Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 271 of 696 (826259)
12-27-2017 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Percy
12-23-2017 1:11 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
Attributed isn't part of the definition of miracle. Here are several definitions:
Wikipedia: an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.
Pull-ease. Wikipedia says:
quote:
A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.[2] Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.
You're own Oxford dictionary quote uses the word "attributed" for fuck's sake. Your dictionary.com quote uses the word "ascribed" instead.
Percy writes:
So we can stop the back-and-forth about whether attributed is part of the definition of miracle.
Obviously it is. Read your own quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 12-23-2017 1:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 12-27-2017 4:32 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 272 of 696 (826260)
12-27-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Phat
12-23-2017 3:32 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phat writes:
You believe in science and human potential because its all you have chosen to believe in.
I believe in science and human potential because it's all we can count on.
Phat writes:
Miracles by definition are special.
Miracles are believed to be special by people who believe in the "supernatural", often because they don't understand the natural.
Phat writes:
You try too hard to disprove any possibility that the stories in the Bible are actually miraculous....
Do you believe a flashlight is miraculous? Do you think the Bible authors would have believed a flashlight was miraculous?
Phat writes:
A belief can be a belief regardless of evidence....
Certainly, a belief can be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Phat, posted 12-23-2017 3:32 PM Phat has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 273 of 696 (826266)
12-27-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by ringo
12-27-2017 2:07 PM


ringo writes:
On the contrary, many of the "miracles" that we're discussing are ordinary.
You must smoke some weird stuff. When did you see a bridge fly? Wine turn to blood?
Many things that were called "miraculous" in the past are considered ordinary today.
Yes, but now we know stuff and the stuff we know is enough to tell us beyond all doubt that wine can't turn to blood by someone talking at it and bridges don't up sticks and fly away. And, of course, you know this.
The important point is that somebody thinks it's impossible, not that it is.
No. The important point is that it breaks those laws of nature that we fully undersand. You're being irrational and unscientific by ignoring both science and evidence.

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 270 by ringo, posted 12-27-2017 2:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 12-27-2017 3:33 PM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 274 of 696 (826267)
12-27-2017 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Tangle
12-27-2017 3:24 PM


Tangle writes:
When did you see a bridge fly?
That's exactly the point. I didn't. Nobody did. It didn't happen. You made it up. It doesn't count as a "miracle".
Tangle writes:
... the stuff we know is enough to tell us beyond all doubt that wine can't turn to blood....
What we know is that people who think they see something "breaking the laws of nature" are mistaken. Maybe they just don't understand the laws of nature or maybe their observation was careless. What they thought they saw, didn't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2017 3:24 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2017 3:54 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 275 of 696 (826268)
12-27-2017 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ringo
12-27-2017 3:33 PM


ringo writes:
That's exactly the point. I didn't. Nobody did. It didn't happen. You made it up. It doesn't count as a "miracle".
Well we both know that miracles don't happen, so we're left discussing hypotheticals. If you can't discuss hypotheticals there's nowhere to go. The thing is, we'd both know a miracle, it would look like a flying bridge.
What we know is that people who think they see something "breaking the laws of nature" are mistaken. Maybe they just don't understand the laws of nature or maybe their observation was careless.
You're talking about the ordinary again. We've already ruled all that crap out.

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 274 by ringo, posted 12-27-2017 3:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by ringo, posted 12-28-2017 10:57 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 276 of 696 (826272)
12-27-2017 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by ringo
12-27-2017 2:14 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
So we can stop the back-and-forth about whether attributed is part of the definition of miracle.
Obviously it is. Read your own quotes.
Geez, you're right. One would be hard put to find a better example of clear error. Sorry for the back and forth about this.
But I proposed a different approach at the end of my previous post, Message 269. Because science is tentative it doesn't matter that we can't conclude miracle with certainty. When the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson, analysis could conclude miracle with perfect scientific validity since the conclusion is tentative.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by ringo, posted 12-27-2017 2:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 12-28-2017 10:46 AM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 277 of 696 (826297)
12-28-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Percy
12-27-2017 4:32 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Percy writes:
Because science is tentative it doesn't matter that we can't conclude miracle with certainty.
That's what I'm saying. Science doesn't label things as "impossible" or "against the laws of nature".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 12-27-2017 4:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 12-29-2017 8:51 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 278 of 696 (826298)
12-28-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Tangle
12-27-2017 3:54 PM


Tangle writes:
Well we both know that miracles don't happen, so we're left discussing hypotheticals.
No, we're discussing reports of miracles. In the present, somebody did see something that they call miraculous. For past reports, like the Bible, we have to question whether the reports themselves are authentic or whether they are just made up like your hypothetical flying bridge.
If somebody reported a flying bridge, we would investigate it scientifically, just like we investigate UFOs. And we would either conclude that the witnesses didn't see what they thought they saw or that something happened that we can't explain yet.
Tangle writes:
You're talking about the ordinary again. We've already ruled all that crap out.
No we have not. Healing the sick is ordinary - it's happened to every one of us. Jesus' face on a piece of toast is ordinary. We can explain those "miracles" scientifically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2017 3:54 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Tangle, posted 12-28-2017 1:05 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 279 of 696 (826305)
12-28-2017 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by ringo
12-28-2017 10:57 AM


ringo writes:
No we have not.
Yes we have. Many times.
Healing the sick is ordinary - it's happened to every one of us. Jesus' face on a piece of toast is ordinary. We can explain those "miracles" scientifically.
That'll be because they're not miracles....
But we're just going round in circles. I'm out for a while.

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 278 by ringo, posted 12-28-2017 10:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by ringo, posted 12-29-2017 10:46 AM Tangle has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 280 of 696 (826312)
12-28-2017 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Percy
12-23-2017 1:11 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
The miracles Tangle and I have been describing are clearly and obviously inexplicable by the natural physical laws of the universe.
Where I'm not following you and Tangle, is why we should assume that the magical bridge-moving cherubs are not governed by some kind of natural laws.
Regardless of which way we look at it, we have to accept that the universe is fundamentally not as we thought it was. It contains magical bridge-moving cherubs. Your approach therefore seems to be to throw up our hands and give in - magical bridge-moving cherubs are not and cannot be subject to any natural laws.
But why would this be the case? I understand that Tangle keeps repeating that we 'know' how he natural world works and know that it cannot contain magical cherubs; and that may have been reasonable to think yesterday. But that was yesterday - before we all saw the flying bridge with cherubs on it. Clearly this is the time to accept that we know a lot less than we thought, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 12-23-2017 1:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 12-28-2017 2:38 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied
 Message 283 by Phat, posted 12-29-2017 8:42 AM caffeine has replied
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 12-29-2017 9:40 AM caffeine has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 281 of 696 (826315)
12-28-2017 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by caffeine
12-28-2017 2:19 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
I just realized one confusing point I contributed to earlier: when I said "natural," although I kept defining it as created as versus uncreated, it must have kept being read as "physical." We know about the physical laws of nature, but if there are created beings that don't belong to the physical world, which would include all "spirit beings" like angels, cherubs, demons, fairies and so on, it doesn't clarify anything to insist on their being natural in the sense of created. They are sufficiently outside our ways of knowing to need some other kind of category. But one thing to note is that they are all BEINGS, living creatures, we're not talking about a world composed of some other kind of matter, at least I haven't been.
This is probably off topic at this point but I felt it needed some kind of attempt at clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by caffeine, posted 12-28-2017 2:19 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Phat, posted 12-29-2017 8:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 282 of 696 (826336)
12-29-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
12-28-2017 2:38 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Faith writes:
We know about the physical laws of nature, but if there are created beings that don't belong to the physical world, which would include all "spirit beings" like angels, cherubs, demons, fairies and so on, it doesn't clarify anything to insist on their being natural in the sense of created. They are sufficiently outside our ways of knowing to need some other kind of category. But one thing to note is that they are all BEINGS, living creatures, we're not talking about a world composed of some other kind of matter, at least I haven't been.
From my experience, I could hardly conclude that such phenomena are living. I will agree that they exist, but beyond that, I have no clue. We are discussing things for which science has nothing to latch onto, apart from our probable delusions. (and I would argue that I was NOT delusional, though there is no way to prove it.)
Would you not agree, however, that if a "created being" was not of the natural world there would be no way to study it?

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 281 by Faith, posted 12-28-2017 2:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 283 of 696 (826337)
12-29-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by caffeine
12-28-2017 2:19 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Where I'm not following you and Tangle, is why we should assume that the magical bridge-moving cherubs are not governed by some kind of natural laws.
We keep looking for some way to test and verify....
Regardless of which way we look at it, we have to accept that the universe is fundamentally not as we thought it was.
This also could (and should) apply to the concept of GOD. If you isolate the miracles and phenomena from GOD, they would appear to be eventually describable. Throwing the Big Guy into the equation means that science has a lot more work to do to explain Him.(or as jar may suggest, Her or It )

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 280 by caffeine, posted 12-28-2017 2:19 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by caffeine, posted 01-02-2018 12:16 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 284 of 696 (826340)
12-29-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by ringo
12-28-2017 10:46 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
ringo writes:
That's what I'm saying. Science doesn't label things as "impossible" or "against the laws of nature".
But now imagine you're confronted with the "impossible" or (to use words I actually said) "an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws". There'd have to at least be a discussion. What happened took place in the natural world. Is it science? Something else?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 12-28-2017 10:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by ringo, posted 12-29-2017 10:51 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 285 of 696 (826352)
12-29-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by caffeine
12-28-2017 2:19 PM


Re: Definition Of Terms
caffeine writes:
Where I'm not following you and Tangle, is why we should assume that the magical bridge-moving cherubs are not governed by some kind of natural laws.
I don't know if the cherubs are important to your argument, but cherubs weren't part of my scenario of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson.
Regardless of which way we look at it, we have to accept that the universe is fundamentally not as we thought it was.
True.
It [the universe] contains magical bridge-moving cherubs.
The way I would describe it is that it contains events and/or objects not explicable by the known laws of nature.
Your approach therefore seems to be to throw up our hands and give in - magical bridge-moving cherubs are not and cannot be subject to any natural laws.
I can't comment about the cherubs, but I don't suggest we "throw up our hands and give in." We don't think of it that way whenever we discover something new about the universe. We say, "Eureka, more knowledge!"
But why would this be the case? I understand that Tangle keeps repeating that we 'know' how he natural world works and know that it cannot contain magical cherubs; and that may have been reasonable to think yesterday. But that was yesterday - before we all saw the flying bridge with cherubs on it. Clearly this is the time to accept that we know a lot less than we thought, isn't it?
Hopefully we already thought we knew very little, but actual miracles would be new science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by caffeine, posted 12-28-2017 2:19 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by caffeine, posted 01-03-2018 2:15 AM Percy 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