Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2018 11:27 PM
254 online now:
Dr Adequate (1 member, 253 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,476 Year: 15,299/29,783 Month: 1,243/1,502 Week: 241/492 Day: 36/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3334
35
3637
...
45NextFF
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 511 of 671 (828134)
02-11-2018 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by PaulK
02-11-2018 3:18 AM


Yes, today there could be evidence of healing miracles.

Bible believers know what a prophecy is and have said so for millennia. Now we have unbelieving "scholars" coming along saying the believers are wrong because the scholars don't understand how Bible prophecy works, and besides they actually distort facts such as dates to "prove" their claims.

Still true: I believe the Bible witnesses, many people here don't. That's all this is about in the end.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2018 3:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2018 11:23 AM Faith has responded

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


Message 512 of 671 (828135)
02-11-2018 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
02-11-2018 10:13 AM


quote:

Bible believers know what a prophecy is and have said so for millennia. Now we have unbelieving "scholars" coming along saying the believers are wrong because the scholars don't understand how Bible prophecy works, and besides they actually distort facts such as dates to "prove" their claims.

It’s not the scholars distorting dates. I guess it must be upsetting for you “Bible believers” to be told you’re wrong about the Bible. But if you react badly to it and reject the Bible as it actually is, that is really your problem.

quote:

Still true: I believe the Bible witnesses, many people here don't. That's all this is about in the end.

Even when the “Bible witnesses” aren’t actual witnesses. But you cannot reasonably condemn people for disagreeing with your opinion when you have such weak evidence. Getting angry at people for not sharing your biases is hardly productive - or even sensible.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 02-11-2018 10:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 02-11-2018 11:57 AM PaulK has responded

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


Message 513 of 671 (828137)
02-11-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by PaulK
02-11-2018 11:23 AM


Two thousand years of Bible exegesis by believers trumps a couple hundred by debunkers. And opinion is all you've got anyway, opinion about what the Bible really says etc. I hope you'll forgive us traditionalists if our opinion differs. And what a spin artist you are. I'm not angry or condemning anyone, just saying they are arrogantly wrong. But keep your opinion and I'll keep mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2018 11:23 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2018 12:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 514 of 671 (828138)
02-11-2018 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Faith
02-11-2018 11:57 AM


quote:

Two thousand years of Bible exegesis by believers trumps a couple hundred by debunkers.

Two thousand years of cumulative misinterpretation based on false assumptions doesn’t beat real scholarship. And that is what we are talking about.

quote:

And opinion is all you've got anyway, opinion about what the Bible really says etc. I hope you'll forgive us traditionalists if our opinion differs

You can have your ill-founded opinions. Just don’t get upset when people disagree - or try to make out it’s their fault.

quote:

And what a spin artist you are. I'm not angry or condemning anyone, just saying they are arrogantly wrong.

And thus you prove me right. Preferring evidence and reason over your beliefs is hardly being arrogant - and rather less likely to be wrong than you are.

[ABE] and let me remind you of the fact that the Bible really isn’t good evidence Message 1171.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 02-11-2018 11:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 515 of 671 (828140)
02-11-2018 1:28 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.


If you define miracles as "a violation of the laws of nature", then as far as science is concerned they can't exist because science works only within the laws of nature (sometimes amending those laws as necessary).

But as far as believers are concerned, they do exist. That fact has to be included in the definition.

Percy writes:

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."


"Something we can't currently explain."

Percy writes:

Are you imagining that the comic's author did anything more than make stuff up or copy stuff out of a math book?


I'm imagining that the authors intent was to say that the scientists, after much effort, had given up.

Percy writes:

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"?


Of course not. Just the opposite. It implies that the scientists, after much effort, had given up.

Percy writes:

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


Scientists haven't encountered it before because they don't recognize that it can happen. If something appears to "violate" known natural or scientific laws, they conclude that either the appearance is deceptive or the laws need to be tweaked.

Percy writes:

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


I don't think it has any relevance. Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Scientists deal with unprecedented observations every day.

Percy writes:

Do you need to be reminded of the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth?


Do you need to be reminded of the Miracle of the Sun? It's only a miracle because it's attributed to unnatural causes.

Percy writes:

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


We have no reason to think scientists would change their MO.

Percy writes:

Because your pigs react to the new type of mud as if nothing about it was different from the old type of mud.


Again, you're the one who is making the claim that pigs would suddenly change their behaviour if confronted by a new kind of mud. You need to back up that claim.

Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.


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 503 by Percy, posted 02-10-2018 1:58 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Percy, posted 02-11-2018 4:13 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 516 of 671 (828141)
02-11-2018 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by Tangle
02-10-2018 5:28 PM


Re: Consensus
Tangle writes:

Hume is just doing what ringo is doing - defining away the argument.


The definition defines away the argument.

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 505 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2018 5:28 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Percy, posted 02-11-2018 4:30 PM ringo has responded
 Message 526 by 1.61803, posted 02-12-2018 4:32 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 517 of 671 (828143)
02-11-2018 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Modulous
02-10-2018 5:03 PM


Re: Consensus
Modulous writes:

Have you recently changed your mind on this?

No, I haven't changed my mind about the impossibility of miracles - the messages you quoted are from a different thread, The Tension of Faith over in the Faith and Belief forum. This thread's in the Is It Science? forum, and we're considering the question, "But what if a scientifically verifiable miracle *did* occur?"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2018 5:03 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2018 5:13 PM Percy has responded

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


Message 518 of 671 (828145)
02-11-2018 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by ringo
02-11-2018 1:28 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

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


If you define miracles as "a violation of the laws of nature", then as far as science is concerned they can't exist...

But if the evidence exists then neither can science ignore it. Oh, what to do, what to do?

...because science works only within the laws of nature (sometimes amending those laws as necessary).

Science pretty much works on anything that leaves evidence behind.

But as far as believers are concerned, they [miracles] do exist. That fact has to be included in the definition.

Why do you think religion should have a say in a scientific definition?

Percy writes:

Are you imagining that the comic's author did anything more than make stuff up or copy stuff out of a math book?


I'm imagining that the authors intent was to say that the scientists, after much effort, had given up.

I don't think everyone shares your view on intent. Plus it would be incorrect to say the scientists had given up, since obviously one scientist wrote the equations and the other scientist is commenting. Also, that the scientist who wrote the equations had given up is just one interpretation.

Even what is funny is open to interpretation. Is it funny because the scientist made such an absurd error? Is it funny because of the understated way the other scientist calls attention to the error? Is it funny because of the incongruous insertion of a miraculous event into science? All of these? Some of these? Something else? One thing we can be sure of, opinions will vary.

But that's all beside the key point, which is that scientists would work hard to study and understand the phenomena. They wouldn't just "insert miracle here."

Percy writes:

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


Scientists haven't encountered it before because they don't recognize that it can happen.

Known natural or scientific laws have been violated many times in the history of science, just not as flagrantly as in the scenarios that have been suggested.

If something appears to "violate" known natural or scientific laws, they conclude that either the appearance is deceptive or the laws need to be tweaked.

I think scientists would most certainly explore the possibilities you mention, that what happened wasn't as it seemed (deceptive) or that theory must change, but what if neither of these possibilities (nor any others) pan out?

Percy writes:

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


I don't think it has any relevance.

It can't help but have relevance. When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios? The answer is "never," hence the term "unprecedented."

Everything is unprecedented until it happens.

More repetition. Again, you mean "every phenomena," not "everything," and you're missing the point. It isn't that the phenomena of the proposed scenarios are unprecedented in the sense that they haven't been observed before.
They haven't been observed before, that's true, but that isn't what I meant when I labeled them unprecedented. It's that they're unprecedented in that they totally violate known natural or scientific laws.

Scientists deal with unprecedented observations every day.

That violate known natural or scientific laws? I don't think so.

Percy writes:

Do you need to be reminded of the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth?


Do you need to be reminded of the Miracle of the Sun?

And here you are again with yet another loop back to a failed religious argument. Plus you're ignoring the point, which was about attribution. Attribution is not a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. That's why I asked if you needed reminding about the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth?

It's only a miracle because it's attributed to unnatural causes.

I think religion might prefer the term "supernatural" to "unnatural," but other than that yes, I agree, religion attributes miracles to the supernatural.

But getting back to science, anything that leaves scientifically analyzable evidence behind can be studied by science.

Percy writes:

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


We have no reason to think scientists would change their MO.

Right. And their MO is to follow the evidence where it leads.

Percy writes:

Because your pigs react to the new type of mud as if nothing about it was different from the old type of mud.


Again, you're the one who is making the claim that pigs would suddenly change their behaviour if confronted by a new kind of mud. You need to back up that claim.

I saw no point in arguing with you about what types of mud pigs wallow in, so I said that if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes your analogy worse. You asked, "How so?" and I responded that it was 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 the proposed scenarios in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by ringo, posted 02-11-2018 1:28 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by ringo, posted 02-12-2018 10:54 AM Percy has responded

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


Message 519 of 671 (828148)
02-11-2018 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by ringo
02-11-2018 1:34 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Tangle writes:

Hume is just doing what ringo is doing - defining away the argument.


The definition defines away the argument.

Yes, Tangle just said that. More clearly, you and Hume are crafting your definition of miracle as something that can't exist. But the flaw in Hume's definition is obvious and of the first order: science is tentative and doesn't offer proofs.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by ringo, posted 02-11-2018 1:34 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by ringo, posted 02-12-2018 10:58 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 520 of 671 (828152)
02-11-2018 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Percy
02-11-2018 2:53 PM


Re: Consensus
No, I haven't changed my mind about the impossibility of miracles

I was mostly concerned with your state of mind regarding tentativity. You said in this thread:

quote:
Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. My own reaction is that this violates tentativity

You took the 'Humean' position in the other thread, and I retorted tentativity back to you. It certainly seems like an entirely contrary position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Percy, posted 02-11-2018 2:53 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Percy, posted 02-11-2018 6:47 PM Modulous has responded

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


Message 521 of 671 (828154)
02-11-2018 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Modulous
02-11-2018 5:13 PM


Re: Consensus
Religion and science are two different contexts. In the context of the religious question, "Could any of the miracles claimed by religion be real?" tentativity, a scientific concept, is out of place. In the context of the scientific question, "What would mean to science if faced with inexplicable violations of natural or scientific law?" tentativity is perfectly at home.

Your response should be, "But you said you thought some things were impossible," and I still believe that for religious claims and other things made up. I quoted a brief version of Hume's position on miracles where he uses the word "proof," and in science nothing is ever proven because science is tentative, but the flim-flam of religion can make no claims on the graces of science. Religion has no scientific evidence or process, and so its myths can claim no benefit from scientific concepts like tentativity. That there was a global flood 4500 years ago that wiped out all life not on a certain boat is just a religious myth (did you ever wonder why no fishermen survived the flood?), not science and not something tentativity rescues as possible. Same for thunder and lightening representing the anger of the gods.

Well, I'm being called to dinner, this is as well thought out as it's going to get tonight.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2018 5:13 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by Modulous, posted 02-16-2018 1:13 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 522 of 671 (828159)
02-12-2018 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by Percy
02-11-2018 4:13 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

Why do you think religion should have a say in a scientific definition?


It isn't a scientific definition. Why should science define a word that it doesn't use?

Percy writes:

Is it funny because the scientist made such an absurd error? Is it funny because of the understated way the other scientist calls attention to the error? Is it funny because of the incongruous insertion of a miraculous event into science?


The cartoon is making fun of people like creationists who use Goddidit as a "reason".

Percy writes:

Known natural or scientific laws have been violated many times in the history of science....


Exactly, which is why scientists wouldn't change their MO, no matter how flagrant the "violation".

Percy writes:

but what if neither of these possibilities (nor any others) pan out?


You keep asking the same question.
quote:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
-- attributed to Albert Einstein

No matter how many times you ask, the scientific method doesn't change. It's still a closed loop, with no escape hatch if the questions get too hard.

Percy writes:

When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios?


The level of flagrancy is irrelevant. There's no such thing in science as a "violation". There's only insufficient understanding.

Percy writes:

Attribution is not a necessary quality of scientific phenomena.


But it is a necessary part of the definition of miracles. That's why miracles are not science.

Percy writes:

I think religion might prefer the term "supernatural" to "unnatural...."


I used the word "unnatural" specifically because it is broader than "supernatural". Any event that is attributed to causes which can not be explained (by the attributor) is called a miracle, whether it can be explained by somebody else or not.

Percy writes:

An accurate analogy to the proposed scenarios in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in.


That's the analogy I used. To a pig, mud is mud. What kind of analysis do you expect them to do?

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 518 by Percy, posted 02-11-2018 4:13 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by Percy, posted 02-12-2018 1:07 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 523 of 671 (828160)
02-12-2018 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by Percy
02-11-2018 4:30 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

More clearly, you and Hume are crafting your definition of miracle as something that can't exist.


I'm not crafting anything. I'm using the definition as written - the definition that you quoted yourself. As far as science is concerned, a violation of natural laws can't exist. An event is only attributed to a "violation" of natural laws by people who believe they can.

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 519 by Percy, posted 02-11-2018 4:30 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 524 of 671 (828166)
02-12-2018 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by ringo
02-12-2018 10:54 AM


Re: Consensus
Responding to your last two messages to me...

Responding to Message 522:

ringo in Message 522 writes:

Percy writes:

Why do you think religion should have a say in a scientific definition?


It isn't a scientific definition.

If science creates the definition then it is a scientific definition.

Why should science define a word that it doesn't use?

Science is constantly defining words and terms it wasn't previously using. Whenever a new phenomenon is discovered science defines a word or term it didn't previously use.

Percy writes:

Is it funny because the scientist made such an absurd error? Is it funny because of the understated way the other scientist calls attention to the error? Is it funny because of the incongruous insertion of a miraculous event into science?


The cartoon is making fun of people like creationists who use Goddidit as a "reason".

That's one interpretation, but there are many others. The comic's by Sidney Harris. Just go to Google Images, enter "then a miracle occurs sidney harris", then visit the webpages where the comic occurs and see all the different interpretations. We'll likely never know the true motivation for the comic because in the New York Times article One-Liners to Lighten Up Science Sidney Harris says:

quote:
"I wish I remembered what the inspiration was. I've never equaled it, in terms of popularity."

The comic first appeared in the New Yorker magazine, I couldn't narrow it down to what issue.

Percy writes:

Known natural or scientific laws have been violated many times in the history of science....


Exactly, which is why scientists wouldn't change their MO, no matter how flagrant the "violation".

I already agreed with you on this. Of course they wouldn't change their MO. They'd continue to follow the evidence where it leads.

Percy writes:

but what if neither of these possibilities (nor any others) pan out?


You keep asking the same question.

You keep making the same argument. Repeating the same argument many times as you have won't change the response.

quote:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
-- attributed to Albert Einstein

Accurate as ever. Einstein never said this. You can find this misattribution explained on many webpages, e.g., 12 Famous Quotes That Always Get Misattributed.

No matter how many times you ask, the scientific method doesn't change. It's still a closed loop, with no escape hatch if the questions get too hard.

Well sure. Scientists will always be attracted to difficult problems, the scientific method will be their guide, and the evidence could indefinitely indicate phenomena inexplicably breaking known natural or scientific laws.

Percy writes:

When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios?


The level of flagrancy is irrelevant.

How so?

There's no such thing in science as a "violation".

You're attempting to define away your problem again. Where in science does it say there is no such thing as a violation? In any case, the presented scenarios include violations of known natural or scientific laws.

There's only insufficient understanding.

That's always the hope.

Percy writes:

Attribution is not a necessary quality of scientific phenomena.


But it is a necessary part of the definition of miracles.

You're again repeating your old argument using a religious definition of miracle, and we're doing science here.

That's why miracles are not science.

If they leave evidence behind that science can study, then why are they not science?

Percy writes:

An accurate analogy to the proposed scenarios in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in.


That's the analogy I used. To a pig, mud is mud. What kind of analysis do you expect them to do?

As I said, your analogy doesn't apply to the proposed scenarios. A more appropriate analogy would be one where the pigs were presented something different than mud to wallow in.

Responding to your Message 523:

ringo in Message 523 writes:

Percy writes:

More clearly, you and Hume are crafting your definition of miracle as something that can't exist.


I'm not crafting anything. I'm using the definition as written - the definition that you quoted yourself.

I'm not sure what you're arguing about. You and Hume agree, right? That by definition miracles can't exist. That's the very definition of defining a problem away. By the way, like you Hume considered miracles from a religious perspective, the only one you're willing to consider.

As far as science is concerned, a violation of natural laws can't exist. An event is only attributed to a "violation" of natural laws by people who believe they can.

Yet what if the scientific evidence shows a violation of natural laws, and a consensus develops around the evidence that a violation of natural laws did indeed occur?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by ringo, posted 02-12-2018 10:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by ringo, posted 02-13-2018 11:31 AM Percy has responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2784
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 525 of 671 (828170)
02-12-2018 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Tangle
02-09-2018 5:49 PM


Re: Bridge Analogy Re-examined
Tangle writes:

Agnostics don't exist.

Hilarious... Atheist now being dogmatic about the non existence of agnostics.

I

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.


"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 499 by Tangle, posted 02-09-2018 5:49 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by Tangle, posted 02-12-2018 4:51 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3334
35
3637
...
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