The "science" of Miracles

But again, so far there has been no evidence that leads to the conclusion of miracle.

Not quite. If someone could come up with an way to test for the supernatural then the results of those tests might lead to a conclusion that the supernatural exists.Let me give an example.Back in the 1970s IIRC a young astronomer named Vera Rubin was looking at galaxies when she noticed that the stars away from the center were moving at nearly the same speed as stars closer to the center. That simply should not have happened. It was impossible, impossible on a really big scale, bigger than flying bridges or moving mountain.It broke the laws. It is as inexplicable as a miracle. Unfortunately within a decade others had confirmed he observation.Today we assign the name Dark Matter to the force that is responsible for the observation, but we are still pretty much clueless what Dark Matter is. Now. almost a half century later we are beginning to get some hints about what Dark Matter might be.My position is not that no conclusion of Supernatural should ever be made, but just as with Dark matter, we place the cause of things like the examples mentioned in the "Unknown category" just as we admit we still don't know what Dark Matter is or how it works or why it exists or ...I firmly believe that one day we will actually understand Dark Matter and more importantly, it is not a hypothetical. If and when something inexplicable does come up it seems to me to be more reasonable to label it "Unexplained" and allow folk to believe it is a miracle or a fraud or a carny trick or magic or illusion.

Not while we are still alive.

Nor did I suggest Black Matter is considered a miracle.I have nbo issue with the idea of "scientists baffled" but even looking closely I still see nothing that says miracle.Remember Percy, I believe miracles actually happened but I sim

There is a difference between believing something is a miracle and something I would consider miraculous.Even the George Washington Bridge moving to San Francisco Bay in an instant would not be evidence of a miracle in my opinion.The difference is the matter of evidence.I cannot imagine anything that would qualify as evidence that a miracle happened; honestly absolutely nothing IMHO would be evidence of a miracle.Yet I do believe simply on faith that miracles happen.

I've said many times that some of my beliefs are not reasonable, rational, logical or evidenced based.But in the world of science there must be testable evidence.We can test and verify that the GW Bridge moved to Oakland should that happen.What I can't see any possible way though of testing is the supernatural. If the GW Bridge suddenly moved to Oakland we could test and reach a consensus that it happened. But that's as far as we can go with The "science" of miracles.I might believe it a miracle. I might call it a miracle. But honestly I cannot say there was any evidence of a miracle.

Science can study the evidence, the GW Bridge moving to Oakland but how do you study the supernatural? Yet the question remains; how do you study the supernatural?

Yes, you have said that.But that doesn't have any meaning that I can see.We often find things that seem to be inexplicable by the laws of nature and when we do, we change the laws.BUT, by definition, the supernatural is not natural; that is why it is a different word than natural. It is something attributed to forces or persons outside the natural world.We can study the event called "Where dat Bridge?" or the event called "Hold my Beer and watch this!" but what tools let us observe the supernatural; not the even itself but what caused the event?Applying a placeholder called "miracle" is about as useful as "goddidit" and neither tell us much at all.The galloping bridge (was found in Tacoma across the narrows) and we can study that event, but where is the study of the supernatural?In science when we have said "that simply cannot be explained by the laws of nature we have always been found to really mean "that simply can't be explained be the laws of nature as we understand them now."That reminds me of a favorite story.Alfred Stein was an inventor; many thought him a crackpot.He claimed to have invented a time machine.On day he walked into the local bank, robbed it and then flicked the switch on his time machine and with a last parting shout declared "I'll be back. Right after the Statute of Limitations has expired".Well, years past and sure enough, seven and a half years later Alfred reappeared at the same spot and asked to deposit a large sum of cash he happened to have on him.The guard at the bank immediately detained him and the police came and charged him with the robbery.The case went to court with the evidence of the video taken at the time of the robbery while his defense claimed that the Statute of Limitations had passed and so he could not be charged now for something he was not charged with seven and a half years earlier.The prosecution claimed that since for Alfred no time had passed the statute simply did not apply.Now of course Alfred was simply a nobody and really was crackpot but the Judges decision has gone down in history and all remember that "A niche in Time saves Stein."So that pretty much sums up the moving bridge. That happened in the real world and we can study the event and we can hang a label on it of "Miracle" or "that's strange!" but how do we study what caused the event? The label tells us nothing and can at best simply be a placeholder until we come up with a way to study the supernatural.

Simply not true Percy. You can observe the bridge and the process but there is no evidence of anything supernatural. There you are writing checks your ass can't cash.All you are doing is creating a definition of supernatural that is entirely natural.Edited by jar, : fix quote box

Only according to your definition which actually seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.