No such thing as an empirical miracle. Do you agree? [Archive]

Warcraft3

May 28th 2003, 12:50 PM

Criscodisco:

I said:

Events which are NOT explainable and contain implications of an intelligent cause could be considered miracles.

And Criscodisco responded with the following statements:

This is a contradiction.
***Sigh*** No, it is indeed not a contradiction. I guess I will have to elaborate here even though I think it is quite clear what I meant by my above statement.

You are using an intelligent force to explain the phenomenon-- therefore, the event is explainable.
Oh for the love of..............:doh:
Okay allow me to explain. A "miracle" in my definition is some event which has at least two characteristics:
1. It is a highly improbable event. Like a.a suspension of the laws of physics or bsome natural event which occurs at a time which makes it being "just chance" highly unlikely.

2. The event occurs in such a way that some non-physical intelligent agent appears to be the making decisions with respect to the event.

Currently understood laws or patterns of the natural world, just didn't predict the event.
That is no better of an explanation for some "supernatural" event than invoking an intelligent (nonphysical) cause. You are simply saying, "well maybe there is a natural explanation that we have not discovered yet". While this is convenient, it carries with it two problems. 1. It assumes that the event is explainable with purely natural laws 2. It does not take into account the information we DO know about natural laws. If something contradicts natural laws then either the laws are incorrect, or the event is not a natural event. I have two examples of events in the "personal miracles" thread which I believe can not be explained satisfactorially with purely natural causes.

Now you're suggesting that there is another law that functions in reality, that influenced or caused the event.
No I am not suggesting a "law" at all.

This isn't anything different than saying Gravity caused event X.
Um yeah it really is quite different.

Are you suggesting gravity is a miracle?

Um no I am not suggesting gravity is a miracle. I think the "logical" path you took to get from my statement to this question is not very logical at all.

Russ

CriscoDisco

May 28th 2003, 04:10 PM

some non-physical intelligent agent appears to be the making decisions with respect to the event

How is this not an explanation?

non-physical intelligent agent appears to be the making decisions with respect to the event.

How can this be non-physical, if it has affected the physical world?

Clearly there is a cause/effect relationship here, so there must be some sort of physical characteristic-- otherwise, how else could it interact?

We, as humans, can only know things via physical reactions. Therefore, any perception we have is a physical one.

well maybe there is a natural explanation that we have not discovered yet". While this is convenient, it carries with it two problems. 1. It assumes that the event is explainable with purely natural laws 2. It does not take into account the information we DO know about natural laws.

The critical issue here, is the notion of supernatural. What defines something as supernatural?

My contention is that nothing can be supernatural, or -- if it is, us natural humans could never know it. Any effect or cause or "intelligence," if we are to be aware of it, must cause a physical change in our eyes, ears, nose and brain.

A supernatural thing can only be observed by that which is supernatural.

Here, your point #1 fails. I'm not saying that natural laws will ever explain it. I'm fully willing to say that there are events and things that will forever be a mystery.

Just because a natural law fails, doesn't mean there is some superceding natural event.

You're trying to take a dis-positive claim: "We don't know why that happened," and make it a positive claim-- "It was intelligent force Q."

This is all fine and good, if you can make a test for this claim.
I have yet to see a test for the "God intelligent" force, so we can make useful future predictions.

Which requires you to define your "intelligent" force, describe its motivations and the things that influence it.

Otherwise, your mysterious "cause" could be anything-- meaning there is no fidelity in your thinking.

wwatts

May 28th 2003, 05:03 PM

To me, I recognize a miracle as just an event that breaks my threshold of 'too much of a coincidence'. I think everyone has a threshold for coincidences.

An analogy would be being the recipient of a practical joke. For instance, if you were just talking during the day about how much you love your car in front of 10 of your friends, and then later that day your car is missing from the spot whence you left it. A lot of people would say that is too much of a coincidence and would question their friends asking which one of them moved the car.

Some non-theists might say that if they looked under a microscope and found the words 'god was here' written on their skin, they might believe in God. Well that could be explained naturally, but it is just too much of a coincidence for most people. It just seems as if someone was directing the events.

I myself have an easier threshold to break then most. For instance, if I need $1562 and no one else knows about it, and I find $1562 on my doorstep, that is a miracle, even if the only 'supernatural' thing that happend was God putting it on someones heart to leave that money for me.

So to summarize, a way to recognize a miracle is something that breaks your threshold for coincidences and is personal.

Another way to define it more objectively would be just to say that given God has placed rules over his creation, whenever he breaks those rules himself, that event is a miracle.

CriscoDisco

May 28th 2003, 05:44 PM

wwatts-

That's a pretty good definition.
What you describe is the "god phenomenon" and you seem to be using a sort of Res Ipsa Loquitor sort of thinking-- the cause is self evident from the situation. You don't make any supernatural claims, you bluntly say-- God gets in and mucks with the universe in these situations.

Your main criteria is the "coincidences."
If there are events, where outrageously abnormal and unexpected convergence of events occurs-- then this is caused by God.

What of horrible tragedies? What sort of intelligence can we ascribe to those?

Warcraft3

May 28th 2003, 06:23 PM

CriscoDisco:

***Previous comments by myself are in crimson while comments by CriscoDisco are in blue***

some non-physical intelligent agent appears to be the making decisions with respect to the event

How is this not an explanation?
I never said it was not an explanation. But it is not a purely natural explanation, thats the whole point.

non-physical intelligent agent appears to be the making decisions with respect to the event.

How can this be non-physical, if it has affected the physical world?

Clearly there is a cause/effect relationship here, so there must be some sort of physical characteristic-- otherwise, how else could it interact?
Okay I am not going to play the "describe in detail exactly how God does everything" game. I do not know the answer to that and neither does anyone else. But I do have a personal opinion on the matter. I believe that God may act through the quantum uncertainities which exist in quantum physics. That is just a possibility though. Since He is not bound by space-time or matter-energy, it is possible for Him to affect the physical universe through a number of possibilities. Maybe he altars space-time itself, maybe he altars matter-energy, maybe He uses the quantum uncertainities, or maybe He uses some method that we can not even fathom. How the heck should I know? That is a question that I can not give a definate answer for and I am sure you know that. But that does not mean that a being who is beyond our dimensions could affect our dimensions. So lets not go down this road since it really is orthoganal to our discussion.

We, as humans, can only know things via physical reactions. Therefore, any perception we have is a physical one.
Okay. So our perceptions are physical. So what? Does that mean we can not infer a non physical reality? Of course it does not.

"well maybe there is a natural explanation that we have not discovered yet".While this is convenient, it carries with it two problems. 1. It assumes that the event is explainable with purely natural laws 2. It does not take into account the information we DO know about natural laws.

The critical issue here, is the notion of supernatural. What defines something as supernatural?
Read the thread on personal miracles. Or go look in a dictionary. Or just use your brain and think of something that you would define as supernatural. I am not going to get into a definition game. You (and everyone else) know full well the differance between something that is supernatural and something that is not. So please refrain from asking me to define things that I really should not have to.

My contention is that nothing can be supernatural, or -- if it is, us natural humans could never know it. Any effect or cause or "intelligence," if we are to be aware of it, must cause a physical change in our eyes, ears, nose and brain.
I am not sure how you get "nothing can be supernatural" out of us experiencing reality through our five senses. We can still infer supernatural things, even if our interaction with them is limited to our own dimensional limitations.

A supernatural thing can only be observed by that which is supernatural.
Wrong. A supernatural event can be witnessed as a natural event that has "intelligence cause beyond the known laws of physics" written all over it. I have seen supernatural events myself, so one can indeed witness such things. I do not have to see God exactly as He is in a literal "physical" sense to know that He exists.

Here, your point #1 fails. I'm not saying that natural laws will ever explain it. I'm fully willing to say that there are events and things that will forever be a mystery.
No my point does not fail, because the argument my point was addressing is the ""well maybe there is a natural explanation that we have not discovered yet" argument. This argument assumes that with time an explanation will be found, so my point stands as a counter to this claim.

It appears from your above statements that you are not making this argument, which I originally thought you were. So as a rebuttal to your post my point does fail, since you do not appear to be making this argument. Therefore, I retract the statement and apologize if I have mis - represented your position.

Just because a natural law fails, doesn't mean there is some superceding natural event.
I did not say that there necessarily was such an event. I do not assume every single unexplained event is supernatural. I have certain criteria which must be met before I make such a claim.

You're trying to take a dis-positive claim: "We don't know why that happened," and make it a positive claim-- "It was intelligent force Q."
No I am not making a "dis-positive" claim into a positive claim about anything here. I am not taking the position "If we can not explain it then God did it". That is not my position at all.

This is all fine and good, if you can make a test for this claim.
I have yet to see a test for the "God intelligent" force, so we can make useful future predictions.
I am not making this claim. I am also not claiming to be able to "predict" what God is going to do. Predicting what an intelligent being is going to do is very difficult to do even when the intelligent being is a human. I do not know why most people do the things they do, so how can someone expect me to "predict" what God is going to do? That is a ridiculous request, because it is totally unrealistic.

Which requires you to define your "intelligent" force, describe its motivations and the things that influence it.
Nope. We can not even do this for animals or humans, so doing it for God is simply an unreasonable request.

Otherwise, your mysterious "cause" could be anything-- meaning there is no fidelity in your thinking.

Determining (with reasonable doubt) that some "God" performed a miracle is a totally different question than which "God" it was who performed the event. The two questions are very different. we are not talking about identity in this thread, so that question is really not being addressed here.

"Fidelity?" I have never seen anyone use that word in the manner you just used it. Only in my electrical engineering classes did we speak of "fidelity". So while you used a very colorful word, it still does not remove the fidelity of my argument.:wink:

Russ

wwatts

May 29th 2003, 11:35 AM

wwatts-

That's a pretty good definition.

Thanks, although I can't claim I made it up totally. I basically learned it in an adult sunday school after I was 'converted' :P
I just happend to agree with it. Although I do articulate it differently.

What you describe is the "god phenomenon" and you seem to be using a sort of Res Ipsa Loquitor sort of thinking-- the cause is self evident from the situation.

uh oh ... I don't know too much latin -- or whatever that is :)

You don't make any supernatural claims, you bluntly say-- God gets in and mucks with the universe in these situations.

You know what, I have no idea what supernatural really is? Maybe it's just whenever a non-material object affects a material object? Or maybe just a belief that non-material objects exist? Or maybe it's saying that given there are rules to the universe, if those rules are broken, a supernatural thing has occured? Someone will have to clue me in. It's seems to be nothing more then the things that I have just described.

Your main criteria is the "coincidences."
If there are events, where outrageously abnormal and unexpected convergence of events occurs-- then this is caused by God.

You know, God has so many definitions! I would just say that if something seems to have a purpose, it probably does. Given that only minds have purposes, then when something seems to have a purpose, there is a mind involved. So I would probably change your statement to this:

If there are events, where outrageously abnormal and unexpected convergence of events occurs for what seems to be a purpose -- then this is probably caused by a mind.

What of horrible tragedies? What sort of intelligence can we ascribe to those?

It still applies I think. A mind directed them.

CriscoDisco

May 29th 2003, 03:26 PM

Stead-

I never said it was not an explanation. But it is not a purely natural explanation, thats the whole point.

If this is true-- then you can understand why I was misled when you said

Events which are NOT explainable and contain implications of an intelligent cause could be considered miracles.

It seems, in order to salvage your position, you need to be a bit wishy-washy as to what "explain" means.

Although, now it appears you're saying that if a "natural" explanation can't explain the miracle, then we look to supernatural causes.

Which is absurd. It would assume that all naturalists have a complete and fixed explanation of the universe since the beginning of time. And if any observation didn't jive with that "fixed" explanation, then we just shift over to the Supernatural explanation.

If this were the case, no science would ever be done. When confronted with a mystery that wasn't currently explained by the naturalist position-- does that mean the naturalist just gives up?

Of course not.

Naturalism is a process not dogma. What you describe as a "miracle" simply gets put into the process. If the data requires previous assumptions to come into question so be it. The scientist must then make predictions and revisions to the theories they once had.

I believe that God may act through the quantum uncertainties which exist in quantum physics. That is just a possibility though. Since He is not bound by space-time or matter-energy, it is possible for Him to affect the physical universe through a number of possibilities.

At which point, God is no-longer supernatural. God must therefore be physical.
God is just another "phenomenon" that should be studied just like gravity, decay and laughter.

Does that mean we can not infer a non physical reality? Of course it does not.

Interesting point.
Yet, the only way we could possibly describe this cause, is in purely physical terms, in the ways that reality is influenced by the mysterious force.

I suppose you could infer a non-physical reality, if we had a rule as to what a non-physical entity would be. But that is beyond our comprehension. So, pragmatically and necessarily-- it may exist, but we can never know it-- the only way we could no it, is by how it reveals itself in the natural world.

We could go back to plato's cave and shadows. But, those inferences are not testable--

It could only be inferred to the extent evolution, history or astronomy can be inferred.

And in each of these cases, the inference leads to rules and predictions about the force or phenomenon that caused such observations.

Here, you use the inference to give in an arbitrary cause, this is why I chose the term "fidelity." There is no clarity to what you are describing. One could just as easily say it was the spirit of Richard Nixon that caused these events. How would we test and predict if it was God or Richard Nixon that caused the miracle? You can't, and that's why there is no fidelity.

I am not going to get into a definition game. You (and everyone else) know full well the differance between something that is supernatural and something that is not

Until a definition is agreed on, how can we have any sort of understanding?
My definition of supernatural is very different than yours. I need to show that yours is unreasonable. Yet I can't do that if you avoid the request.

Can I just assume that your definition is unreasonable?

Just after you say you won't define supernatural, you actually give us a definition
A supernatural event can be witnessed as a natural event that has "intelligence cause beyond the known laws of physics" written all over it. I have seen supernatural events myself, so one can indeed witness such things. I do not have to see God exactly as He is in a literal "physical" sense to know that He exists.

We have two competing theories to explain the events of a miracle.
Either we have just coincidence, or we have a mysterious intelligence.

If you are allowed to infer intelligence from the conflux of events to cause the miraculous results, then I should be allowed to also infer deception, inefficiency, maliciousness etc..

You've gone from a simple system: Coincidence.
And now we have a complex system: personality.

Isn't it a bit strange that you, as a human, want to explain things via personalities?
A good critical thinking skill is to question your assumptions.
It is clearly advantageous, when dealing in the social realm, to infer personalities behind actions. But, in these cases, unless you can make useful predictions, what use does it have?

Using the theory of the miracle, can you tell me when the next miracle will occur? Will this be any better than random selection?

Furthermore, I would suggest that any God that would kill people in strange and unpredictable ways is malicious. I think any God that would wait for the freak accident to reveal his/her power is grossly inefficient. If that was really god's "intelligent" purpose, he sure went about it in a very "unintelligent" way.

Predicting what an intelligent being is going to do is very difficult to do even when the intelligent being is a human. I do not know why most people do the things they do, so how can someone expect me to "predict" what God is going to do? That is a ridiculous request, because it is totally unrealistic

So, how are you going to test your miracle hypothesis?

We can not even do this for animals or humans, so doing it for God is simply an unreasonable request.

This is not unreasonable at all.
You do this every day in you social world. You may not make perfect predictions, but I'm sure you're pretty skilled in telling when your friends are upset or happy.

Criminal profilers do this all the time. They observe the nature of the crime scene and then they make reasonable inferences to determine the motivations of the criminal.

Warcraft3

May 29th 2003, 08:10 PM

CriscoDisco:
Okay CriscoDisco quoted me:

I never said it was not an explanation. But it is not a purely natural explanation, thats the whole point.
And then commented:

If this is true-- then you can understand why I was misled when you said

Events which are NOT explainable and contain implications of an intelligent cause could be considered miracles.

CriscoDisco then commented:

It seems, in order to salvage your position, you need to be a bit wishy-washy as to what "explain" means.
I am not trying to be elusive here by my use of the word "explain". I actually made an error earlier in this thread and left out the words "purely natural", thinking you would know what I meant. Sorry for the mix-up there. I will try to be more explicit from now on :thumb:

He (assuming Crisco is male of course) also added:

Although, now it appears you're saying that if a "natural" explanation can't explain the miracle, then we look to supernatural causes.
Well that is part of it yes. I mean if there is a good natural explanation, then it is not a miracle by my standards.

And he also commented:

Which is absurd. It would assume that all naturalists have a complete and fixed explanation of the universe since the beginning of time. And if any observation didn't jive with that "fixed" explanation, then we just shift over to the Supernatural explanation.
I am not saying this at all. This is definately not my position concerning naturalists.

He continued:

If this were the case, no science would ever be done. When confronted with a mystery that wasn't currently explained by the naturalist position-- does that mean the naturalist just gives up?

Of course not.

Naturalism is a process not dogma. What you describe as a "miracle"simply gets put into the process. If the data requires previous assumptions to come into question so be it. The scientist must then make predictions and revisions to the theories they once had.
I am not saying we should just "give up" and employ a "God of the gaps argument" as so many people are fond of saying. For me personally, saying something did not occur through purely natural means requires more than just a "lack of explanations." It also requires the knowledge we do have to at least imply that something other than an unknown natural cause is at work. Each situation is different and has different "implications" associated with it.

He then quoted another statement I made:

I believe that God may act through the quantum uncertainties which exist in quantum physics. That is just a possibility though. Since He is not bound by space-time or matter-energy, it is possible for Him to affect the physical universe through a number of possibilities.

And replied:

At which point, God is no-longer supernatural. God must therefore be physical.
God is just another "phenomenon" that should be studied just like gravity, decay and laughter.
Keep in mind I said "may" and I do not hold this view dogmatically. But for the sake of discussion I will offer my defense of it. If God affects the physical universe through this method that does not necessarily imply that He is not supernatural. It simply implies that his method of interaction is through natural physical means.

Let me also say that I view the physical universe as a subset of the larger "spiritual universe", so I see our dimensions as sub-dimensions in an infinite dimensional reality. These two realities are not completely non-interacting, and thus God can affect our reality without being bound by our "physical" reality.

He continues with my post:

Does that mean we can not infer a non physical reality? Of course it does not.
And comments:

Interesting point.
Thank you. I find some of your points to be interesting as well.

Yet, the only way we could possibly describe this cause, is in purely physical terms, in the ways that reality is influenced by the mysterious force.
I would say we can only describe the effect in purely physical terms, while the nature of the cause may elude such a description.

I suppose you could infer a non-physical reality, if we had a rule as to what a non-physical entity would be. But that is beyond our comprehension. So, pragmatically and necessarily-- it may exist, but we can never know it-- the only way we could no it, is by how it reveals itself in the natural world.
I both agree and disagree with you here. Yes, non-physical reality is beyond my comprehension, but I still "know" that it exists. I do not fully understand it, but I see its existance evidenced by certain things in the physical realm.

We could go back to plato's cave and shadows. But, those inferences are not testable--

It could only be inferred to the extent evolution, history or astronomy can be inferred.
I do agree that it is an inference, but I am not sure I would compare it to those three things.

And in each of these cases, the inference leads to rules and predictions about the force or phenomenon that caused such observations.
Yes, but we make those predictions based on mathematical and physical models. I have never seen such a model to predict another persons thougths, decisions, or emotions.

Here, you use the inference to give in an arbitrary cause, this is why I chose the term "fidelity." There is no clarity to what you are describing. One could just as easily say it was the spirit of Richard Nixon that caused these events. How would we test and predict if it was God or Richard Nixon that caused the miracle? You can't, and that's why there is no fidelity.
Yes I know this is why you used the term, but I think you are entering into areas which require philosophy and theology to answer----,that is, exactly WHO did the miracle if one occured? That is a very different question and must be approached in a different manner.

You then quoted me as saying:

I am not going to get into a definition game. You (and everyone else) know full well the differance between something that is supernatural and something that is not
And commented:

Until a definition is agreed on, how can we have any sort of understanding?
My definition of supernatural is very different than yours. I need to show that yours is unreasonable. Yet I can't do that if you avoid the request.
Okay I am not trying to "dodge the bullet" here or anything. I just do not want to get into an arguement over the definitions of words. I have seen this happen to other people in several threads and I think it takes away from the meat of the discussion. So that is what I am trying to avoid here.

He then said:

Can I just assume that your definition is unreasonable?
:rofl: LOL Well you could, but only if I can do the same :wink:

CriscoDisco then said:

Just after you say you won't define supernatural, you actually give us a definition
Yeah, I kind of did do that didnt I? LOL:lol:

A supernatural event can be witnessed as a natural event that has "intelligence cause beyond the known laws of physics" written all over it. I have seen supernatural events myself, so one can indeed witness such things. I do not have to see God exactly as He is in a literal "physical" sense to know that He exists.

He then said:

We have two competing theories to explain the events of a miracle.
Either we have just coincidence, or we have a mysterious intelligence.

If you are allowed to infer intelligence from the conflux of events to cause the miraculous results, then I should be allowed to also infer deception, inefficiency, maliciousness etc..
I do not think you should be allowed to do so. :teeth:

And he continued:

You've gone from a simple system: Coincidence.
And now we have a complex system: personality.

Isn't it a bit strange that you, as a human, want to explain things via personalities?
I think that "coincidence" is not necessarily always the simplest and best answer.

A good critical thinking skill is to question your assumptions.
And I do.

It is clearly advantageous, when dealing in the social realm, to infer personalities behind actions. But, in these cases, unless you can make useful predictions, what use does it have?

Using the theory of the miracle, can you tell me when the next miracle will occur? Will this be any better than random selection?
I am not trying to obtain predictive reliability here, but rather to come up with a reasonable explanation for an event.

Furthermore, I would suggest that any God that would kill people in strange and unpredictable ways is malicious. I think any God that would wait for the freak accident to reveal his/her power is grossly inefficient. If that was really god's "intelligent" purpose, he sure went about it in a very "unintelligent" way.
I am sorry that you see God as malicious, inefficient, and "unintelligent". I,of course, disagree.
Crisco then quoted me:

Predicting what an intelligent being is going to do is very difficult to do even when the intelligent being is a human. I do not know why most people do the things they do, so how can someone expect me to "predict" what God is going to do? That is a ridiculous request, because it is totally unrealistic

And he responded:

So, how are you going to test your miracle hypothesis?
Well, certainly not through trying to predict all future occurances of miracles. I am only looking to test my view of miracles by whether or not it makes sense in a specific situation, not by making predictions.
He also quoted me saying:

We can not even do this for animals or humans, so doing it for God is simply an unreasonable request.

And he responded:

This is not unreasonable at all.
I disagree.

You do this every day in you social world. You may not make perfect predictions, but I'm sure you're pretty skilled in telling when your friends are upset or happy.
Well, that is more of an observation than a prediction.

And Crisco closed with this comment:

Criminal profilers do this all the time. They observe the nature of the crime scene and then they make reasonable inferences to determine the motivations of the criminal.
I would liken the investigation of miracles more to forensics than to criminal profilers.

Russ

Warcraft3

May 29th 2003, 08:47 PM

Even though I have already posted these elsewhere, I will re-post them here as two examples of events that I would call "miracles".

Well before this thread gets any longer I guess I will post the two miracles that i remember the best. There are others, but these two stick out in my mind for some reason. Ill try to comment on everyones posts when I get the chance, but let me remind those posting that the purpose of this thread is to discuss events that can possibly be interpreted as miracles. Hopefully we wil get more people posting their personal events so that we can discuss them. Here are two of mine.............

The "dog" incident

This event occured while I was walking up the road with a friend of mine (I was around 13 at the time so this occured about 14 years ago). I am still very good friends with this individual, so perhaps I can get him to comment on the event. He is currently an atheist, so we frequently discuss these issues.......Okay back to the story........

One day we were walking up the road and talking about religion (big surprise there). He said he did not believe in God and I asked him what would convince him. I do not remember his specific answer, but as we talked the Holy Spirit put a strange thought into my mind.

There was a dog walking around on the road (we were going up hill during this time) and I told my friend that God could make the dog just stop and freeze if He wanted to. Feeling led by the spirit I asked him if he would believe in God if this occured. He said yes he would. So while we were walking I pointed at the dog (who was not even looking in our direction) and said (we were pretty far away so I doubt the dog heard me at all, since I did not even raise my voice), "In Jesus' name stop". And the dog stopped and proceeded to lay down in the middle of the road.

We continued to walk up the road as the dog just lay there while cars drove by on both sides of the road. As we walked my friend became concerned for the dog and asked me if I could release him. I asked him if he would believe if I released the dog, and he said yes. So I pointed and said, "In Jesus' name I release you".

And the dog got up and ran up the road, eventually out of our field of vision. I have often tried to reproduce the event on my own, but have never been successful. So I do indeed believe that such an event was a miracle.

My Mothers healing

My mother (who passed away two years ago) was someone who suffered alot during her life. She had epilepsy and lupus, and also had many complications due to drugs and effects of the disease.

This event also occured around the time when I was thirteen years old.

It was a Friday and she was going to be put into the hospital first thing Monday morning. She was very sick during this time (as often was the case) and had three very specific problems which were causing her great pain and putting her life in danger.

She had extreme swelling of every joint on her body, she had an almost non-existant white blood count, and both of her lungs had fluid in them (one of them was almost completely full). So she had alot of trouble breathing during this time. I will never understand why they scheduled her to go in on Monday, because she really should have been hospitalized immediately. Anyway back to the story.........

For some reason my Mother decided to go to a Christian womens breakfast that morning, despite her condition. There was a female evangalist speaking at the event, and she called my Mother up front. (Im leaving out some details here for brevitys' sake).

Now my Mother had been prayed over by many so-called "faith healers" in the past. Many tried to get her "slain in the spirit", but my mother did not(at this time) believe in such a thing. She had been prayed over many, many times and nothing ever happend. But this time was different......

The lady told my mother that this day three things would be healed....the white blood count deficiency, the pleurisy(this was causing the fluid in the lungs), and her joint swelling. She said after the woman said these words it felt like something slammed into her and she hit the ground. There was no one there to catch her and she hit the ground with some force, banging her head in the process.

She was not injured by the fall (this is amazing in and of itself due to how brittle her bones were) and said that as soon as she hit the ground the pressure in her chest left and her joints returned to normal size.

I remember when she came home from that meeting.........something was obviously different. She was breathing normally and her joints were not swollen anymore (they were always swollen so this seemed strange). She told us what ahd happened and said she wanted confirmation from the doctor.

She called the doctor and forced him to test her the very next day, which was Saturday. He reluctantly agreed, and told her she was crazy. He tested her over and over for hours, all the while shaking his head. He finally gave up and said, "Fluid in the lungs does not just go away in an instant". He eventually cancelled the hospital appointment and she was not hospitalized. He told her that he had never seen a "miracle", but if he had to put a label on what had happened he would use that word. Her joints were normal size, her white blood count was normal, and all the fluid in her lungs was gone. Everything else remained the same.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay those are the two I will share for now. There are some more details that I left out for brevity, but I think what I wrote is a good start.

Russ

CriscoDisco

May 31st 2003, 02:14 PM

Stead-

. It simply implies that his method of interaction is through natural physical means.

This means we shouldn't abandon our naturalistic methodologies, and define this "god" by its physical manifestations.

Just as we don't define gravity as a bunch of little gravity pixies that are happy and kind, nor should we use any extra-topical adjectives to describe God. Just as we define gravity as it relates to the motion of objects regarding mass and speed. So should we define God only in the ways that it/she/he affects the natural world.

I suppose you could attach any story to any observatoin. Example: even Gravity is supernatural-- i mean, who's not to say that gravity is actually a kind old man sitting in a techno-wonder throne-- and all we see is the result of his mindful machinations as he sips a spot of tea.

Ah, but here is the flaw in your description. It only explains the evidence, it never predicts. So, we are reduced to story and drama, and no science, no knowledge that is actually useful.

I was really taken aback by your "we can infer supernatural" causes given the evidence, because in a different debate I'm having, this is exactly the type of reasoning I use to show that evolution occurred. Suddenly, I felt very hypocritical.

Your point here reveals the problem

I am not trying to obtain predictive reliability here, but rather to come up with a reasonable explanation for an event.

A reasonable explanation must have predictive power.

Here, by saying you don't need to predict anything, you've exited the realm of the reasonable, and entered fantasyland.

In tort law there is the theory of Res Ipsa loquitur. The existence of negligence is implied by the facts. If a Jet Engine explodes, they just assume a technician screwed up somewhere (was negligent) and that they breached a duty to the people on the plane. Then it is up to the defendant to prove otherwise.

I think your line of thought mirrors this legal theory.

You seem to be saying, that the existence of some very powerful intelligent force is implied by the conflux of fortunate and personal events.

Yet, your thinking fails, because, in Res Ipsa cases, we know the "nature" of the Jet plane. In your case, we don't know the nature of your powerful, intelligent force. Indeed, i have even suggested that the same force may be quite malicious and mindless, and all you could do was respectfully disagree. You don't even have a 50/50 shot of proving intelligence or benevolence over insanity and cruelity. For every wondrous event, I can show you a tragic one.

Your miracles fail for rationality.
Your miracles fail in context of science.
Your notion of miracles even fails to defend itself above and beyond any arbitrary descriptor.

Morpheus

May 31st 2003, 11:57 PM

A reasonable explanation must have predictive power.

Here, by saying you don't need to predict anything, you've exited the realm of the reasonable, and entered fantasyland.

i'm not seeing how an explanation cannot be reasonable if it does not have predictive power. suppose you said "if god exists, then he will spell out g-o-d in the clouds above my house right now." you then walk outside and find exactly this phenomenon. you don't think the most reasonable explanation for this is that god exists? however, though this most be the most reasonable explanation, it doesn't necessarily have any predictive power. so why can't an explanation be both reasonable and have no predictive power?

the problem with attaching predictability to miracles is that a miracle is an isolated event that serves a specific purpose in specific circumstances. the fact that the miraculous occurs in one instance does not allow us to conclude that it will occur similarly in other instances. therefore, a miracle can be the most reasonable explanation of a certain event without providing us with some kind of "model" for how or when another miracle will occur.

CriscoDisco

June 1st 2003, 01:11 PM

Morph-

When confronted by a mystery—anyone can come up with any sort of story to explain the events.

Yet, shouldn’t there be a standard?
How do we weed out the odd, plausible, yet unlikely explanation from the practical useful explanation.

I mean, there must be a difference between reasonableexplanations, and any old explanation.

It is actually a simple test of reason: “If that were true, then….”

A simple process of reasoning, to separate the outlandish explanation from the reasonable ones. What’s wrong with that?

the fact that the miraculous occurs in one instance does not allow us to conclude that it will occur similarly in other instances. therefore, a miracle can be the most reasonable explanation of a certain event without providing us with some kind of "model" for how or when another miracle will occur.

I must disagree.
There is no standard here. There is no use. There is no, as I have been stressing in this thread, “fidelity” to this answer.

You must distinguish between “possible, likely and reasonable.”

If your explanation can’t be tested, it doesn’t mean its automatically wrong. But it does mean, it is unreasonable.

I think that’s why its called faith. If you really believe in a miracle, it is a testament of your faith-- not reason. Faith is to have hopes and beliefs in things disproportionate to the evidence available. Reason is to place your beliefs and understanding of the world in context and then test those assumptions constantly.

The suggestion that there is an “empirical” miracle quashes that notion of faith and makes a mockery of reason.

Warcraft3

June 1st 2003, 07:20 PM

Okay I said:

. It simply implies that his method of interaction is through natural physical means.
And CriscoDisco replied:

This means we shouldn't abandon our naturalistic methodologies, and define this "god" by its physical manifestations.

Just as we don't define gravity as a bunch of little gravity pixies that are happy and kind, nor should we use any extra-topical adjectives to describe God. Just as we define gravity as it relates to the motion of objects regarding mass and speed. So should we define God only in the ways that it/she/he affects the natural world.
I think you completely missed the point I was making when I made that statement. I attempted to clarify it by adding:

Let me also say that I view the physical universe as a subset of the larger "spiritual universe", so I see our dimensions as sub-dimensions in an infinite dimensional reality. These two realities are not completely non-interacting, and thus God can affect our reality without being bound by our "physical" reality.

CriscDisco continues:

I suppose you could attach any story to any observatoin. Example: even Gravity is supernatural-- i mean, who's not to say that gravity is actually a kind old man sitting in a techno-wonder throne-- and all we see is the result of his mindful machinations as he sips a spot of tea.
*Sigh* If you continue to view my position as one similar to the statement you just made, then I fear you will not be able to see my points.

He also says:

Ah, but here is the flaw in your description. It only explains the evidence, it never predicts. So, we are reduced to story and drama, and no science, no knowledge that is actually useful.
Very well then, please give me your explanations for such evidence along with predictions as to when such an event will occur in the future. Please include the time, place, and specifics of the event as well as who will be there to witness it.

He also commented:

I was really taken aback by your "we can infer supernatural" causes given the evidence, because in a different debate I'm having, this is exactly the type of reasoning I use to show that evolution occurred. Suddenly, I felt very hypocritical.

Your point here reveals the problem

And he quotes me:

I am not trying to obtain predictive reliability here, but rather to come up with a reasonable explanation for an event.

And comments:

A reasonable explanation must have predictive power.
Then please give me your reasonable explanation for "miracles" along with some predictions.

Crisco also said:

Here, by saying you don't need to predict anything, you've exited the realm of the reasonable, and entered fantasyland.

In tort law there is the theory of Res Ipsa loquitur. The existence of negligence is implied by the facts. If a Jet Engine explodes, they just assume a technician screwed up somewhere (was negligent) and that they breached a duty to the people on the plane. Then it is up to the defendant to prove otherwise.

I think your line of thought mirrors this legal theory.

You seem to be saying, that the existence of some very powerful intelligent force is implied by the conflux of fortunate and personal events.
No, I do not think my reasoning mirrors any such thing. Agan I never said or implied anything as ambiguous as
the existence of some very powerful intelligent force is implied by the conflux of fortunate and personal events
Nope. I do not think that, I did not say that, and I did not imply that.

And he also commented:

Yet, your thinking fails, because, in Res Ipsa cases, we know the "nature"of the Jet plane. In your case, we don't know the nature of your powerful, intelligent force. Indeed, i have even suggested that the same force may be quite malicious and mindless, and all you could do was respectfully disagree. You don't even have a 50/50 shot of proving intelligence or benevolence over insanity and cruelity. For every wondrous event, I can show you a tragic one.
A "wondrous event" is not necessairly a miracle. Again, I believe I was as descriptive as I could possibly be in my definition of a possible miracle. My views are not as ambiguous or general as your statements imply they are.

He then closed with this statement:

Your miracles fail for rationality.
Your miracles fail in context of science.
Your notion of miracles even fails to defend itself above and beyond any arbitrary descriptor.
Very well then, please explain the causes for the two events I described. Be sure to include a prediction as to when such events will occur again. And also, please reproduce the miracles, or at least something reasonably close.

Russ

CriscoDisco

June 2nd 2003, 05:23 PM

Stead-

Let me also say that I view the physical universe as a subset of the larger "spiritual universe", so I see our dimensions as sub-dimensions in an infinite dimensional reality. These two realities are not completely non-interacting, and thus God can affect our reality without being bound by our "physical" reality

The inference, that there is a larger “spiritual universe” is based on no predictive test, and a conclusion which is disproportionate to the evidence and is therefore unreasonable.

But I think you miss the fine details of my argument, who’s fault is entirely mine and my inability to communicate.

Methodological naturalism suggests that all our inferences and conclusions are necessarily natural. This is not a metaphysical claim. Rather, it suggests that supernaturalism is a contradiction of our comprehension, it is a conclusion that is contradictory to what we are as knowing and epistemic entities. Anything we observe is natural. It makes no sense to give it “supernatural” quantities, when all observations of the phenomenon are natural in quality. At best, we can only describe it in Natural Terms. When you begin with supernatural terms, you exit rationality.

Here’s another analogy, as humans, we only have the vocabulary of naturalism.
Any supernatural event, can only be described in natural terms, and therefore, is necessarily only understandable within the limits of our naturalist language.

This is a side point however, and you need not understand it for the remainder of my position to be clear.

Very well then, please give me your explanations for such evidence along with predictions as to when such an event will occur in the future.

Ok, I’ll give it a shot.

If every event has a percent chance of occurring at any moment, it should be no surprise when four or even five evens occur at any one particular moment. (Simply multiply the probabilities together I believe).

I would predict, these events would function via the laws of probability.
I would predict that fortunate lucky events are about equal to tragic unlucky events.
I would predict “simultaneity” occurs at a constant rate although the exact occurrence would be randomly distributed.

Any supernatural inference—should one want to walk that path-- that we could reasonably make, is that the “causal” force is chaotic and has no real purpose or agenda, as a whole, for these “simultaneous” events.

Physicists can’t predict the exact velocity and location of sub-atomic particles exactly, they can, however, predict a pattern .

By analogy, this “simultaneity” argument is just as sound.
Just as we don’t hear physicists laude the supernatural powers of they sub-atomic intelligent god, so should we not ascribe “miracles or simultaneous” events as anything other than the effects of probability.

Again, describing miracles in such terms does a disservice to the notion of “faith.”
Either you have faith, and reach conclusions that are unreasonable—disproportionate to the evidence, or you have reason, and at least try to make predictions without jumping to conclusions.

At the very least, one should just say—when predictability is not an option-- “I don’t know why this happened. I don’t even know if there is a reason why.”

Ultimately, it is disingenuous to say that it is rational, when there is no evidence to suggest so. Call it what it is: hope.

johnransom

June 2nd 2003, 05:39 PM

05-28-2003 @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=110350#post110350)
wwatts:
To me, I recognize a miracle as just an event that breaks my threshold of 'too much of a coincidence'. I think everyone has a threshold for coincidences.
Which reminds me of what William Temple said: "When I pray, coincidences happen, and when I don't they don't."

johnransom

June 2nd 2003, 05:50 PM

It's quite simple, really: all events are miracles, empirical or otherwise, since God is the creator and sustainer of the universe and without God's sustenance it would cease to exist. thus the issue is not whether miracles exist, but rather whether we recognize them for what they are.

CriscoDisco

June 2nd 2003, 06:19 PM

Child molestation is a miracle?

All sarcasm aside.

Your answer lacks what i've been calling "fidelity."
It is certainly not reasonable.

I can just as easily and with the same authority, say all events are grusome mindless tragedies.

Warcraft3

June 2nd 2003, 07:14 PM

CriscoDisco quoted me:

Let me also say that I view the physical universe as a subset of the larger "spiritual universe", so I see our dimensions as sub-dimensions in an infinite dimensional reality. These two realities are not completely non-interacting, and thus God can affect our reality without being bound by our "physical" reality
And then replied:

The inference, that there is a larger “spiritual universe” is based on no predictive test, and a conclusion which is disproportionate to the evidence and is therefore unreasonable.
Which is also true for the inference that there is not a dimensional reality beyond our own. We certainly know that more than four "dimensions" exist, I simply believe that there exists an infinite number of them constituting another reality I call a "spiritual reality". You simply believe differently, and that is where we disagree.
CriscoDisco added:

But I think you miss the fine details of my argument, who’s fault is entirely mine and my inability to communicate.
No, I assure you I do know what the fine details of your arguments are. I have used the same argument myself at times, so I am quite familiar with it. I find it to be a decent argument, but not really a great one. It is a bit too general and philisophical for my tastes though. I think it fails at the level of explaining individual miracles.

Methodological naturalism suggests that all our inferences and conclusions are necessarily natural. This is not a metaphysical claim. Rather, it suggests that supernaturalism is a contradiction of our comprehension, it is a conclusion that is contradictory to what we are as knowing and epistemic entities. Anything we observe is natural. It makes no sense to give it “supernatural” quantities, when all observations of the phenomenon are natural in quality. At best, we can only describe it in Natural Terms. When you begin with supernatural terms, you exit rationality.
No, this is comletely untrue. It is not irrational to use forensic and circumstantal evidence to infer a non-physical intelligent cause. Just because we exist in physical reality does not mean that is all there is in existance. And there is nothing within our reality which would prevent a higher-order dimensional being from interacting with the fabric of space-time and matter-energy. So it is not irrational. When you make this claim you fail to even consider the possibility, and shut down constructive communication on the issue.

Here’s another analogy, as humans, we only have the vocabulary of naturalism.
Any supernatural event, can only be described in natural terms, and therefore, is necessarily only understandable within the limits of our naturalist language.
Okay so the description is physical..So what? How does that disprove a miracle occured? How does that disprove circumstantal evidence that there was an intelligence behind it?

This is a side point however, and you need not understand it for the remainder of my position to be clear.
I understand what you are saying. I just do not agree.

CriscoDisco then quoted me:

Very well then, please give me your explanations for such evidence along with predictions as to when such an event will occur in the future.
And commented:

Ok, I’ll give it a shot.

If every event has a percent chance of occurring at any moment, it should be no surprise when four or even five evens occur at any one particular moment. (Simply multiply the probabilities together I believe).
You are correct that often to obtain an overall probability we simply multiply several other probabilities together, but it is not always that simple (as I have unfortunately experienced in some homework problems).

I would predict, these events would function via the laws of probability.
I would predict that fortunate lucky events are about equal to tragic unlucky events.
I would predict “simultaneity” occurs at a constant rate although the exact occurrence would be randomly distributed.
Yeah..... I doubt that anyone would say otherwise, since what you stated above is fairly obvious and very general. It still does not explain specific events though. Your above statement is a very "safe" thing to say, since it really does not say anything we do not know already. People who both believe in miracles and do not believe in miracles would make similar statements. So it really is not a prediction.......just an observation.

Any supernatural inference—should one want to walk that path-- that we could reasonably make, is that the “causal” force is chaotic and has no real purpose or agenda, as a whole, for these “simultaneous” events.
Um......if the causal force is chaotic and has no purpose then the causal force is most likely not an intelligent one, but is simply chance. That is not how you make a supernatural inference.

Physicists can’t predict the exact velocity and location of sub-atomic particles exactly, they can, however, predict a pattern .
Yes it is called the uncertainity principle. It is a mathematical statement concerning the position and velocity (there are other ways to word it besides position and velocity, but for now we will stick to these) of a "particle".I am assuming you are attempting to use quantum here to say that you can not really "predict" anything exactly, so your general predictions about miracles are good enough.

By analogy, this “simultaneity” argument is just as sound.
Yep, you did it. You tried to use quantum physics to support your position. Amazing. Your analogy is flawed, because quantum does not deal with things beyond the quantum level (like a dog for example).

Just as we don’t hear physicists laude the supernatural powers of they sub-atomic intelligent god, so should we not ascribe “miracles or simultaneous” events as anything other than the effects of probability.
How in the world do you make a connection between a wave function collapsing in a mathematically predictable pattern to the beliefs of physicists? This argument fails to prove your point since many, many physicists do believe in miracles and many of them actually see miracles within physics itself. The existance of God is something many scientists believe because of what they see (and do not see) in nature. So, simply because physicsts do not attribute the collapse of wave functions to God does not imply that we can not attribute anything to God.

Again, describing miracles in such terms does a disservice to the notion of “faith.”
Either you have faith, and reach conclusions that are unreasonable—disproportionate to the evidence, or you have reason, and at least try to make predictions without jumping to conclusions.
That is not Biblical faith. You have just misrepresented my view of faith.

I believe........yes, but I have reasons to believe. And my reasons are not irrational as you are so fond of saying.

At the very least, one should just say—when predictability is not an option-- “I don’t know why this happened. I don’t even know if there is a reason why.”
Of course there is a reason.

Ultimately, it is disingenuous to say that it is rational, when there is no evidence to suggest so. Call it what it is: hope.
Again with the "not rational" claims. Lets dispense with such charges, shall we?

Now, please explain to me what occured in the two examples I gave you above. Give me your natural explanations and we will see how they hold up. John Powell already gave some thoughts on these events in the other thread, so you may want to start with his naturalistic explanations first. Otherwise just give me your version and we will go on from there.

Russ

Morpheus

June 4th 2003, 02:04 AM

to criscodisco.

When confronted by a mystery—anyone can come up with any sort of story to explain the events.

Yet, shouldn’t there be a standard?
How do we weed out the odd, plausible, yet unlikely explanation from the practical useful explanation.

I mean, there must be a difference between reasonableexplanations, and any old explanation.

It is actually a simple test of reason: “If that were true, then….”

A simple process of reasoning, to separate the outlandish explanation from the reasonable ones. What’s wrong with that?

i certainly agree that reasoning is the best way to go about discerning what occured in a specific case/event. but you can't just generalize all situations and say that a conclusion must have predictive power, or it must be testable in order to be reasonable. think about any conclusion drawn in the field of history/archaeology. such a conclusion does not necessarily have any testability (as we cannot repeat the past) or predictability, as it may just represent an isolated or unique event that doesn't really tell us anything about how things will occur in the future. however, this does not mean that said conclusion is inherently unreasonable.

let's consider your test: "if that were true, then..."

apply it to the scenario i presented in my last post regarding "god" being written in the clouds: "if [you witnessed "g-o-d" written in the clouds moments after challenging a supposed god to do this] were true, then ."

you don't think this conclusion is reasonable?

morpheus:
the fact that the miraculous occurs in one instance does not allow us to conclude that it will occur similarly in other instances. therefore, a miracle can be the most reasonable explanation of a certain event without providing us with some kind of "model" for how or when another miracle will occur.

criscodisco:
I must disagree.
There is no standard here. There is no use. There is no, as I have been stressing in this thread, “fidelity” to this answer.

the fact that there is no absolute standard for judging when an event is miraculous does not preclude the possibility of a miraculous explanation being reasonable.

miraculous explanations cannot just be dismissed a priori because they don't have any inherent "predictive power."

You must distinguish between “possible, likely and reasonable.”

If your explanation can’t be tested, it doesn’t mean its automatically wrong. But it does mean, it is unreasonable.

I think that’s why its called faith. If you really believe in a miracle, it is a testament of your faith-- not reason. [i]Faith is to have hopes and beliefs in things disproportionate to the evidence available. Reason is to place your beliefs and understanding of the world in context and then test those assumptions constantly.

The suggestion that there is an “empirical” miracle quashes that notion of faith and makes a mockery of reason.

1)there is no reason to accept the conclusion you draw in the bold text. historical explanations cannot be tested (because the past is not observable/testable), but those surely aren't all unreasonable.

2) what you say in the italicized text regarding faith implying"hopes and beliefs in things disproportionate to the evidence available" simply begs the question, because there is no consideration of the possibility that what one's faith is in (or what his miraculous claim is) is actually the most reasonable explanation of the relevant phenomena.

3) if you will look at my first post in this thread, you will notice that i don't necessarily accept the existence of empirical miracles, i.e., those that can be explained purely through natural means. that, however, has no bearing on other miracles that occur through supernatural means.

wwatts

June 4th 2003, 11:03 AM

06-02-2003 @ 11:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115319#post115319)
CriscoDisco:

Child molestation is a miracle?

All sarcasm aside.

Your answer lacks what i've been calling "fidelity."
It is certainly not reasonable.

I can just as easily and with the same authority, say all events are grusome mindless tragedies.

1) A mind can determine if an object or event probably has a purpose
2) Purposes can not exist without a mind to create it
3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it has a mind to create it.

You seem to be denying (1). If that is the case then theists have the attractive position of being able to identify artifacts such as arrowheads found buried in the ground, whereas someone that denies (1) cannot.

Let me add that how a mind determines if an object has a purpose is irrelevant to this argument. That seems to be where a lot of the problems are when discussing this topic.

Warcraft3

June 4th 2003, 09:47 PM

I will be away for a bit so I just wanted to let everyone know...

**Notice**
This will be my last post in this thread until sometime after June 22. I have to go away with the Reserves for two weeks and I need tonight and tomorrow to pack and get ready. So I will see you all when I get back.

Russ

CriscoDisco

June 14th 2003, 02:23 PM

stead-

Sorry for the delay in response.

Which is also true for the inference that there is not a dimensional reality beyond our own. We certainly know that more than four "dimensions" exist, I simply believe that there exists an infinite number of them constituting another reality I call a "spiritual reality". You simply believe differently, and that is where we disagree.

Yet, I don't infer that there is not a spiritual dimension. I'm saying that if such a dimension is not observable (by definition of being Supernatural), what's the use of it?

Don't fall victim to the black/white fallacy. Just because I don't use supernatural thinking, doesn't mean I absolutely thing no such thing exists. Its all about what methodology one chooses, not the metaphysics.

I think it fails at the level of explaining individual miracles.

So, are you beginning the analysis that there must be an explanation? Saying: "I don't know," is not an option?

And there is nothing within our reality which would prevent a higher-order dimensional being from interacting with the fabric of space-time and matter-energy.

If it interacts with our reality, it is De Facto part of that reality. The supernatural/natural distinction is broken.

When you make this claim you fail to even consider the possibility, and shut down constructive communication on the issue.

The only way i could consider it, is if I could perceive it. If i perceive it, it is a Natural phenomenon. Therefore, I have no use with the "supernatural" label.

I am assuming you are attempting to use quantum here to say that you can not really "predict" anything exactly, so your general predictions about miracles are good enough.

No. This is not my goal.
My intent was to show that there are some proper inferences given a pattern of probability-- ie, electron behavior. Physicists predict the behavior of particles, given what they can perceive.
Just as, in my analogy, we can predict the behavior of "miracle/tragedy" even though we can't give the exact location of when and where the next "miracle/tragedy" will occur.

The critical thing to grasp here, is that there is no Intelligence appealed to in either model. If they don't appeal to some miracle electron intelligence, then why appeal to some miracle/tragedy intelligence?

This argument fails to prove your point since many, many physicists do believe in miracles and many of them actually see miracles within physics itself.

Whoh, hold up here. This is using a trait of the person doing the physics to prove a argumentative point. Some weird reverse ad homenem Fallacy.

First. Give me an example of a physicists that thinks there is an intelligence that is governing the quantum data he/she collects. Then show me how they use that intelligence hypothesis to test and predict things. Then show me how they define that intelligence-- what are the goals of that intelligence? etc. I would love to send a letter to some department head if their staff was using such hypotheses.

That is not Biblical faith. You have just misrepresented my view of faith.

What is your definition of faith? If faith is proportional to the evidence-- should you just say you have a scientific belief in Jesus? How is your faith different from reasonable, balanced conclusions given the evidence?

My natural explanation of your "example miracles."

The reasonable conclusion is-- probably coincidence, but in all honesty: i don't know. I won't make a positive or negative conclusion given ambiguous, un-testable and limited data. Until I can formulate a hypothesis that can be tested-- to be honest and reasonable, I'll just stick with I don't know.

CriscoDisco

June 14th 2003, 02:47 PM

Morph

think about any conclusion drawn in the field of history/archaeology. such a conclusion does not necessarily have any testability (as we cannot repeat the past) or predictability, as it may just represent an isolated or unique event that doesn't really tell us anything about how things will occur in the future. however, this does not mean that said conclusion is inherently unreasonable.

We can do independent verification. "if Society X used this type of pottery at this time, then Geology would suggest..." "if society X was invaded here, then Linguists would say..."

Then you call up your geologist buddy and do the experiment. You call up the linguist and do the experiment.

"if [you witnessed "g-o-d" written in the clouds moments after challenging a supposed god to do this] were true, then [it is likely that god exists and the event was miraculous]."

you don't think this conclusion is reasonable?

The test would be, "if God is obeying my commands then If i tell God to do Y then, Y will happen. "

This would be reasonable, naturalistic evidence to support the God hypothesis. Note, there is nothing supernatural about your example. The clouds take a shape i can perceive and my natural form is influenced by this phenomenon.

At best I can conclude that God is a creature that can write in the clouds.
Now, can he do other things...well, lets test that question with some experiments.
But you can see my definition of this God is based on what I can test, predict and describe with my natural language. No need for supernaturalism in this context. Eventually I'll arrive at a good natural description of that this "god phenomenon" is all about.

absolute standard for judging when an event is miraculous does not preclude the possibility of a miraculous explanation being reasonable.

miraculous explanations cannot just be dismissed a priori because they don't have any inherent "predictive power."

What you describe is a belief system, but it is not reasonable. Reasonable beliefs are those based proportional to the evidence and testable.

You can believe anything you want-- but if you want your belief to be reasonable, then expect a rigorous test.

Otherwise, what do you mean by reasonable? You've drained it of all its value if you do away with the predictive qualifier.

historical explanations cannot be tested (because the past is not observable/testable), but those surely aren't all unreasonable.

yes they can be tested. Independent verification. "If history says the walls of jericho fell then we should find evidence X"

It is a simple If, then test--- with a pragmatic qualifier. I mean you can't just arbitrarily say "If cats are dogs then the sun will rise tomorrow. The sun rose. Therefore cats are dogs."

You want to predict previously unknown things ideally. You want independent verification.You want to open new lines of inquiry.
But most of all you want you theories to help you make predictions-- not just explain the evidence.

faith is in (or what his miraculous claim is) is actually the most reasonable explanation of the relevant phenomena.

Then it is no longer faith. That's what makes faith so special-- it's a hope beyond all what is seen. It is what drives all spirituality.

If the hope can only be proportional to the evidence, then when the Doctor tells you have virtually no chance to survive your cancer-- you give up. That's not what we as humans do--we fight and have hope despite the evidence.

What you propose is to boil out any emotional, spiritual and human value from the notion of faith and hope-- and reduce everything to reason. Humans are both rational and emotional creatures-- do you really want to take that away from all those who only have hope and faith to lean on? why? To give some illusory credence to your faith in Jesus? Why do you fear faith? Why do you cling to reasonable and balanced conclusions? Is that was God asks of you? Is that what Jesus wants? Microscopes in the church? Or human feeling emotional hope, prayer---and trust?

You can't have it both ways.

CriscoDisco

June 14th 2003, 02:57 PM

wwatts-

1) A mind can determine if an object or event probably has a purpose
2) Purposes can not exist without a mind to create it
3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it has a mind to create it.

You seem to be denying (1). If that is the case then theists have the attractive position of being able to identify artifacts such as arrowheads found buried in the ground, whereas someone that denies (1) cannot.

Let me add that how a mind determines if an object has a purpose is irrelevant to this argument. That seems to be where a lot of the problems are when discussing this topic.

You saw the flaw in your argument, and then you just tried to brush it aside.

How a mind determines if an object has a purpose is the issue.
If you're not willing to critically analyze your assumptions-- then I'm not sure how reasonable your little logic test will be.

1.) Z can determine a probability of X
2.) If X then Z.
3.) If Z finds X then Z. (maybe--given the extent of the probability of first premise)

Hrmm...

That last one looks a bit circular to me..

It is a bit of a throw back. I think, therefore I am.
So, probably, I think i have a purpose?

Again, your premises are wrong-- or at least need clarification and support.
Your logic rings circular and some failure for vagueness- although Descartes may save you.

Tennisbuff

June 14th 2003, 06:05 PM

:bunny: Just because miracles can be "explained" doesn't mean that that is a contradiction. When the question uses "explain", it means explain through a rational event that follows the laws of nature. When you attribute an event to God, you're acknowledging that something supernatural happened. This is not the same "explain" that the question uses.

wwatts

June 16th 2003, 01:09 PM

wwatts-

1) A mind can determine if an object or event probably has a purpose
2) Purposes can not exist without a mind to create it
3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it has a mind to create it.

You seem to be denying (1). If that is the case then theists have the attractive position of being able to identify artifacts such as arrowheads found buried in the ground, whereas someone that denies (1) cannot.

Let me add that how a mind determines if an object has a purpose is irrelevant to this argument. That seems to be where a lot of the problems are when discussing this topic.

You saw the flaw in your argument, and then you just tried to brush it aside.

I did?

How a mind determines if an object has a purpose is the issue.

Do you deny that minds can tell if an event had a purpose, or no? We can talk about 'how' they know, but why do that, if we don't even think that they do know?

If you're not willing to critically analyze your assumptions-- then I'm not sure how reasonable your little logic test will be.

Do we have an agreement on how syllogisms work? I posed a syllogism and you tell me if it's valid, what premises you deny, if you deny any. If you don't deny any, the conclusion neccesarily follows, if it's valid.

1.) Z can determine a probability of X
2.) If X then Z.
3.) If Z finds X then Z. (maybe--given the extent of the probability of first premise)

I don't think my argument is the same as yours. Using your analogy, my argument would be:

1) The set of all Z's can determine a probability of X
2) If X exists then at least one Z exists
3) Therefore If Z1 determines a probablility of X then at least one Z exists (given the extent of the probability )

Thats not circular, as far as I can tell. Let me know what you think. If its valid then tell me what premise you deny.

CriscoDisco

June 17th 2003, 11:56 PM

Wwatts—

1) The set of all Z's can determine a probability of X
2) If X exists then at least one Z exists
3) Therefore If Z1 determines a probablility of X then at least one Z exists (given the extent of the probability )

I would say premise #2 is not necessarily true.
If my dog is barking there is a probability of a burglar outside my house.
There is a burglar outside my house therefore, my dog is barking.

I just don’t see how you affirm the antecedent when you confirm the precedent.
You need some absolute statements to make it a two-way street.

Or you need to carry the qualifier. My dog is probably barking.
Its as if you make the probability portion of the problem evaporate with a logical wave of hands. I just don’t see it happening here.

Morpheus

June 18th 2003, 02:05 AM

to criscodisco.

morpheus:
think about any conclusion drawn in the field of history/archaeology. such a conclusion does not necessarily have any testability (as we cannot repeat the past) or predictability, as it may just represent an isolated or unique event that doesn't really tell us anything about how things will occur in the future. however, this does not mean that said conclusion is inherently unreasonable.

crisco:
We can do independent verification. "if Society X used this type of pottery at this time, then Geology would suggest..." "if society X was invaded here, then Linguists would say..."

Then you call up your geologist buddy and do the experiment. You call up the linguist and do the experiment.

ok, fine. i don't see why this if-then test can't be applied to supernatural events in the bible, the most central of which is the resurrection of jesus christ. "if jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave, then we would have eyewitness accounts that say..." and so on. i'm not asserting here that the resurrection account passes this test (i think it does), but just that such a purported miraculous event can be tested in the way you suggest.

The test would be, "if God is obeying my commands then If i tell God to do Y then, Y will happen. "

This would be reasonable, naturalistic evidence to support the God hypothesis. Note, there is nothing supernatural about your example. The clouds take a shape i can perceive and my natural form is influenced by this phenomenon.

At best I can conclude that God is a creature that can write in the clouds.
Now, can he do other things...well, lets test that question with some experiments.
But you can see my definition of this God is based on what I can test, predict and describe with my natural language. No need for supernaturalism in this context. Eventually I'll arrive at a good natural description of that this "god phenomenon" is all about.

but, in accordance with this test, we could surely produce results to experiments that find their best explanation in the supernatural acts of god. suppose that it is actually the case that "if i tell god to do x, x will happen." now let's say i tell god to cause the quarter lying on the ground next to me to float in the air, without god actually physically raising it up. if this occurs, then i do not see how such an event could not best be explained as supernatural, because something occured that absolutely defies everything we know about physical laws. similar hypotheticals can be produced endlessly.

now, if one has an a priori assumption against the existence of miraculous events and refuses to accept that such an event occured regardless of what is observed, that is a different story. such a person will never acknowledge an event as supernatural, even if there is no viable natural explanation and even if what is observed directly contradicts well-established scientific laws.

What you describe is a belief system, but it is not reasonable. Reasonable beliefs are those based proportional to the evidence and testable.

You can believe anything you want-- but if you want your belief to be reasonable, then expect a rigorous test.

Otherwise, what do you mean by reasonable? You've drained it of all its value if you do away with the predictive qualifier.

so, if some event occurs and the evidence points directly toward a supernatural explanation, is not the belief that the supernatural was involved reasonable?

i'm not suggesting that someone can reasonably believe any possible explanation for some event. what i am arguing is that, for that event, if the best possible explanation is a supernatural one, then a belief in the miraculous can indeed be reasonable.

when you said earlier that an explanation must have "predictive power," i thought you were implying that said explanation must provide us with insight into future events. evidently you were just referring to the if-then test used for the specific event in question. assuming that the latter is what you mean by "predictive power," then i do not disagree that a reasonable explanation must accord with this test.

yes they can be tested. Independent verification. "If history says the walls of jericho fell then we should find evidence X"

It is a simple If, then test--- with a pragmatic qualifier. I mean you can't just arbitrarily say "If cats are dogs then the sun will rise tomorrow. The sun rose. Therefore cats are dogs."

You want to predict previously unknown things ideally. You want independent verification.You want to open new lines of inquiry.
But most of all you want you theories to help you make predictions-- not just explain the evidence.

yes, and i see no reason why purported supernatural events such as, say, the resurrection of jesus cannot also be subject to this test. an example of a prediction that would flow from this miraculous example - "if jesus underwent a bodily resurrection and ascended into heaven as the bible claims, then archaeology will not unearth the body of jesus."

Then it is no longer faith. That's what makes faith so special-- it's a hope beyond all what is seen. It is what drives all spirituality.

If the hope can only be proportional to the evidence, then when the Doctor tells you have virtually no chance to survive your cancer-- you give up. That's not what we as humans do--we fight and have hope despite the evidence.

What you propose is to boil out any emotional, spiritual and human value from the notion of faith and hope-- and reduce everything to reason. Humans are both rational and emotional creatures-- do you really want to take that away from all those who only have hope and faith to lean on? why? To give some illusory credence to your faith in Jesus? Why do you fear faith? Why do you cling to reasonable and balanced conclusions? Is that was God asks of you? Is that what Jesus wants? Microscopes in the church? Or human feeling emotional hope, prayer---and trust?

faith is simply "a belief." when you add the qualifier "a belief in something beyond the evidence," you are loading the term. i have no doubt that many people, including many christians, use the term in this fashion, but that is not how i am using the term. i think the weight of the evidence points toward the veracity of christianity - however, i cannot absolutely prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is the truth. so there is faith involved in my acceptance of christianity as this ultimate truth.

you have a very skewed view of christianity if you think it is just about blind hope and trust. peter tells us that christians should always have a ready answer for non-christian objections. the idea behind this teaching is that we are to have a reasonable faith. the way you paint the picture, these two are mutually exclusive. but this simply is not the case.

the god of the bible wants the christian walk to be a combination of reason and emotion. from my experience, the degree to which someone stresses each aspect varies from person to person. one person may find more satisfaction in an intimate, personal, religious experience, while someone else may go further in their christian walk through discovering some philosophical or theological truth about christianity. i fall into the latter category, just because of who i am and what suits me as an individual.

wwatts

June 18th 2003, 10:07 AM

Today @ 04:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126068#post126068)
CriscoDisco:

Wwatts—

1) The set of all Z's can determine a probability of X
2) If X exists then at least one Z exists
3) Therefore If Z1 determines a probablility of X then at least one Z exists (given the extent of the probability )

I would say premise #2 is not necessarily true.

So you are saying that the argument is invalid, or that the argument is valid and you deny (2)?

1 and 2 are premises.

Are you just denying

2) Purposes can not exist without a mind to create it

?

I just don’t see how you affirm the antecedent when you confirm the precedent.
You need some absolute statements to make it a two-way street.

Or you need to carry the qualifier. My dog is probably barking.
Its as if you make the probability portion of the problem evaporate with a logical wave of hands. I just don’t see it happening here.

The probability portion is in the conclusion.

3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it has a mind to create it. (given the extent of the probability )

1) Given that X is true, Y is true
2) There is a > 50% probability of X being true
3) We should believe things as true if there is a > 50% probability of them being true
4) Therefore Y is true

I think you don't accept (3)??

But if you don't, do you believe that if there is a 51% chance of a cat being in a box, that there is really 51% of the cat inside of the box?

Lets say that all this reasoning is wrong, what about if we change the argument to this:

) A mind can determine if an object or event probably has a purpose
2) Purposes can not exist without a mind to create it
3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it probably has a mind to create it.

If seems that since you want the probability portion brought over to the conclusion, I think that it is invalid, but you still have the problem of there probably being a mind.

CriscoDisco

June 26th 2003, 05:41 PM

Morph-

"if jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave, then we would have eyewitness accounts that say..." and so on. i'm not asserting here that the resurrection account passes this test (i think it does), but just that such a purported miraculous event can be tested in the way you suggest.

But what have you shown here? You've shown that natural events (possibly) occurred. You haven't shown anything supernatural. Given conditions X you get result Y. How is this supernatural?

we could surely produce results to experiments that find their best explanation in the supernatural acts of god.

Right, you'll get an explanation. But there is no fidelity. At best you can say it was "mystery phenomenon Q," But you can't rationally infer that there are "supernatural" agents.

let's say i tell god to cause the quarter lying on the ground next to me to float in the air, without god actually physically raising it up. if this occurs, then i do not see how such an event could not best be explained as supernatural,

Given that sort of observation, it would be best to describe that event in material terms. If you do this hand gesture and say these things, your quarters will float.

so, if some event occurs and the evidence points directly toward a supernatural explanation,

The only phenomenon that "directly points" to supernaturalism is ignorance. I don't know why this happened.. therefore, supernatural causes.

We are material. We can only understand things in material terms. To say, if we don't know is proof of supernaturalism, that's just logical fallacy.

if jesus underwent a bodily resurrection and ascended into heaven as the bible claims, then archaeology will not unearth the body of jesus."

If we can verify matter disappearing, that is best described as a Natural phenomenon that we currently don't understand.

Magical thinking didn't help get us out of the dark ages, i don't see what the appeal is for it here. Ignorance should not be seen as a bonus-- ie: "Gee, we don't know what causes this cancer, it must be supernatural!!!"

i think the weight of the evidence points toward the veracity of christianity - however, i cannot absolutely prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is the truth.
So your faith is not faith, but just a reasonable conclusion given the evidence?
Your belief in Christ is more science than hope?

Again, i'm not saying "blind" faith. Rather, at some point you have a staunch belief in something despite very incomplete or disproportional evidence.

CriscoDisco

June 26th 2003, 05:45 PM

watts-

So you are saying that the argument is invalid, or that the argument is valid and you deny

That you need to carry the qualifier over for it to remain valid.

3 ) We should believe things as true if there is a > 50% probability of them being true
4) Therefore Y is true

I think you don't accept (3)??

exactly. With a wave of logic you're making 50% suddenly 100%. It just isn't happening.

) A mind can determine if an object or event probably has a purpose
2) Purposes can not exist without a mind to create it
3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it probably has a mind to create it.

Why bother with all this?
Why not say: conclusions, to be rational, should be reasonably proportional to the evidence.

wwatts

June 26th 2003, 05:54 PM

) A mind can determine if an object or event probably has a purpose
2) Purposes can not exist without a mind to create it
3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it probably has a mind to create it.

Why bother with all this?
Why not say: conclusions, to be rational, should be reasonably proportional to the evidence.

So you hold that

3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it probably has a mind to create it.

outstanding!

I'm not going to argue with you about your 50% belief of a cat in a box = a 50% of an actual cat in a box, if you hold (3).

CriscoDisco

June 28th 2003, 03:02 PM

wwatts-

So you hold that

3) Therefore whenever a mind determines if an object or event probably has a purpose, it probably has a mind to create it.

No.

Generally minds have Goals. Although, often minds are insane, and therefore we can still infer there is a sick mind from insane--purposeless- events.

So, given the rules to describe the kind of mind, an event can either predict or rule out that particular kind of mind

Morpheus

July 1st 2003, 12:59 AM

to criscodisco. sorry for the delay, i hadn't seen your post.

morpheus:
"if jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave, then we would have eyewitness accounts that say..." and so on. i'm not asserting here that the resurrection account passes this test (i think it does), but just that such a purported miraculous event can be tested in the way you suggest.

crisco:
But what have you shown here? You've shown that natural events (possibly) occurred. You haven't shown anything supernatural. Given conditions X you get result Y. How is this supernatural?

how are you using the word "supernatural?" i take it to mean "something beyond the physical universe and what occurs in the physical universe." what i'm showing with this example is that we can use your if-then test in an attempt to provide evidence for some event (i.e., the resurrection) that is supernatural in this sense - a bodily resurrection of a man dead for 3 days certainly qualifies as such.

morpheus:
we could surely produce results to experiments that find their best explanation in the supernatural acts of god.

crisco:
Right, you'll get an explanation. But there is no fidelity. At best you can say it was "mystery phenomenon Q," But you can't rationally infer that there are "supernatural" agents.

if the phenomenon directly contradicts what we reliably know about the mechanisms of the physical world, then it is completely rational to infer a supernatural agent.

morpheus:
let's say i tell god to cause the quarter lying on the ground next to me to float in the air, without god actually physically raising it up. if this occurs, then i do not see how such an event could not best be explained as supernatural,

crisco:
Given that sort of observation, it would be best to describe that event in material terms. If you do this hand gesture and say these things, your quarters will float.

no. imho, you're just displaying a presumptive bias against the supernatural.

if there is a quarter lying on the ground, and i ask god to make it rise up and float in the air, and this happens, the most rational explanation is that god (a supernatural agent) intervened and caused something to occur beyond what regularly happens in the physical universe.

any other concocted explanation of this phenomenon in purely material terms would have to somehow account for the fact that it directly contradicts everything we know about gravity. since i'd say our scientific knowledge regarding gravity (at the level of objects the size of quarters) is rock solid, it would be, imo, ridiculous to posit some explanation that goes against this knowledge simply in an attempt to avoid positing the supernatural.

The only phenomenon that "directly points" to supernaturalism is ignorance. I don't know why this happened.. therefore, supernatural causes.

no. given what we know from science, there are some things that cannot occur within purely physical means (e.g., a quarter spontaneously floating upward). if such a phenomenon is witnessed, any valid explanation needs to (in part) come from outside the material universe - thus, a supernatual explanation could hypothetically be the most feasible.

We are material. We can only understand things in material terms. To say, if we don't know is proof of supernaturalism, that's just logical fallacy.

and of course, i'm not saying that.

to say that because we are material we should not entertain explanations that appeal to things immaterial - that is a logical fallacy. non sequitur, to be specific.

morpheus:
if jesus underwent a bodily resurrection and ascended into heaven as the bible claims, then archaeology will not unearth the body of jesus."

crisco:
If we can verify matter disappearing, that is best described as a Natural phenomenon that we currently don't understand.

i was providing this as an example of a prediction that would come from the theory that jesus was resurrected from the dead. nothing you say negates it as a valid example.

Magical thinking didn't help get us out of the dark ages, i don't see what the appeal is for it here. Ignorance should not be seen as a bonus-- ie: "Gee, we don't know what causes this cancer, it must be supernatural!!!"

if you are implying that this is my position, then it's a complete strawman. i'm not advocating a "god of the gaps" concept, where the supernatural is appealed to in order to explain anything unknown. i'm advocating that the supernatural can be rationally appealed to if there is some phenomenon that directly contradicts our knowledge and if it is the best explanation of the phenomenon.

So your faith is not faith, but just a reasonable conclusion given the evidence?

of course, "faith" and "a reasonable conclusion given the evidence" are not mutually exclusive, as you make them out to be. i believe that acceptance of christianity is reasonable, though i do utilize faith when i incorporate the christian worldview into the fabric of my life despite the fact that i admittedly do not have all the answers. one can see and know of the evidence, but it is another thing altogether to accept it and act on it.

Again, i'm not saying "blind" faith. Rather, at some point you have a staunch belief in something despite very incomplete or disproportional evidence.

i think the evidence is in favor of christianity. i also have faith that christianity is true and that the god of christianity is true to his word, though i admittedly cannot prove that these are the case. again, there is no mutual exclusion between reasonableness and faith.

regards.

CriscoDisco

July 1st 2003, 05:59 PM

Morph-

how are you using the word "supernatural?" I take it to mean "something beyond the physical universe and what occurs in the physical universe."

"Supernatural" is an ambiguous term because we don't have a standard other than ignorance to define something as supernatural.

The only time I see people saying: it was supernatural, is because they don't know why it happened.

Why bother with the "something beyond" criterion? Why not just document the physical phenomenon. Why link it to a "supernatural" cause? Isn't it more reasonable just to say "i don't know" rather than saying "Unknowable force X, caused it."

that is supernatural in this sense - a bodily resurrection of a man dead for 3 days certainly qualifies as such.

No it doesn't. All we know that given certain circumstances, the laws of the universe, as we currently understand them, don't behave as we predict them.

if the phenomenon directly contradicts what we reliably know about the mechanisms of the physical world, then it is completely rational to infer a supernatural agent.

They used to think matter couldn't decay.
But when they first saw radioactivity-- did they say there was a "supernatural" cause, and then just be done with it? No.

Your definition assumes we already know all the laws of the physical world.
Clearly there are mysteries left to resolve. Why are you so eager to say we will never understand them, and thus, we should chalk them up to "supernatural" causes.

no. imho, you're just displaying a presumptive bias against the supernatural.

I'm saying that we are not supernatural, and therefore we have no use for supernatural explanations.

if there is a quarter lying on the ground, and i ask god to make it rise up and float in the air, and this happens, the most rational explanation is that god (a supernatural agent) intervened

No, you should just say that there is God Quarter floating force. God would be best described in naturalistic terms: ie, will cause quarters to float on request, can break certain rules of the known universe. Just like at high velocities, certain rules of the universe break down, just at high temperatures certain rules break down. Are you suggesting that there should be a "supernatural" dept in all schools of physics?

, it would be, imo, ridiculous to posit some explanation that goes against this knowledge simply in an attempt to avoid positing the supernatural.

How about a bit of humility, and simply saying "currently I don't know why this happens?"

there are some things that cannot occur within purely physical means (e.g., a quarter spontaneously floating upward). if such a phenomenon is witnessed, any valid explanation needs to (in part) come from outside the material universe - thus, supernatual explanation could hypothetically be the most feasible.

Again, you're assuming we know absolutely all the rules of the universe, and that we know all the exceptions to the rule. This is not the case. As noted above, we don't know about Extreme velocities, or extreme temperatures-- these are some exceptions to the rule, why are you so confident that there are not other exceptions to the rule?

to say that because we are material we should not entertain explanations that appeal to things immaterial

This begs the question: what are things "immaterial.' If I were to stumble upon a supernatural rock, what would it look like?

i'm advocating that the supernatural can be rationally appealed to if there is some phenomenon that directly contradicts our knowledge and if it is the best explanation of the phenomenon

So, you're saying that the criterion for supernatural, is when we get unexpected or non-predicted results. Are you saying that our current world view is set in stone, unchangable, that we can't modify our theories without appealing to "unknowable-- supernatural causes?"

i'm not advocating a "god of the gaps" concept, where the supernatural is appealed to in order to explain anything unknown. i'm advocating that the supernatural can be rationally appealed to if there is some phenomenon that directly contradicts our knowledge and if it is the best explanation of the phenomenon.

How is this not "god of the gaps?" If it directly contradicts our knowledge, then we obviously didn't really have a complete understanding of the original rule. Now to say that such a gap in our knowledge can only be explained by god......

though i admittedly cannot prove that these are the case. again, there is no mutual exclusion between reasonableness and faith.

If there was a direct reasonable correlation of evidence to faith, then there would be only one religion. Why so many religions?

This is a side argument btw. I would prefer to see a better definition of Supernaturalism, and not hear the specifics of why you believe the way you do.

Morpheus

July 7th 2003, 12:53 AM

crisco -

i've been busy lately, and will get to your latest response when i have the time.

regards.

Satori

July 8th 2003, 05:39 PM

A "miracle" is simply something without an immediate explanation. However, as history has taught us over and over and over again, attributing supernatural influences to natural phenomenon is foolish and leads to presumptions, self-directed ignorance, and dire social problems.

We must be careful not to confuse what we cannot explain with what is "supernatural".

But then, what qualifies as a "miracle" to many who are obligated and desparate to receive some sort of substantion for their faith, can typically be explained without having to resort to the "god did it" cop-out (which is basically self-induced ignorance).

I'm in constant disbelief at what people are willing to believe, no matter how whacky it is people will still buy into it. I think that says something about human nature, and about the nature of "faith" and human psychology.

sincerely,

Satori

Morpheus

July 9th 2003, 01:25 AM

to crisco and satori. i will respond to crisco’s post first, and satori’s at the bottom.

crisco, i’m not going to respond to all of your points, in an attempt to get to the core of our disagreement.

morpheus:
if there is a quarter lying on the ground, and i ask god to make it rise up and float in the air, and this happens, the most rational explanation is that god (a supernatural agent) intervened

crisco:
No, you should just say that there is God Quarter floating force. God would be best described in naturalistic terms: ie, will cause quarters to float on request, can break certain rules of the known universe. Just like at high velocities, certain rules of the universe break down, just at high temperatures certain rules break down.

well, i would nitpick and say that it is not the rules of the universe that break down at high velocities, but instead our conceptions of the rules of the universe.

i think a thought experiment might be helpful here. let’s suppose, for the sake of discussion, that we did have knowledge of all the natural rules that govern the physical universe. now, say there was some phenomenon that directly contradicted these rules. would you still say that a supernatural explanation for this phenomenon would be unreasonable? again, for this example assume that we have accurate knowledge of all natural rules that govern the physical universe.

if your answer to the above question is no, then the issue is not whether a supernatural explanation is ever conceivably reasonable, but instead when such explanations are reasonable.

morpheus:
there are some things that cannot occur within purely physical means (e.g., a quarter spontaneously floating upward). if such a phenomenon is witnessed, any valid explanation needs to (in part) come from outside the material universe - thus, supernatual explanation could hypothetically be the most feasible.

crisco:
Again, you're assuming we know absolutely all the rules of the universe, and that we know all the exceptions to the rule. This is not the case. As noted above, we don't know about Extreme velocities, or extreme temperatures-- these are some exceptions to the rule, why are you so confident that there are not other exceptions to the rule?

first, let me ask you a question: am i correct in saying that your position is not that supernatural events cannot occur, but that it simply isn’t reasonable to ever appeal to a supernatural explanation? does that accurately reflect your view?

i am sticking by my definition of supernatural as nothing more than something that violates or goes beyond the natural rules governing the physical universe. i am not saying that something is supernatural if it goes beyond our conceptions of these rules, but if it goes beyond the actual rules, regardless of whether we know these rules or not. (this is a key point.) this is a standard definition of supernatural, and one that is in accord with most dictionary definitions of the word – i really cannot see why you would have any problem with it.

that being said, let’s consider the example of the floating quarter again. suppose that for this example there are no extremes involved (such as velocity/temperature) that are known to lead to anomalies. now, i see two possible explanations for such a phenomenon:

1) the event was supernatural, in the sense that it would not have happened if all of the relevant factors surrounding the event were governed by the natural rules of the physical universe (per my definition). in the example, we appealed to some supernatural force (e.g., god) to bring about an event that went beyond the natural rules of the physical universe, and such an event occurred. according to this explanation, this is what seemed to occur, and so it is most rational to conclude that a supernatural force was, in fact, involved.

2) the event was purely naturalistic. despite the fact that no similar phenomenon has ever been observed, and despite the fact that the event seemed to go against everything we know about the workings of the physical universe when it comes to quarters, gravity, etc., it was still physical. the fact that right before this unbelievable event occurred we appealed to a supernatural force to bring about a supernatural event is merely coincidental.

to my mind, there are good reasons to accept the first explanation over the second, and no reasons to accept the second over the first (except if one is biased beforehand against the supernatural).

here’s another hypothetical case for you: suppose that, tomorrow, all of the christians on the planet simply disappeared from the physical universe. would you assert that there was nothing supernatural involved, despite the fact that all of the people affected held to some common view with respect to a supernatural god?

morpheus:
i'm advocating that the supernatural can be rationally appealed to if there is some phenomenon that directly contradicts our knowledge and if it is the best explanation of the phenomenon

crisco:
So, you're saying that the criterion for supernatural, is when we get unexpected or non-predicted results.

no, you’re reading that into my words. i am not of the position that all unexpected observations warrant a supernatural explanation. for example, at the time when the occurrences of quantum particles were first observed, such observations were surely quite unexpected. but in this instance it would have been an illogical leap to immediately appeal to the supernatural as an explanation for quantum mechanics, because we were dealing with microscopic scales and types of events that we had never yet observed. but in my hypothetical example involving the quarter, this is not the case, and i see absolutely no reason to prefer the naturalistic explanation over the supernatural one, and find the latter much more rational.

let me put my position syllogistically:

1) as human beings, we should always attempt to provide the best possible explanation for an observed phenomenon.

2) it is possible that supernatural events occur (if you disagree with this premise, then you need to provide reasoning as to why you rule out the possibility of the supernatural a priori).

3) if some event is supernatural, then its best explanation is supernatural (this is obvious – any explanation that does not appeal to the supernatural in such a case will be insufficient to describe the event).

4) therefore, it is possible that, as human beings, a supernatural explanation of some phenomenon may be the best explanation (from 1 & 3).

I'm saying that we are not supernatural, and therefore we have no use for supernatural explanations.

but, as i said previously, this is a non sequitur. what rule dictates that because we are not supernatural, we cannot come up with rational explanations that involve the supernatural?

now, to some of satori’s comments:

A "miracle" is simply something without an immediate explanation.

that is quite an unusual definition of a miracle, and it seems to beg the question by implying that events that are called miracles really aren’t “miraculous” at all.

a miracle is generally defined as some event that involved forces (divine or supernatural) outside of the physical universe. whether these actually occur, of course, is another matter.

However, as history has taught us over and over and over again, attributing supernatural influences to natural phenomenon is foolish and leads to presumptions, self-directed ignorance, and dire social problems.

well, of course it is foolish to call “natural” events “supernatural.” no one is denying that, as it is clearly contradictory. but i see nothing foolish about attributing supernatural influences to events that are, in fact, supernatural. that is a different issue altogether.

We must be careful not to confuse what we cannot explain with what is "supernatural".

this is true, and i agree. if some event is not explicable in accordance with our knowledge of the physical universe, it does not follow that a supernatural explanation of this event is rational. but depending on the situation, such an explanation may be reasonable.

regards to all.

CriscoDisco

July 9th 2003, 12:59 PM

morph-

let’s suppose, for the sake of discussion, that we did have knowledge of all the natural rules that govern the physical universe. now, say there was some phenomenon that directly contradicted these rules. would you still say that a supernatural explanation for this phenomenon would be unreasonable? again, for this example assume that we have accurate knowledge of all natural rules that govern the physical universe.

if your answer to the above question is no, then the issue is not whether a supernatural explanation is ever conceivably reasonable, but instead when such explanations are reasonable.

If we did have all the knowledge of the natural world we would be gods-- well, at least omniscient.

The more I think about your thought experiment, the more it looks like a contradiction.
If we knew everything, what would we do if something happened we couldn't explain (ie, what if there was something we didn't know?) The easy answer is, premise #1 is wrong (clearly we didn't know everything). The harder answer would be, we must accept the fact that we live in a world of contradiction, that we can both know and not know everything.

am i correct in saying that your position is not that supernatural events cannot occur, but that it simply isn’t reasonable to ever appeal to a supernatural explanation? does that accurately reflect your view?

Correct. Methodological naturalism. We are limited by our epistemology, not our metaphysics.

I'm not saying it is "unreasonable" per se, to appeal to supernatural explanation-- i'm suggesting that it is nonsensical and not useful. Given your epistemic facilities, the only way you can explain any phenomenon is through naturalistic means. Even if you do assume some intelligence, that intelligence must function through the natural world for you to perceive them.

i am sticking by my definition of supernatural as nothing more than something that violates or goes beyond the natural rules governing the physical universe. i am not saying that something is supernatural if it goes beyond our conceptions of these rules, but if it goes beyond the actual rules, regardless of whether we know these rules or not. (this is a key point.) this is a standard definition of supernatural, and one that is in accord with most dictionary definitions of the word – i really cannot see why you would have any problem with it.

Your definition violates the rules of our epistemology. Your assuming that there are "actual rules" independent of us as the perceiver: this is a metaphysical claim. Given your metaphysics that we couldn't distinguish between the "real" rules and the rules we currently know-- now our only option is to say "god did it?"

i am not saying that something is supernatural if it goes beyond our conceptions of these rules, but if it goes beyond the actual rules, regardless of whether we know these rules or not

Until you can show one(conception) from the other (actual) your supernatural epistemology is worthless.

Here is your stance
1) as human beings, we should always attempt to provide the best possible explanation for an observed phenomenon.

2) it is possible that supernatural events occur (if you disagree with this premise, then you need to provide reasoning as to why you rule out the possibility of the supernatural a priori).

3) if some event is supernatural, then its best explanation is supernatural (this is obvious – any explanation that does not appeal to the supernatural in such a case will be insufficient to describe the event).

4) therefore, it is possible that, as human beings, a supernatural explanation of some phenomenon may be the best explanation (from 1 & 3).

Compare with

1.) As human beings we should always attempt to have useful knowledge (Theories).
2.) It is possible, that our Theories at times, will fail to predict certain outcomes.
3.) When this occurs, one should amend our Theories appropriately.

If your goal is just a mere "explanation" of the phenomenon-- then sure, go ahead and use your supernatural explanation. It won't help you much though. Since there is no objective way to measure a supernatural explanation, there is no fidelity to any story.

You could say God caused event "X" and Satan caused event "y" if that's the mythology you want to use, but there is no objective standard by which to test these supernatural claims.

Lets say, you're walking down the street with your good pal Dr. Doomed. Suddenly, and inexplicably he bursts into flames and melts. His gooified flesh oozes down a nearby storm drain.

"Wow!" you say to yourself "That violated every natural theory I've ever known. People don't just burst into flames, they certainly don't just melt, and melted goo has never moved that fast! Certainly there must be a supernatural cause to all this."

Then you go merrily on your way.

I mean, given that you've already explained the phenomenon-- what is there left to do? You don't want to alter your previously held "absolute" notion of how the physical world functions do you? Why bother with learning exceptions to the theory if you already have an explanation? You can never understand the supernatural reasons why Dr. Doom died. So why bother experimenting or try to improve your knowledge base?

But, what if there is a natural exception to the rules? What if there was a way to prevent such horrific deaths? You are abandoning hope and utility when you appeal to supernatural explanations to the detriment of useful knowledge.

Morpheus

July 12th 2003, 01:28 AM

to crisco.

morpheus:
let’s suppose, for the sake of discussion, that we did have knowledge of all the natural rules that govern the physical universe. now, say there was some phenomenon that directly contradicted these rules. would you still say that a supernatural explanation for this phenomenon would be unreasonable? again, for this example assume that we have accurate knowledge of all natural rules that govern the physical universe.

if your answer to the above question is no, then the issue is not whether a supernatural explanation is ever conceivably reasonable, but instead when such explanations are reasonable.

crisco:
If we did have all the knowledge of the natural world we would be gods-- well, at least omniscient.

no. in my scenario, we don’t know all the facts of the physical universe (which would be required for omniscience), but just the “natural rules that govern the physical universe.” this is not omniscience by any stretch of the imagination. similarly, if we eventually discover a theory of everything in physics (e.g., superstring theory), we still won’t be omniscient with regard to the physical universe.

The more I think about your thought experiment, the more it looks like a contradiction.
If we knew everything, what would we do if something happened we couldn't explain (ie, what if there was something we didn't know?) The easy answer is, premise #1 is wrong (clearly we didn't know everything). The harder answer would be, we must accept the fact that we live in a world of contradiction, that we can both know and not know everything.

but the premise in my thought experiment is not that we know everything, but just that we know all of the natural rules that govern the physical universe. these are two different things. in light of this, and assuming for the sake of the experiment that our knowledge of said rules is accurate, it becomes possible that a supernatural explanation of the phenomenon in question is rational.

I'm not saying it is "unreasonable" per se, to appeal to supernatural explanation-- i'm suggesting that it is nonsensical and not useful.

how can something be nonsensical and not unreasonable at the same time? i tend to use these terms interchangeably.

Given your epistemic facilities, the only way you can explain any phenomenon is through naturalistic means. Even if you do assume some intelligence, that intelligence must function through the natural world for you to perceive them.

i do not disagree that we can only know things via natural means. but to go from this point and to conclude that we can therefore never rationally infer some supernatural cause behind these observable natural means is a non sequitur, any way i look at it.

Your definition violates the rules of our epistemology. Your assuming that there are "actual rules" independent of us as the perceiver: this is a metaphysical claim.

no, i don’t agree. science itself assumes that there are actual rules (these “rules” are descriptive, not prescriptive, which is something to keep in mind) governing the physical universe – if it did not, then there would be no point in generating theories and laws that attempt to describe how the universe actually works, and no point in the ultimate attempt at discovering a theory of everything that accurately portrays physical occurrences on all scales.

all i mean when i talk of the “actual rules” that govern the physical universe is that there is some way according to which physical entities exist and interact. this “way” is equivalent with the “rules” that descriptively govern the physical universe. iow, if you deny that these actual rules exist in the sense that i am using the phrase “actual rules” then you are essentially denying that there is some way according to which physical entities exist and interact.

and what are these “rules of epistemology” that disallow me from assuming, metaphysically, the existence of these actual rules? all kinds of definitions of words and concepts presuppose some metaphysical claim necessary for the coherence of the definition.

Given your metaphysics that we couldn't distinguish between the "real" rules and the rules we currently know-- now our only option is to say "god did it?"

sorry, i don’t follow your question here. my point is that if something occurs that contradicts the natural rules that govern the physical universe (i.e., it contradicts how physical entities exist and interact when there is no non-physical entity involved), then it is, by definition, supernatural, and a supernatural explanation of the phenomenon is called for.

morpheus:
i am not saying that something is supernatural if it goes beyond our conceptions of these rules, but if it goes beyond the actual rules, regardless of whether we know these rules or not

crisco:
Until you can show one(conception) from the other (actual) your supernatural epistemology is worthless.

again, i’m not sure what your objection means.

if our conception of these natural rules has been empirically verified time and time again through rigorous experiments conducted in accordance with the scientific method, then we can be virtually certain that our conceived rule mirrors the actual one, in the sense that only an extreme amount of skepticism that would ultimately lead to a reductio ad absurdum epistemology would stop this connection (conception-actual) from being made. from there, something that conclusively violates this principle can, with virtual certainty, be qualified as supernatural.

Here is your stance

1) as human beings, we should always attempt to provide the best possible explanation for an observed phenomenon.

2) it is possible that supernatural events occur (if you disagree with this premise, then you need to provide reasoning as to why you rule out the possibility of the supernatural a priori).

3) if some event is supernatural, then its best explanation is supernatural (this is obvious – any explanation that does not appeal to the supernatural in such a case will be insufficient to describe the event).

4) therefore, it is possible that, as human beings, a supernatural explanation of some phenomenon may be the best explanation (from 1 & 3).

yes, this is the deductive argument i laid out previously. i’d like to know which premise/deduction you disagree with, because, to my mind, this argument shows that supernatural explanations can be the best ones; this conclusion seems to be contra your position.

Compare with

1.) As human beings we should always attempt to have useful knowledge (Theories).
2.) It is possible, that our Theories at times, will fail to predict certain outcomes.
3.) When this occurs, one should amend our Theories appropriately.

i don’t see the point. i agree with this, but it is not mutually exclusive to the deductive argument i laid out above. so i don’t see how this detracts from the strength of my argument in any way.

If your goal is just a mere "explanation" of the phenomenon-- then sure, go ahead and use your supernatural explanation. It won't help you much though. Since there is no objective way to measure a supernatural explanation, there is no fidelity to any story.

i have never said that the supernatural should serve as a mere explanation, but that it is possible for it to serve as the best explanation.

Lets say, you're walking down the street with your good pal Dr. Doomed. Suddenly, and inexplicably he bursts into flames and melts. His gooified flesh oozes down a nearby storm drain.

"Wow!" you say to yourself "That violated every natural theory I've ever known. People don't just burst into flames, they certainly don't just melt, and melted goo has never moved that fast! Certainly there must be a supernatural cause to all this."

Then you go merrily on your way.

and this would be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. the case should be studied, and the best explanation should be sought after based on what we know, what we don’t know, and what occurred. in this instance, it is possible that the best explanation is supernatural, while it is also possible that it is natural.

I mean, given that you've already explained the phenomenon-- what is there left to do? You don't want to alter your previously held "absolute" notion of how the physical world functions do you? Why bother with learning exceptions to the theory if you already have an explanation? You can never understand the supernatural reasons why Dr. Doom died. So why bother experimenting or try to improve your knowledge base?

i think you’re misunderstanding my position. i’m not saying that we should hold to some absolute notion of how the physical world functions, and that this notion should never be able to be amended. i’m saying that there comes a point when certain physical theories/laws have been so well established that we can be virtually certain that they accurately describe what’s actually going on, and so we accept them as true unless there is some revolutionary and extraordinary reason to discard them. and the mere presence of an event that may be supernatural that does not accord with said theories/laws is not enough reason in and of itself for this discarding to occur, unless one has a bias against supernatural happenings in the first place.

i believe that covers all of your points, while hopefully expounding on my points as well. regards.

CriscoDisco

July 12th 2003, 03:50 PM

The question is: Whether you can make the distinction between the rules of the natural world and what actually happens in the natural world.

If there is an event in the natural world, and we know all the rules that govern events in the natural world, each event has a rule.

Here, you are suggesting that there are some events that have no rules that explain them. In that there is no way to predict it, then that is the rule. Ie: Quantum flux, Radioactive decay, electron location/velocity.

but the premise in my thought experiment is not that we know everything, but just that we know all of the natural rules that govern the physical universe. these are two different things.

You're trying to pull out a metaphysical claim without any epistemic effort.
Philosophy doesn't work that way.

If we know "All the rules" then there are no events that we can't explain. If even the rule is only to say there is no way to predict the event.

Basically, you're asking me to take as a premise, that supernatural (unknowable causes) exist, in order to show that supernatural or magical thinking is reasonable.

You are asking me to accept the circular logical fallacy.

Another question is, if science isn't perfect then there is no point it practicing science.

You say:
no, i don’t agree. science itself assumes that there are actual rules (these “rules” are descriptive, not prescriptive, which is something to keep in mind) governing the physical universe – if it did not, then there would be no point in generating theories and laws that attempt to describe how the universe actually works, and no point in the ultimate attempt at discovering a theory of everything that accurately portrays physical occurrences on all scales.

Scientists do what they do because it is useful. They are right more often than they are wrong. Do they attain perfection? no.

You've committed a Black/white fallacy in your thinking. Just because science isn't perfect, does not mean it is completely wrong or useless.

Scientists assume laws to the universe because that's what works, not because, objectively out there metaphysically laws exist.

if you deny that these actual rules exist in the sense that i am using the phrase “actual rules” then you are essentially denying that there is some way according to which physical entities exist and interact.

and what are these “rules of epistemology” that disallow me from assuming, metaphysically, the existence of these actual rules? all kinds of definitions of words and concepts presuppose some metaphysical claim necessary for the coherence of the definition.

Exactly, now you're getting it. Science is a methodology, not a metaphysic.

my point is that if something occurs that contradicts the natural rules that govern the physical universe (i.e., it contradicts how physical entities exist and interact when there is no non-physical entity involved), then it is, by definition, supernatural, and a supernatural explanation of the phenomenon is called for.

And my point is, you simply change the rule to best describe the phenomenon.
You don't hold dearly to your previously held notions, you have to be willing to question and change. No dogma, just method.

i don’t see the point. i agree with this, but it is not mutually exclusive to the deductive argument i laid out above. so i don’t see how this detracts from the strength of my argument in any way.

My concept of fluid theories that change given observation is better than a rigid catalogue of sacrosanct rules that can't be adjusted or modified, but only given to the "supernatural" exception to the rule.

i have never said that the supernatural should serve as a mere explanation, but that it is possible for it to serve as the best explanation.

Why is it the "best" explanation?

Wouldn't the better explanation be a modification of a previously held rule?

Why would we want to say Gravity is constant, if there is observed evidence that quarters can float sometimes. Clearly gravity isn't constant all the time and currently we don't know why-- lets do some experiments and see if we can nail down why our previously held rule of gravity failed us?

What do we do if we merely say "God did it?" Can we formulate an experiment? Can we add clarity to our rule?

If there really is an intelligence altering and influencing the world, isn't the above situation: experiment and modification, a better description of the world as it is?

i’m not saying that we should hold to some absolute notion of how the physical world functions, and that this notion should never be able to be amended. i’m saying that there comes a point when certain physical theories/laws have been so well established that we can be virtually certain that they accurately describe what’s actually going on, and so we accept them as true unless there is some revolutionary and extraordinary reason to discard them.

At what point are we "virtually" certain?
You're asking scientists to say, at some point, reject critical thinking and open questioning and take a certain conclusion as Dogma. This isn't going to happen. Science is a method, not a dogma-- and to ask scientists to become dogmatists so you can backdoor supernatural explanations into the mix, is to corrupt science irreparably.