Religious Miracles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

That there is no reason to believe that one has ever occurred. It's a question of probability. What's more likely: that the laws of nature were violated, or that someone got the story wrong or just made it up? Considering what we know about human psychology, I'd say the latter is far more probable.

---

By saying that you imply that you, that mankind KNOWS the laws of nature. A naive statement at best. To say that we have minds capable of grasping at the fringes of the laws of nature, is akin to saying we understand eternity or infinity. The human mind is to feeble, to mortal, to ever comprehend anything but a microscopic fathom on the fringes of the laws of nature.

Oh and as another note, while may scientists say they are atheists or agnostic, a portion of those who say that are truly deists, they just don't say that they are deists as there is not set of rules or thought on deism, it very individual, and thus a great difficulty to explain, so its just easier to say they are agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Not THAT rare Atheist, I am closley releated to 2 and know about half a dozen others...

---

Sorry, I should have made that point clearer as it specifically related to a discussion about ICU/CC patients.

I don't mean the typical "You have six months/a year to live" scenarios, but cases where multiple trauma has a patient expected to die in the very near future - hours or a day.

Actually I was talking about ICU patients too :D But lets just say my family aside ( I will admit we are a bizzare bunch medical wise adn only one of those 2 was actually in ICU ) I happen to be postioned to hear and know about the freakiest ICU/CC cases... and meant quite a few of them. BUt then like I said I don't think those count as religious mircales as such, Its just proof we are not infallible and don't know everything!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

By saying that you imply that you, that mankind KNOWS the laws of nature. A naive statement at best. To say that we have minds capable of grasping at the fringes of the laws of nature, is akin to saying we understand eternity or infinity.

---

Can you expand on this, because I think I have an excellent grasp on "the laws of nature" such as we understand them to date. So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways.

You don't need to understand infinity and eternity since they are merely human constructions and do not exist in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

The human mind is to feeble, to mortal, to ever comprehend anything but a microscopic fathom on the fringes of the laws of nature.

---

That's a frequently-stated opinion, but as noted, unless there is a secret universe we haven't discovered yet, there just aren't enough gaps in human knowledge to make it stick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Oh and as another note, while may scientists say they are atheists or agnostic, a portion of those who say that are truly deists, they just don't say that they are deists as there is not set of rules or thought on deism, it very individual, and thus a great difficulty to explain, so its just easier to say they are agnostic.

---

I don't agree with this either - deism has been popular with scientists for centuries and there are still plenty around who hold publicly to the belief. I can't imagine the subject is worth covering up; most deists are just as proud of their beliefs as any worshipper, and against some religious beliefs, are quite sane and reasonable. If some scientists can believe that the earth is 6014 years old, I don't see others who happen to be deists finding it too hard to explain their beliefs.

Why are so many posters so snotty in their replies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Can you expand on this, because I think I have an excellent grasp on "the laws of nature" such as we understand them to date. So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways.
.

---

You are begging the question about miracles, Athiest. Of course everyone agrees that IF the universe behaves in totally predictable ways, there are no miracles. Miracles are CALLED "miracles" precisely because they are unpredictable, and contravene the apparent "Laws of Nature". Look back at post 25, where I explain the "problem of induction".

I'll put it another way: If Jesus rose from the dead, he was behaving in an unpredictable way. However, it is fallacious reasoning to suggest that He cannot have risen from the dead because normally thing are predictable, and therefore nothing that is unpredictable can ever happen. Either Jesus rose from the dead (in which case unpredictable things CAN happen), or He didn't rise from the dead (in which case unpredictable things may or may not be able to happen).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Either way we shouldn't take life and the world for granted.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jassy Melson

Why are so many posters so snotty in their replies?

---

Asking for non-snotty posters here is like asking for a miracle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

You are begging the question about miracles, Athiest.

---

I'm not sure why you've typed that post, because it has nothing to do with what I said, which was specifically aimed at Alexander's claim:

Quote:

---

To say that we have minds capable of grasping at the fringes of the laws of nature, is akin to saying we understand eternity or infinity.

---

It is not begging the question in any way. Alexander has made a strange claim and I would like clarification of it as it appears to challenge what human knowledge actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunted

Asking for non-snotty posters here is like asking for a miracle.

---

:smilielol5:

However, I haven't seen any "snotty" posts. But I probably don't know what "snotty" means. Perhaps whatever annoys the reader?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It is not begging the question in any way. Alexander has made a strange claim and I would like clarification of it as it appears to challenge what human knowledge actually is.

---

Actually, you said, "So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways." If humans have "discovered" miracles (as some claim), this is manifestly false.

We puny humans certainly can't predict many of the ways in which "the universe, matter and energy" behave. If we could, we could make a fortune at Las Vegas. So your statement begs the question of miracles (if there ARE miracles, the universe does NOT behave in predictable ways). In addition, it is a leap of faith on your part to make such an assertion. We can't even predict whether the dice will come up seven or eleven, let alone many more complicated things about the universe. You seem to be saying, "Because we can scientifically predict some things about the universe, given better scientific knowledge we could predict everything." This may be true -- but it is far from proven.

I don't mean to pick nits with you, Atheist. Instead, I'm suggesting that such a "scientific worldview" (asserting that with superior data and better theoretical constructs we COULD predict the behavior of the universe) is itself a mighty leap of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Actually, you said, "So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways." If humans have "discovered" miracles (as some claim), this is manifestly false.

---

No, I think you're barking up the wrong tree entirely.

Alexander believes the universe is neither understandable nor predictable. That is wrong.

You will note that I started my sentence with "so far". That means, every discovery up until now.

If a miracle is ever proven, then I will change the statement, but in the meantime, with all evidence of miracles being disputed at the very least, I don't believe the statement is deficient in any way.

Claims of miracles to date have not had sufficient evidence to support them to be given any credence whatsoever. I file them along with all the other personal anecdotes - those about Loch Ness Monster and sasquatch sightings, alien abductions and the myriad of other deluded fantasies people try to claim as "evidence".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

We puny humans certainly can't predict many of the ways in which "the universe, matter and energy" behave. If we could, we could make a fortune at Las Vegas.

---

This, however, is just rubbish.

Predicting the outcome of a dice throw is very, very simple - it will be a number between 1 and 6, inclusive. Blaming science for being unable to predict a random number generator bears no relationship to knowledge of the universe whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

So your statement begs the question of miracles (if there ARE miracles, the universe does NOT behave in predictable ways). In addition, it is a leap of faith on your part to make such an assertion. We can't even predict whether the dice will come up seven or eleven, let alone many more complicated things about the universe. You seem to be saying, "Because we can scientifically predict some things about the universe, given better scientific knowledge we could predict everything." This may be true -- but it is far from proven.

I don't mean to pick nits with you, Atheist. Instead, I'm suggesting that such a "scientific worldview" (asserting that with superior data and better theoretical constructs we COULD predict the behavior of the universe) is itself a mighty leap of faith.

---

Feel free to think that way, but it just shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process, because no faith is involved. I don't have any faith that science will ultimately answer all questions, but logic tells me that it's extremely likely, given the record of science vs myth for the past few thousand years.

Once you get past solipsism, reality begins to exist, and is measurable. Science doesn't prove reality, it just shows how it works.

If a genuine miracle happens, it will be outside of science - except for perhaps measuring the effect upon the terrestrial subject in question - and therefore will not change "natural laws". That's why the term "supernatural" exists.

As I've already stated in this or another thread - a supernatural miracle can be taken as proof of god. This is about the only thing I agree with Tommy Aquinas on.

While I keep waiting for the real thing I enjoy reports of miracles; from Indian statues in farm ponds to visions at Medugorje there are always plenty of people prepared to give miracles a free pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This, however, is just rubbish.

Predicting the outcome of a dice throw is very, very simple - it will be a number between 1 and 6, inclusive. Blaming science for being unable to predict a random number generator bears no relationship to knowledge of the universe whatsoever.
.

---

You are merely repeating your prejudices. Of course I and most other modern people share these same prejudices, so its easy to avoid seeing them. Nonetheless, if "matter and energy behave in totally predictable ways" (as you claimed) we should be able to predict the results of a dice throw. I don't see why you say we can't. It's all a matter of the electrons firing off in the brain of the craps thrower; the muscles spasming in his hand and arm; the friction of the dice with the air and the cloth on the craps table.

I'm science oriented myself -- I'm completely willing to say that with more complete data, and better understanding of the physics of the human brain and muscles, we could predict which number would come up on the die every time. My point is that we're a long way off from being able to do so. So my claim that we COULD (given better science and data) is a mere leap of faith.

So is your suggestion that miracles can't happen because nature operates according to strict "laws", which never alter. If you are right -- then I'm right about potentially predicting the roll of the die. But both claims involve a leap of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Actually, you said, "So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways." If humans have "discovered" miracles (as some claim), this is manifestly false.

We puny humans certainly can't predict many of the ways in which "the universe, matter and energy" behave. If we could, we could make a fortune at Las Vegas. So your statement begs the question of miracles (if there ARE miracles, the universe does NOT behave in predictable ways). In addition, it is a leap of faith on your part to make such an assertion. We can't even predict whether the dice will come up seven or eleven, let alone many more complicated things about the universe. You seem to be saying, "Because we can scientifically predict some things about the universe, given better scientific knowledge we could predict everything." This may be true -- but it is far from proven.

I don't mean to pick nits with you, Atheist. Instead, I'm suggesting that such a "scientific worldview" (asserting that with superior data and better theoretical constructs we COULD predict the behavior of the universe) is itself a mighty leap of faith.

---

Can I interest you in a game of poker?

Sure. I play regularly. Playing according to the "odds" is the best tactic given our imperfect knowledge. But given better scientific knolwedge, the chances of hitting a third ace on the river is either 0% or 100%. We only say it's 2/46 because we don't know what card is second from the top of the deck. The odds are a useful fiction.