|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Pull-ease. Wikipedia says:
Attributed isn't part of the definition of miracle. Here are several definitions: Wikipedia: an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. quote: 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:
Obviously it is. Read your own quotes.
So we can stop the back-and-forth about whether attributed is part of the definition of miracle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I believe in science and human potential because it's all we can count on.
You believe in science and human potential because its all you have chosen to believe in. Phat writes:
Miracles are believed to be special by people who believe in the "supernatural", often because they don't understand the natural.
Miracles by definition are special. Phat writes:
Do you believe a flashlight is miraculous? Do you think the Bible authors would have believed a flashlight was miraculous?
You try too hard to disprove any possibility that the stories in the Bible are actually miraculous.... Phat writes:
Certainly, a belief can be wrong.
A belief can be a belief regardless of evidence....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle 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".
When did you see a bridge fly? Tangle writes:
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.
... the stuff we know is enough to tell us beyond all doubt that wine can't turn to blood....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Obviously it is. Read your own quotes. So we can stop the back-and-forth about whether attributed is part of the definition of miracle. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
That's what I'm saying. Science doesn't label things as "impossible" or "against the laws of nature".
Because science is tentative it doesn't matter that we can't conclude miracle with certainty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
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. Well we both know that miracles don't happen, so we're left discussing hypotheticals. 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:
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.
You're talking about the ordinary again. We've already ruled all that crap out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1049 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Faith writes: 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.) 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024