Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 13 of 696 (823749)
11-16-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
06-28-2004 2:35 AM


Arkathon writes:
Miracles are very scientific. It's just that our science is still quite backward to grasp how God's science does these things.
Self-contradiction. Predicting what science might uncover in the future is not scientific.
It did take us a while to figure out miracles like lightning. Our ability to raise people from the dead is improving every day. But that's no reason to think we'll ever be able to flood whole planets with water that doesn't exist.

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

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 15 of 696 (823753)
11-16-2017 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
11-16-2017 11:21 AM


Re: What Is Gods Science?
Phat writes:
I'm still trying to figure out what Gods Science is.
If God uses science, then he's an alien with a more advanced technology than ours. That's the most plausible kind of god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 11-16-2017 11:21 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2017 12:22 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 696 (823815)
11-17-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
11-17-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phatt writes:
It should also be noted that miracles are always welcome events.
Welcomed by whom? The Flood was clearly, "not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 11-17-2017 11:24 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 40 of 696 (825375)
12-14-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2017 9:49 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
New Cat's Eye writes:
When can you say a miracle has happened?
The same time as you can say God exists: When you believe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 9:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 11:09 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 42 of 696 (825377)
12-14-2017 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2017 11:09 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
New Cat's Eye writes:
Technically you could say it even if you didn't believe it. But this is beside the point.
Actually, that IS the point. You can say anything and believe anything but neither has any bearing on reality. The word "miracle" has no more to do with reality than the word "hobbit". There can be no "science of hobbits" or "science of Long John Silver" or "science of miracles" because they're all fiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2017 11:09 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 47 of 696 (825385)
12-14-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tangle
12-14-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
You can observe and test the evidence. If it breaks natural laws it's a miracle.
If something "breaks" natural law, we change our understanding of the natural law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:01 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:26 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 50 of 696 (825391)
12-14-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
12-14-2017 12:26 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
And when we discover that the something can not be explained by what we have a complete understanding of we call it a miracle.
If the observations don't fit our understanding, the first thing we question is the observations. Unless the observations can be verified, we have no business calling it a miracle.
Tangle writes:
Wine can not be turned into blood by speaking at it. Or do you think it can?
I think people can observe water turning into wine. I don't think we can make the leap from an isolated observation to a scientific fact OR a "miracle".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 12:26 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 1:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 696 (825481)
12-15-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tangle
12-14-2017 1:07 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
Oddly enough, the bleeding statues never get verification. But if they did, it would be called a miracle.
No, it would be called something we can't explain.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
I think people can observe water turning into wine.
No they can't - water does not turn into wine.
What people can observe has nothing to do with whether it can happen or not. People see things happening all the time that didn't happen. That's why eyewitness evidence is so unreliable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2017 1:07 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2017 11:03 AM ringo has replied
 Message 398 by Phat, posted 01-13-2018 2:32 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 74 of 696 (825495)
12-15-2017 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Tangle
12-15-2017 11:03 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
The important point is that we know enough about basic science to know that these things are impossible; therefore miracle.
The important point is that if we know it's impossible, we also know it didn't happen - i.e. the observation must be wrong. Attempts to replicate the observation fail. That's not a miracle; it's a mistake.
Tangle writes:
"Observe" is not confined to casual witnesses evidence.
But miracles are. That's why "therefore miracle" is a nonsense statement, like "therefore leprechaun". Nothing can validly lead to that conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2017 11:03 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2017 12:00 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 76 of 696 (825507)
12-15-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tangle
12-15-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
It's the fact that the thing is impossible that makes it a miracle.
That's clearly wrong. A lot of the events in the Bible that are labeled "miracles" are not impossible: crossing the Red Sea, healing the sick, feeding the multitude, etc.
Tangle writes:
... transubstantiation is not a miracle - wine did not turn to blood. But if it ever did in a reproducible and testable manner it would be a miracle.
If wine turned into blood in a reproducible and testable manner, it would not be a miracle. It would be a fact. It would be a process that we didn't understand before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2017 12:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2017 4:12 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 114 of 696 (825592)
12-16-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tangle
12-15-2017 4:12 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
They're all impossible in the way they're supposed to have been done.
So is turning on a flashlight. It's the supposition that's wrong.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
If wine turned into blood in a reproducible and testable manner, it would not be a miracle. It would be a fact.
It would be an impossible fact.
If it happens in a reproducible and testable manner, it isn't impossible.
Tangle writes:
It would be an impossible process.
If it happens in a reproducible and testable manner, it isn't impossible.
You can't just declare that something is "impossible". If it happens, it's not impossible.
Your definitions are just not adequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2017 4:12 PM Tangle has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 115 of 696 (825593)
12-16-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
12-15-2017 1:04 PM


Re: What IF?
Phat writes:
There are a lot of things we don't know for sure...including what is and is not possible.
That's the point I'm trying to make to Tangle. There are things that used to be labeled "impossible", such as turning on a flashlight, that are commonplace today. It was the declaration of "impossible" that was wrong.
On the other hand, there are supposed miracles such as the Flood which are still impossible by everything we know and everything we ever hope to know. It's so unlikely that you'll ever be able to carry a worldwide flood around on your keychain that we can be pretty confident in calling it impossible.
If it's that impossible, we can be pretty confident that it didn't happen. (It's also impossible for something that big to happen without leaving evidence, you it's impossible piled on top of impossible.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 12-15-2017 1:04 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 116 of 696 (825594)
12-16-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Tangle
12-15-2017 5:58 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
That's the only definition of a miracle. If something is possible, it can't be a miracle.
A miracle is defined as inexplicable, not impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2017 5:58 PM Tangle has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 118 of 696 (825600)
12-16-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tangle
12-16-2017 11:19 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
It also keeps the word in the dictionary for which I can only apologise.
You can also apologize for misrepresenting the dictionary. Neither Merriam-Webster nor dictionary.com nor thefreedictionary.com uses the word "impossible".
Everybody's dictionary includes the word "miracle", along with the words "fiction" and "fairy tale". You're just using it wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2017 11:19 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2017 2:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 133 of 696 (825709)
12-17-2017 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
12-16-2017 2:11 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Tangle writes:
Breaking the laws of physics=impossible
The dictionaries don't talk about "breaking the laws of physics" either. They describe miracles as seeming to be inexplicable by our current understanding of the laws of nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2017 2:11 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 1:19 PM ringo has replied
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 12-17-2017 1:48 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024