    It's been said many times now that the particular term chosen by science for inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws isn't important, yet you're still hung up on the term "miracles". This is a science discussion, not a religious one, and it's already been established that attribution or cause isn't a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. You continue to return to your original arguments as if substantial discussion about them hasn't already taken place, a strong indication that your position is bereft of merit.

    Percy writes:

    If you were doing your job right no one would be discussing this.


    I'm like the janitor here. I clean up your mess. If you make the same mess tomorrow, I have to clean it up again tomorrow. That's the nature of the job. Like the scientists, I don't at some point decide that the mess is a miracle and can't be stopped. Like the scientists, I just keep going.

    Mr. Janitor, you're cleaning up the wrong aisle!

    Percy writes:

    ... is that what you think, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence?


    Absence of evidence for fairies, absences of evidence for the Loch Ness Monster, absence of evidence for UFO abductions, etc. Yup, sometimes.

    You chopped off the front part of my sentence that indicated agreement with your "Yup, sometimes". But you also chopped off the part that reminded you we're talking about miracles. So asking the question again, is that what you think about miracles, that absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence? If so, why?

    Percy writes:

    ringo writes:

    Are you suggesting that scientists have not proposed explanations for all of those things?


    Obviously from context (see the sentence preceding your cut-n-paste) I was not.

    Then why are you suggesting that scientists would run out of possible explanations for your flying bridge?

    I think that if you try to find where I suggested this that you'll come up dry.

    Percy writes:

    First, without defining how the new mud is different from the old mud, how do you know pigs would wallow in it?


    From previous experience with pigs. They see mud and they wallow. They don't need a definition.

    You still seem to be claiming knowledge you don't have, but let's just say you know your pigs and are correct. The actual point was that you didn't choose an inappropriate analogy, and if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes the analogy even worse.

    Scientists see questions and they propose answers.

    Agreed.

    Percy writes:

    A more fitting analogy would be to ask what pigs who only knew mud would do were they one day confronted by snow?


    I would expect them to wallow in that too.

    Hmmm. That sounds unexpected. Is that what you observe your pigs doing in snow up there in the frozen wasteland? But that's beside the point. What's important is the inappropriate nature of the analogy you chose.

    I would not expect them to care whether it was "unprecedented" or whether it violated any pig laws.

    Hardly relevant. Your analogy is not only inappropriate, but upon further consideration isn't helpful, either. The main point is that science follows where the evidence leads. The unprecedented nature of violations of known natural or scientific laws would lead scientists in new directions.

    Regarding your Message 495 to Phat:

    Phat writes:

    There is only so much that can be studied.


    There's only so much that can be invented, so let's close the Patent Office?

    Or, as we often tell creationists, questions usually produce more questions than answers.

    We agree on this.

    Phat writes:

    You must concede, however, that a fair number would actually give up further research and go on with their lives.


    It isn't as if every scientist on earth would be studying the phenomenon in the first place. The vast majority of them would leave it to somebody else to figure out - which is another reason why there could never be a consensus calling it a miracle.

    The relevant consensus is the one among the scientists in the new field of study focused on the new phenomena. That most scientists are in other fields doesn't matter. Of course a consensus could form among scientists in this new field.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 492 by ringo, posted 02-09-2018 11:17 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 502 by ringo, posted 02-10-2018 10:59 AM Percy has responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11320
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 501 of 671 (828097)
    02-09-2018 7:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 499 by Tangle
    02-09-2018 5:49 PM


    Re: Bridge Analogy Re-examined
    Im taking this response here.

    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 499 by Tangle, posted 02-09-2018 5:49 PM Tangle has not yet responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 15412
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.8


    Message 502 of 671 (828104)
    02-10-2018 10:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 500 by Percy
    02-09-2018 6:46 PM


    Re: Consensus
    Percy writes:

    My dear boy, nobody implied that calling it a miracle would bring research to a halt.


    It's hard to nail your jello to the wall. If research wouldn't come to a halt, why would scientists take time out to call something a miracle? It seems redundant.

    Percy writes:

    You think the comic implies they put a lot of effort into the miracle step?


    Well, where did all of those figures come from? Thin air?

    Percy writes:

    The sun rising tomorrow hasn't happened yet and therefore according to your statement is unprecedented.


    The sun rising every day in the past is well-documented. That's why we can comfortably predict that it will rise tomorrow.

    On the other hand, scientists haven't labelled things as miracles, even when they were temporarily inexplicable. (If you have examples of scientists labelling things as miracles in the past, feel free to cite them.) That's why we can comfortably predict that they won't do it tomorrow.

    Percy writes:

    It's been said many times now that the particular term chosen by science for inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws isn't important, yet you're still hung up on the term "miracles".


    The thread is about miracles and you keep calling them miracles.

    Percy writes:

    ... it's already been established that attribution or cause isn't a necessary quality of scientific phenomena.


    No it hasn't. It has been established that events that are called miracles are only called miracles in a religious context, not in a scientific context. The attribution to unnatural causes is the only thing that distinguishes a "miracle' from any other event. That isn't going to change just because you don't like it.

    Percy writes:

    The actual point was that you didn't choose an inappropriate analogy, and if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes the analogy even worse.


    How so? The analogy is that scientists wallow in all types of questions, including the inexplicable ones. We have no reason to think they would handle a "new" question differently.

    An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 500 by Percy, posted 02-09-2018 6:46 PM Percy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 503 by Percy, posted 02-10-2018 1:58 PM ringo has responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 17748
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 503 of 671 (828116)
    02-10-2018 1:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 502 by ringo
    02-10-2018 10:59 AM


    Re: Consensus
    ringo writes:

    Percy writes:

    My dear boy, nobody implied that calling it a miracle would bring research to a halt.


    It's hard to nail your jello to the wall.

    There *are* profound philosophical and perhaps unanswerable questions surrounding the boundaries of science. I found a good discussion from a somewhat religious perspective at Miracles and Science: The Long Shadow of David Hume. I'm a little hesitant to introduce any of it into this discussion as you completely ignored my attempt in Message 468 to introduce some of the arguments from Science and Miracles into this discussion, but I'll say just a little anyway.

    David Hume wrote:

    quote:
    A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

    Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. My own reaction is that this violates tentativity, but the essay itself addresses the question from several points of view, including the one that miracles are non-repeatable and a-scientific, a view you might share. I won't invest further time describing the essay as I fear the effort might, as before, draw no response and be wasted, but if your response indicates an interest then maybe there's something we can discuss.

    If research wouldn't come to a halt, why would scientists take time out to call something a miracle? It seems redundant.

    Maybe they'd call it a miracle, maybe something else, but surely they'd call it something much shorter than "inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws."

    Percy writes:

    You think the comic implies they put a lot of effort into the miracle step?


    Well, where did all of those figures come from? Thin air?

    It's a comic, not real life. Are you imagining that the comic's author did anything more than make stuff up or copy stuff out of a math book? And concerning the miracle step, which is what I actually asked about, do you really think the comic implies a lot of effort was placed into "Then a miracle occurs"? If so then I still have the same reaction: Hmmm, interesting.

    Percy writes:

    The sun rising tomorrow hasn't happened yet and therefore according to your statement is unprecedented.


    The sun rising every day in the past is well-documented. That's why we can comfortably predict that it will rise tomorrow.

    Yes, of course, and so I was correct that you actually meant "every phenomena", not "everything".

    On the other hand, scientists haven't labelled things as miracles, even when they were temporarily inexplicable.

    But you're leaving out the violation of known natural or scientific laws, something scientists haven't encountered before.

    (If you have examples of scientists labelling things as miracles in the past, feel free to cite them.) That's why we can comfortably predict that they won't do it tomorrow.

    Is the word "unprecedented" really so difficult for you to understand?

    Percy writes:

    It's been said many times now that the particular term chosen by science for inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws isn't important, yet you're still hung up on the term "miracles".


    The thread is about miracles and you keep calling them miracles.

    Yes, of course. As already pointed out many times now, were science to identify evidence of actual miracles they might choose some other term, but such phenomena would still be inexplicable violations of known natural or scientific laws.

    Percy writes:

    ... it's already been established that attribution or cause isn't a necessary quality of scientific phenomena.


    No it hasn't.

    Um, yes it has. Do you need to be reminded of the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth?

    It has been established that events that are called miracles are only called miracles in a religious context, not in a scientific context.

    Up until now that is true. But what if tomorrow that changed?

    The attribution to unnatural causes is the only thing that distinguishes a "miracle" from any other event. That isn't going to change just because you don't like it.

    It has nothing to do with whether I like it and everything to do with you declaring things true that are not so.

    Percy writes:

    The actual point was that you didn't choose an inappropriate analogy, and if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes the analogy even worse.


    How so?

    Because your pigs react to the new type of mud as if nothing about it was different from the old type of mud. An accurate analogy to what's being proposed in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in.

    The analogy is that scientists wallow in all types of questions, including the inexplicable ones. We have no reason to think they would handle a "new" question differently.

    But it's a new (no quotes) and unprecedented question. Incorporating into science the hypothesis that there can be violations of known natural or scientific laws would require some new thinking.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 502 by ringo, posted 02-10-2018 10:59 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 504 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2018 5:03 PM Percy has responded
     Message 505 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2018 5:28 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
     Message 515 by ringo, posted 02-11-2018 1:28 PM Percy has responded

        
    Modulous
    Member (Idle past 28 days)
    Posts: 7789
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    (2)
    Message 504 of 671 (828121)
    02-10-2018 5:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 503 by Percy
    02-10-2018 1:58 PM


    Re: Consensus
    Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. My own reaction is that this violates tentativity, but the essay itself addresses the question from several points of view, including the one that miracles are non-repeatable and a-scientific, a view you might share.

    Have you recently changed your mind on this?

    quote:
    when John says that Jesus turned the water into wine we know that isn't true

    Message 718

    quote:
    quote:
    How do you know it isn't true?


    Because it's a miracle.

    Message 735

    quote:
    Regarding John and the miracles specifically, I think I've already explained this. The suspension of natural laws renders it false immediately.

    Message 753

    quote:
    You think tentativity argues that the probability of anything lies in the range 0 < p <=1. I think some things are impossible

    Message 908

    Maybe they'd call it a miracle, maybe something else, but surely they'd call it something much shorter than "inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws."

    Scientists tend to go for 'anomalous'. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example was an anomaly in the 19th Century. It didn't seem to conform to Newtonian laws (ie., the known natural laws of the time).


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 503 by Percy, posted 02-10-2018 1:58 PM Percy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 517 by Percy, posted 02-11-2018 2:53 PM Modulous has responded

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 6182
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.0


    Message 505 of 671 (828123)
    02-10-2018 5:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 503 by Percy
    02-10-2018 1:58 PM


    Re: Consensus
    Percy writes:

    Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist.

    Hume is just doing what ringo is doing - defining away the argument. Like ringo, he's refusing the what if. It's only when you allow the what if that you can make any form of progress. If you disallow the concept there's nothing more to say.


    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 503 by Percy, posted 02-10-2018 1:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 516 by ringo, posted 02-11-2018 1:34 PM Tangle has not yet responded

      
    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 29837
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 506 of 671 (828124)
    02-10-2018 6:54 PM


    The Creator of the natural laws could certainly suspend them if He wanted to.
    Replies to this message:
     Message 507 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2018 7:14 PM Faith has responded

        
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 6182
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.0


    Message 507 of 671 (828125)
    02-10-2018 7:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 506 by Faith
    02-10-2018 6:54 PM


    Faith writes:

    The Creator of the natural laws could certainly suspend them if He wanted to.

    Well that's certainly what believers in that sort of magic believe.

    The problem is that if this god thing ever did suspend natural laws we'd have evidence if it. But of course he never does so he's not playing or he doesn't exist.

    The other problem is that believers like you tell us that he suspends natural laws all the time. But strangely there's never any real world evidence of it. I'd say that's conclusive.


    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 506 by Faith, posted 02-10-2018 6:54 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 508 by Faith, posted 02-10-2018 8:11 PM Tangle has responded

      
    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 29837
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 508 of 671 (828128)
    02-10-2018 8:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 507 by Tangle
    02-10-2018 7:14 PM


    Aaa, this has been answered a million times already. There simply is no physical evidence left behind from a one-time miraculous event. Even if there are physical remains there is no way to prove they got there by anything but nonmiraculous means. You may have wine left in the pot that was changed to wine from water but just that fact proves nothing about how it got there. You'd have to have been there when the miracle occurred. Or of course believe those who were and try to tell you about it in the teeth of your refusal to believe, which you won't no matter what they say, as this thread amply demonstrates. The Bible gives plenty of witnesses to miracles but you rationalize them all away. You want "scientific" evidence of something that simply by its nature can't exist. The argument is ridiculously futile. I believe the Bible witnesses, you don't and really, that's all there is to it.

    So, no, we would NOT have evidence of a miracle if it occurred.

    I haven't argued that God "suspends natural laws all the time," and I don't know who does. He's pretty sparing with His miracles it seems to me. He rather likes His natural laws and the science based on them. The biblical reasons for the miracles are always to validate the claim that the God of the Bible is the Creator God who made it all and runs it all, and that Jesus is also God. It's to demonstrate divine powers to distinguish the true God from lesser gods. Even miracles claimed today are generally done in parts of the world where the people have never heard the gospel, where they need proof of the divine power of the God they are being told about, since they know of the lesser powers of their local gods who can't do what the Creator God can do. Those who live in a Christianity-saturated culture have all the proof we need in the millions of witnesses and the whole history of Christianity. If you spend all your energy debunking it, that's your loss.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 507 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2018 7:14 PM Tangle has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 509 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2018 2:39 AM Faith has not yet responded
     Message 510 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2018 3:18 AM Faith has responded

        
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 6182
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.0


    Message 509 of 671 (828132)
    02-11-2018 2:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 508 by Faith
    02-10-2018 8:11 PM


    Faith writes:

    Or of course believe those who were and try to tell you about it in the teeth of your refusal to believe, which you won't no matter what they say, as this thread amply demonstrates.

    That's correct, I'm not going to believe anything a believer says without evidence. Your primitive believes have been shown to be wrong time and time again.

    The Bible gives plenty of witnesses to miracles but you rationalize them all away.

    I would rationalise them away if their was anything rational about them. The bible is only evidence that someone - we don't even know who or even when - wrote down some stories. Nothing else.

    You want "scientific" evidence of something that simply by its nature can't exist.

    Anything that happens in the natural world leaves evidence. You've spent fruitless years trying to tell us that with your flood nonsense.

    The argument is ridiculously futile. I believe the Bible witnesses, you don't and really, that's all there is to it.

    Yup, but here you are again being futile.

    So, no, we would NOT have evidence of a miracle if it occurred.

    Of course it would, anything that interferes with the natural world must, by definition, leave evidence - for example a faith healer would leave someone who was ill not ill. But they never ever do anything conclusive. Why not? Answer: because they can't.


    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 508 by Faith, posted 02-10-2018 8:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 14419
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.8


    Message 510 of 671 (828133)
    02-11-2018 3:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 508 by Faith
    02-10-2018 8:11 PM


    quote:

    Aaa, this has been answered a million times already. There simply is no physical evidence left behind from a one-time miraculous event.

    That would depend on the miracle. There is no reason why we could not have good evidence of a miraculous healing, for instance. All we would need are good medical records before and after confirming that something miraculous had happened.

    As. I’ve said before prophecy should be a particularly easy case to prove. Instead we have believers declaring verses to be prophecies long after the supposed fulfilment and trying to cover up failures.

    quote:

    Or of course believe those who were and try to tell you about it in the teeth of your refusal to believe, which you won't no matter what they say, as this thread amply demonstrates

    Miracle stories are common - especially in ancient documents. Demonstrated miracles are not. Only the gullible would trust in stories.

    quote:

    The argument is ridiculously futile. I believe the Bible witnesses, you don't and really, that's all there is to it.

    But let us note that you are the one clinging to rationalisations. There is no good reason why there cannot be evidence of miracles. While it is harder for examples in the ancient past it is certainly possible. Even if we exclude predictive prophecy it is notable that we can’t track down the Plagues of Egypt, for instance in either history or archaeology.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 508 by Faith, posted 02-10-2018 8:11 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 511 by Faith, posted 02-11-2018 10:13 AM PaulK has responded

        
    RewPrev1
    ...
    3233
    34
    3536
    ...
    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