|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes you can. You can observe and test the evidence. If it breaks natural laws it's a miracle. Nope, you could just be wrong about the natural law. And if you can test it, then it's natural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
If something "breaks" natural law, we change our understanding of the natural law.
You can observe and test the evidence. If it breaks natural laws it's a miracle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NCE writes: Nope, you could just be wrong about the natural law. We know with 100% certainty that wine can't and never can be turned into blood by a guy in dress simply talking at it. That would be a miracle by any definition. And we can test it.
And if you can test it, then it's natural. A miracle must happen in the natural world. Anything that happens in the natural world can be observed. If it can't be observed, we can't know anything has happened. You have to accept the paradox. If you don't you're just saying that miracles can't happen. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Ringo writes: If something "breaks" natural law, we change our understanding of the natural law. And when we discover that the something can not be explained by what we have a complete understanding of we call it a miracle. We're not talking about quantum dynamics or dark matter, we're talking about an impossible event occurring in something we full understand. Wine can not be turned into blood by speaking at it. Or do you think it can?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
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.
And when we discover that the something can not be explained by what we have a complete understanding of we call it a miracle. Tangle writes:
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".
Wine can not be turned into blood by speaking at it. Or do you think it can?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Ringo writes: If the observations don't fit our understanding, the first thing we question is the observations. Of course.
Unless the observations can be verified, we have no business calling it a miracle. Of course. This is why we've never seen a miracle. Oddly enough, the bleeding statues never get verification. But if they did, it would be called a miracle.
I think people can observe water turning into wine. No they can't - water does not turn into wine. Nor wine to blood, as is claimed daily by Catholics.
I don't think we can make the leap from an isolated observation to a scientific fact OR a "miracle". Neither do I.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
We know with 100% certainty that wine can't and never can be turned into blood by a guy in dress simply talking at it. That would be a miracle by any definition. And we can test it. If that event happened and you tested it then that would mean that you weren't 100% certain that it couldn't happen. And the response should not be to declare a miracle but to evaluate our understanding of what is possible.
A miracle must happen in the natural world. How do you know? They could be happening in other worlds.
Anything that happens in the natural world can be observed. How do you know? There could be things happening that you can't observe.
If it can't be observed, we can't know anything has happened. An unobservable event could cause an observable consequence, then you'd know something happened even though you couldn't observe it.
You have to accept the paradox. If you don't you're just saying that miracles can't happen. What I'm saying is that it could happen and someone could be aware of it even though they don't have scientific evidence. Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
New Cat's Eye writes: A miracle must happen in the natural world. How do you know? They could be happening in other worlds. I think this point may have already been addressed upthread, but anyway, the context included the ability to observe the miracle, and so I assumed Tangle's meaning was, "A miracle that we can observe must happen in the natural world."Sure, miracles could be taking place a mile a minute "in other worlds" (I'm assuming you mean other universes), but how would we ever know? Anything that happens in the natural world can be observed. How do you know? There could be things happening that you can't observe. I thought this point was already addressed, too. What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent?
You have to accept the paradox. If you don't you're just saying that miracles can't happen. What I'm saying is that it could happen and someone could be aware of it even though they don't have scientific evidence. The vast majority of things that happen take place away from scientific observation. So of course a miracle could happen where no scientific observations are being made. But if miracles are part of the natural world then unless God is playing games with us it is possible for them to take place where scientific observations are being conducted.
Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous. Yeah, I think that's the paradox that was mentioned above. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think this point may have already been addressed upthread, but anyway, the context included the ability to observe the miracle, and so I assumed Tangle's meaning was, "A miracle that we can observe must happen in the natural world." That phrasing makes more sense and is agreeable. "Must happen in" is a little strong for my taste but its not worth nitpicking. I know what you mean.
Sure, miracles could be taking place a mile a minute "in other worlds" (I'm assuming you mean other universes), but how would we ever know? Ever? Go there and see But yeah, from here we wouldn't know either way. But we can't just say they must happen here.
I thought this point was already addressed, too. What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent? The undetectable can exist while the non-existent cannot.
The vast majority of things that happen take place away from scientific observation. So of course a miracle could happen where no scientific observations are being made. Yeah, I'm not sure why there's disagreement and claims to the contrary.
But if miracles are part of the natural world then unless God is playing games with us it is possible for them to take place where scientific observations are being conducted.
Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous. Yeah, I think that's the paradox that was mentioned above. I'm not disagreeing with it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NCE writes: If that event happened and you tested it then that would mean that you weren't 100% certain that it couldn't happen. An event that we figured couldn't happen would have to be tested before we could claim it happened at all.
And the response should not be to declare a miracle but to evaluate our understanding of what is possible. To talk of miracles you have to imagine the impossible and suspend reality. We know wine can't turn into blood by a priest chanting a religious rune at it. We KNOW that. If it did turn we would be forced to declare it a miracle. It's not a matter of re-evaluating science, it would be a true supernatural event. We know enough about our world to know that what has happened is an impossibility. To deny that is non-scientific.
How do you know? They could be happening in other worlds. I'm concerned with what is happening in the only world I or anyone else has knowledge of. Pickled onions could be kings and herrings queens on other worlds, but it seems a bit weird to worry ourselves overmuch about it here and now.
How do you know? There could be things happening that you can't observe. Then no one is able to call them mirculous. (Or anything else.)
An unobservable event could cause an observable consequence, then you'd know something happened even though you couldn't observe it. We would witness the miraculous event. The wine is chnged to blood. Who knows what caused it? It's a miracle.
What I'm saying is that it could happen and someone could be aware of it even though they don't have scientific evidence. Which is supposedly the case for miracles in the bible. But as we have no objective evidence that the events described actually happened, we can't claim a miracle.
Also, if it can be tested it's not miraculous. Non sequitur.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: Because of the tons of witness evidence. That's the point. If you are talking about the gospels, those are second and third hand accounts, and are also suspect because they are coming from people who are trying to start a religion based on those gospels. You need disinterested (i.e. unbiased) first person eye witness accounts, not hearsay from biased authors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
New Cat's Eye writes: I thought this point was already addressed, too. What is the difference between the undetectable and the non-existent? The undetectable can exist while the non-existent cannot. Removing the ambiguity in my phrasing, what is the difference (to us the observers and experiencers of phenomena) between something that exists but is undetectable, that leaves no imprint on the universe, versus something that doesn't exist? Given that our understanding of the universe is based upon evidence, upon things we can detect, how could we ever gain any knowledge about something that, being undetectable, leaves behind no evidence, or measure how it is different from the nonexistent, which identically also leaves behind no evidence? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Removing the ambiguity in my phrasing, what is the difference (to us the observers and experiencers of phenomena) between something that exists but is undetectable, that leaves no imprint on the universe, versus something that doesn't exist? Given that our understanding of the universe is based upon evidence, upon things we can detect, how could we ever gain any knowledge about something that, being undetectable, leaves behind no evidence, or measure how it is different from the nonexistent, which identically also leaves behind no evidence? This line of reasoning is cockamamie poppadoodle. We're talking about something WITNESSED by people that doesn't happen to leave physical evidence. It's been witnessed, it happened, but despite that screamingly obvious fact it's getting declared nonexistent because you don't have physical remains to show for it?. Some physical events don't leave that kind of evidence, therefore you declare them nonexistent? What? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The gospels have been understood for two millennia to be honest accounts by honest people. Only revisionist idiots have decided otherwise in recent times.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: We're talking about something WITNESSED by people that doesn't happen to leave physical evidence. It's been witnessed, it happened, but despite that screamingly obvious fact it's getting declared nonexistent because you don't have physical remains to show for it?. A story is not witness, it's a story. The stories in the bible have no evidential value.
Some physical events don't leave that kind of evidence, therefore you declare them nonexistent? We declare them not proven.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024