Utopia Temple Forums

Utopia Temple Forums (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/index.php)
-   Religious Discussions (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/forumdisplay.php?f=68)
-   -   Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific) (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/showthread.php?t=78918)

Gotterdammerung 10-Jul-2012 08:43

Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
But does this mean they don't happen?

Abnormalities are not, by definition, repeatable. They are discarded as statisical variance. But for all we know, miracles are a common occurance. Due to the limitations of science we will never know.

Apeiron 14-Jul-2012 22:42

My dragon is invisible, but does that mean it doesn't exist?

You mistakenly assume that because miracles are inherently not repeatable, a scientific approach to miracles would always fail. This is based on a very limited understanding of science and the scientific method.

No two events in nature are ever exactly the same, not even very ordinary events. Science is not about studying this one instance of a falling apple, it's about studying the general laws of nature that govern objects falling.

Similarly, a scientist studying miracles would not seek an exact repetition of a specific miracle. Rather, they'd look for instances of the class of events you'd label 'miracles'. These would probably defined as 'instances where the laws of nature were genuinely broken'.

As far as I know, no such instances are reliably documented.

Before you respond with reasons why miracles in general can not be reliably detected, please look up Carl Sagan's invisible dragon.

Gotterdammerung 17-Jul-2012 07:46

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Astrophysics has a few of those 'reliably documented instances where laws of nature are genuinely broken', such as in galaxy cluster collisions and other events associated with dark matter. Alos see missing mass of the universe and the galaxy rotation problem ,

Apeiron 17-Jul-2012 16:08

No, dark matter does not break any laws of physics.

There's a huge difference between things we haven't completely figured out yet, and actual miracles. By your standards, the sun's source of power (now known to be nuclear fusion) would be a 'genuine breaking of the laws of physics' if we were having this argument a century ago.

All you're doing is making a god-of-the-gaps argument. And a very poor one at that, since there's some very good working theories on what dark matter is and how it functions. None of them require any miracles.

Gotterdammerung 18-Jul-2012 05:30

The current theory of gravity is wrong. The status of dark matter is pseduo-science. No one knows what it actually is. The only reason why we refer to dark matter is because our current 'science' doesn't work, specially, we do not understand gravity, or somehow we have misperceived the force.

To suggest, 'we just haven't completely figured it out yet' is a cop out. What is it that science has completely figured out? You may be quick to invoke an argument from ignorance regarding the god of the gaps (who said anything about god, this is a discussion on miracles), but what about the science-of-the-gabs: the fallacy that science will figure it out just because it has not yet been proven otherwise?

How is it that you have jumped from 'haven't completely figured out yet' to 'miracles cannot exist' in the universe. Since laws of nature have been observed to be broken (I haven given you examples) you have wormed your way backwards into an idealistic illogic that says 'we simply haven't figured it out yet therefore miracles cannot happen'. The very name 'law of nature' is a total misnomer when our understanding of them is, at best, incomplete.

Science is more approximation than general rule, it is a 'best we have' rather than 'law of nature'. I asked the question. 'does science mean that miracles don't happen', and the answer still appears to be no.

Voice of Reason 18-Jul-2012 11:53

The theory of gravity is not wrong. Far from it. It is so spectacularly right that the gravitational effects on a space vehicle in free-fall can be predicted accurately for years in advance. The several space-probes that have gone exactly where predicted prove that science and gravity are working very well.

Dark matter is not psuedo-science. It is a hypothesis, and does not break any laws of physics. Quite the opposite, it is predicted by the laws of physics, its properties are predictable, and its nature is likely explained by quantum gravity.

In contrast, your 'miracles' are 100% psuedo-science, totally unproven to even exist, break so many laws of physics it is hard to know where to start, and by your own arguments are completely wrong in every way.

It says a lot that you will take miracles on faith, but dismiss science. Your neo-mysticism shows even in your question. Before you can ask whether unrepeatability means that miracles don't exist, you have to prove that a miracle has happened even once. You haven't done that.

Show us one proven miracle, then we can disuss whether the lack of a second miracle reveals a limitation of science. You cannot just skip the firat step and expect to be taken seriously.

Nimon 18-Jul-2012 21:19

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
Science is more approximation than general rule, it is a 'best we have' rather than 'law of nature'. I asked the question. 'does science mean that miracles don't happen', and the answer still appears to be no.

Well, yes, it absolutely does. It's simple. If a miracle really does happen, then by definition it's not actually a miracle. There is nothing that isn't bound by the laws of the Universe, so if something happens, it's a natural part of the Universe.

What is a miracle, anyway? Something we can't explain? If that's the case, lightning used to be a miracle. We had no proper way of explaining lightning, so we attributed it supernatural causes. But, as we now know, lightning has completely reasonable and predictable cause and effect.

For that matter, saying that miracles are outside of science is a meaningless statement. It doesn't explain anything. You even make the point that you were talking about miracles, not God. What does that mean?

Apeiron 19-Jul-2012 01:19

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
The current theory of gravity is wrong.

No, it's not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
The status of dark matter is pseduo-science. No one knows what it actually is. The only reason why we refer to dark matter is because our current 'science' doesn't work, specially, we do not understand gravity, or somehow we have misperceived the force.

Do you even do any basic research before posting this stuff?

You conclude that "science doesn't work". That's a pretty big conclusion, especially considering it's based purely on your misunderstanding. We understand gravity very well, and it is exactly this understanding of gravity which lead to suggest the existence of dark matter. You appear to think of dark matter as something supernatural or far beyond our understanding, while there are actually some very good hypothesis on exactly what it is and how it functions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
To suggest, 'we just haven't completely figured it out yet' is a cop out.

How is that a cop out? It's the truth. Though you appear to think that incomplete knowledge should mean "therefore magic".

Your position basically is "dark matter is magic". You actually claimed that astrophysics has "a few of those 'reliably documented instances where laws of nature are genuinely broken'".

My position is "we don't fully understand it yet, let's not jump to 'magic' as an explanation though".

Are you seriously having trouble discerning which is the more reasonable position?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
What is it that science has completely figured out? You may be quick to invoke an argument from ignorance regarding the god of the gaps (who said anything about god, this is a discussion on miracles), but what about the science-of-the-gabs: the fallacy that science will figure it out just because it has not yet been proven otherwise?

I don't think you quite understand what an argument from ignorance is. The basic structure of such an argument is "we don't know, therefore my position is correct". This is the exact argument you are making.

The most common form of this argument is "we don't know, therefore God". This is why it is often called the "god-of-the-gaps"-argument. This is just what the argument is called, no-one is bringing God into the discussion.

The major flaw in your "science-of-the-gaps" retort is that history refutes it. Science actually does fill in the gaps. Meanwhile, those who claim supernatural explanations only see the gaps shrink further and further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
How is it that you have jumped from 'haven't completely figured out yet' to 'miracles cannot exist' in the universe.

Have I? Because I don't go along with your argument of "here is something we don't know, therefore miracles"? :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
Since laws of nature have been observed to be broken (I haven given you examples)

No, they haven't. Your lack of understanding does not mean supernatural events have been observed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
you have wormed your way backwards into an idealistic illogic that says 'we simply haven't figured it out yet therefore miracles cannot happen'.

You're completely misstating my position. Your entire post is a big straw man.

My position is that it is completely unreasonable to go from "we don't know yet" to "therefore miracles".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700481)
The very name 'law of nature' is a total misnomer when our understanding of them is, at best, incomplete.

Science is more approximation than general rule, it is a 'best we have' rather than 'law of nature'. I asked the question. 'does science mean that miracles don't happen', and the answer still appears to be no.

You have such a poor grasp of the basic concepts in this discussion that it is virtually impossible to communicate with you.

Gotterdammerung 19-Jul-2012 02:06

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason (Post 1700483)
The theory of gravity is not wrong. Far from it. It is so spectacularly right that the gravitational effects on a space vehicle in free-fall can be predicted accurately for years in advance. The several space-probes that have gone exactly where predicted prove that science and gravity are working very well.

Dark matter is not psuedo-science. It is a hypothesis, and does not break any laws of physics. Quite the opposite, it is predicted by the laws of physics, its properties are predictable, and its nature is likely explained by quantum gravity.

In contrast, your 'miracles' are 100% psuedo-science, totally unproven to even exist, break so many laws of physics it is hard to know where to start, and by your own arguments are completely wrong in every way.

It says a lot that you will take miracles on faith, but dismiss science. Your neo-mysticism shows even in your question. Before you can ask whether unrepeatability means that miracles don't exist, you have to prove that a miracle has happened even once. You haven't done that.

Show us one proven miracle, then we can disuss whether the lack of a second miracle reveals a limitation of science. You cannot just skip the firat step and expect to be taken seriously.

A few points:

The theory of gravity can predict lots of things, especially in our immediate field of influence. Intuitively, you would expect us, humans, to be able to do this. The theory breaks down however when you try to apply it to the greater universe. This may be acceptable to engineers, but not physicists.

The success of the space program is due to an incomplete theory. For example, one can build a house according to some superstitious methodology and still experience a good deal of success because it's a fair conduit of intuition. But you can't use intuition to write complex scientific theorums about the movements of the stars, and this is where it fails.

Dark matter is not predicted by science. In fact, physics would prefer altogether if they did not have to think about it. Mass in space does not behave the way our equations expected. That's not predicting dark matter, that's resorting to some hole in the equation and calling it scientific.

On miracles, I essentially asked whether it was possible for science and miracles to exist in the same universe. Proof, apparently, is not solely dependant on repeatability (I misunderstood this point), but a miracle can be defined as a 'geuine breaking of the laws of nature', and observing this class of event would be sufficient to prove the existance of miracles. I appealled to the most purely theoretical field I could think of, because it strives for complete laws moreso than useful approximations. Evidence of a miracle is an event without a known cause, which is very easy for me to point at.

[...]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimon (Post 1700487)
Well, yes, it absolutely does. It's simple. If a miracle really does happen, then by definition it's not actually a miracle. There is nothing that isn't bound by the laws of the Universe, so if something happens, it's a natural part of the Universe.

What is a miracle, anyway? Something we can't explain? If that's the case, lightning used to be a miracle. We had no proper way of explaining lightning, so we attributed it supernatural causes. But, as we now know, lightning has completely reasonable and predictable cause and effect.

For that matter, saying that miracles are outside of science is a meaningless statement. It doesn't explain anything. You even make the point that you were talking about miracles, not God. What does that mean?

The assumption that the universe is wholly natural, caused and necessary is just that, an assumption. The 'laws of nature' are idealistic. Certainly, there is evidence for causality, but this is not evidence against spontaneity. Both could exist simultaneously. There is no good reason to assume they don't.

A miracle is simply an event without a cause, so therefore breaks laws of nature. But miracles are not outside of science, and could be regarded as a legitimate class of events which science simply has to deal with. For example we mentioned 'dark matter', or in quantum physics, 'non local particles', or that empty space is 'unstable'.

Voice of Reason 19-Jul-2012 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung
The theory of gravity can predict lots of things

If it can predict things, then it can't be wrong. :D


Quote:

Dark matter is not predicted by science.
Dark matter has never been detected, so it is 100% a prediction by science.


Quote:

Mass in space does not behave the way our equations expected. That's not predicting dark matter, that's resorting to some hole in the equation and calling it scientific.
There is no problem with behaviour. The 'problem' is that there is more mass than can be seen, which is ... well... a prediction of dark matter.


Quote:

Evidence of a miracle is an event without a known cause, which is very easy for me to point at.
That totally explains why you haven't pointed to a single miracle, even though I invited you to do so.

"Show us one proven miracle, then we can disuss whether the lack of a second miracle reveals a limitation of science."

If you want to discuss miracles, you have to prove they exist first. You haven't done that.

Azure Dragon 19-Jul-2012 22:39

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700494)
A few points:

The theory of gravity can predict lots of things, especially in our immediate field of influence. Intuitively, you would expect us, humans, to be able to do this. The theory breaks down however when you try to apply it to the greater universe. This may be acceptable to engineers, but not physicists.

Another baseless assertion. The theory of gravity works very well for the universe in general.

Quote:

The success of the space program is due to an incomplete theory.
Correct.

Quote:

For example, one can build a house according to some superstitious methodology and still experience a good deal of success because it's a fair conduit of intuition. But you can't use intuition to write complex scientific theorums about the movements of the stars, and this is where it fails.
That's why scientists prefer to use calculations and careful, replicable experiments to gather evidence.

Quote:

Dark matter is not predicted by science.
Yes it is. We didn't read about it in the Bible.

Quote:

In fact, physics would prefer altogether if they did not have to think about it.
Physicist's who've spent a long time thinking about it would disagree.

Quote:

Mass in space does not behave the way our equations expected. That's not predicting dark matter, that's resorting to some hole in the equation and calling it scientific.
It is scientific. This is what science does. It observes, creates a theory, makes a prediction, tests the prediction, observes the test, analyses the results, reassesses and changes the theory, makes new predictions, tests the predictions... and so on and so on.

Of course it's not as clean cut as concluding god is responsible for it, and that's all we need to know.

Quote:

The assumption that the universe is wholly natural, caused and necessary is just that, an assumption. The 'laws of nature' are idealistic. Certainly, there is evidence for causality, but this is not evidence against spontaneity. Both could exist simultaneously. There is no good reason to assume they don't.

A miracle is simply an event without a cause, so therefore breaks laws of nature. But miracles are not outside of science, and could be regarded as a legitimate class of events which science simply has to deal with. For example we mentioned 'dark matter', or in quantum physics, 'non local particles', or that empty space is 'unstable'.
Your mixing apples and oranges here. Quantum Physics and Dark Matter are based on solid evidence. The experiments and observations that form their bases can be repeated time and time again.

No "miracle" has yet been scientifically proven to have happened.

Nimon 20-Jul-2012 21:48

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700494)
Dark matter is not predicted by science.

Try to think about that statement for a second. What are the alternatives? We know about dark matter. Sure, we don't know what it is, or how it works, or how it came into existence, but that doesn't change the fact that we know it has to exist. The only reason we know that is because of science, because our current theories failed to adequately explain something. How is that not a prediction of science? It's veritably the definition of a prediction by science.

Gotterdammerung 21-Jul-2012 07:03

Behold, as you will now watch me weasel (?) out of this spectacularly.

You see, my fellow gentlemen, if miracles exists, then they are the exception to the rules of nature. Who's exception? Or what? Perhaps, if they exist, they are the effect of external dimensions working on our universe which we cannot measure, perhaps, they are from forces that move through dimensions, perhaps, they are due to interactions from others universes, or forces that travel between universes, or exist non-dimensionally, outside of the laws of nature, which is probably the cases, if we are ever at all to observe a causeless-cause that defies logic and mathematics. Perhaps, even, it is through some Deity (even though I said we weren't going to say anything about that).

Regardless, of such baseless speculation, I can definately say that if miracles exist, then they have their origins must be outside of the universe, whatever that entails. That being said, does the idea of miracles become more plausible? Is it possible that the laws of nature as we know it could be bent by forces not otherwise bound by such laws? That is, as I suggested, not-of-this-universe? If I replace, miracle, with, 'effect caused or modified from non-observable source', doesn't that make it all the more plausible in terms of being scientifically in effects though not ever quantifiable itself by mathematics or logic?

The effects of dark matter, as mentioned, can be measured, but the source cannot. This behaviour makes it a 'miraculous' force, that is, causing 'effects in nature from a non-observable source'. For all that we can determine, dark matter does not behave within the laws of nature, or it tranforms between different laws of its own, from inside and outside the universe, from causal and non-caused dimensions. Why not? The maths can allow it.

If, as I have discussed, miracles exist, then they give us the impression that some external being has 'intervened' and rained on our parade, so to speak, thus rendering the notion unnatural, unscientific, and unplausible. But as I also said, science primarily deals with observation, even if such observations appear illogical. The laws of nature are logical assessments about observations, which mostly hold up in repeated observations. However there are times also when the understanding of the laws of nature doesn't hold up, and while we may continually search for new mathematical explanations why they didn't hold up, the search itself does not allow for the possibility that the universe, or at least observations of it, may not be mathematical, or logical, or balanced whatsoever.

If such miraculous forces like dark matter exist but they themselves cannot themselves be observed, then the jury is really out in regards to their source. If they have anything to do with other dimensions, universes, non-caused universe creators (deistic or otherwise), then we have potential evidence for 'miracles'.

Good day.

Voice of Reason 21-Jul-2012 09:57

First, you still haven't proved that miracles exist, and until you do that speculation is pointless.

Second, there is nothing miraculous about dark matter. It is just difficult to observe directly, but that does not make it some sort of miracle. It just makes it difficult to see, like a whole load of other things that are difficult to observe directly.

BTW, dark matter is not a force...

Gotterdammerung 21-Jul-2012 12:20

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason (Post 1700516)
First, you still haven't proved that miracles exist, and until you do that speculation is pointless.

How can I prove what cannot be directly observed?

Quote:

Second, there is nothing miraculous about dark matter. It is just difficult to observe directly, but that does not make it some sort of miracle.
It's a good candidate, though.

I've discussed how miracles might be possible. I'm uncertain how you we can make them falsifiable.

Of course, just because they arn't falsifiable doesn't mean they don't happen. I have made them plausibile in theory, I hope.

Quote:

BTW, dark matter is not a force...
Not playing this game. You know what I meant.

Voice of Reason 21-Jul-2012 15:42

Quote:

How can I prove what cannot be directly observed?
By its effects on something else.

Who says miracles have to be unobservable? That sounds like a self-serving redefinition. I am asking you show any miracle, observable or not, and you are not providing one.


Quote:

It's a good candidate, though.
Not at all. It looks 100% scientific, explainable, and boringly unmiraculous to me.


Quote:

Of course, just because they arn't falsifiable doesn't mean they don't happen. I have made them plausibile in theory, I hope.
The way they don't happen is a very strong indication that they don't happen, and also makes the whole idea very implausable.


Quote:

Not playing this game. You know what I meant.
No game. Dark force/dark energy is a different thing. You wouldn't be the first to get confused between the two things.

Gotterdammerung 22-Jul-2012 09:53

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason (Post 1700519)
You wouldn't be the first to get confused

Now that you mention it, I am pretty confused.

pudge 03-Aug-2012 06:58

Re: Miracles are not repeatable (not scientific)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason (Post 1700519)
No game. Dark force/dark energy is a different thing. You wouldn't be the first to get confused between the two things.

When someone refers to dark matter, they absolutely realize they are talking about matter and not a force. He wasn't confused about anything, but you're confused about force vs. energy. Here's a hint: while dark matter and dark energy are big topics, "dark forces" are pretty much never discussed unless someone likes old Star Wars games, but you wouldn't be the first to get confused between force and energy. Assuming someone is confusing "dark forces" with dark matter is speculation considering how rarely dark forces are mentioned, which of course is irrelevant considering you were confusing energy and force to begin with.

Voice of Reason 03-Aug-2012 11:38

"When someone refers to dark matter, they absolutely realize they are talking about matter and not a force. He wasn't confused about anything"

If that is true, then someone who says "If such miraculous *forces* like dark *matter* exist..." absolutely doesn't realise they are talking about matter and not a force.

By your argument, are they confused or not?


"Here's a hint: while dark matter and dark energy are big topics, "dark forces" are pretty much never discussed unless someone likes old Star Wars games, but you wouldn't be the first to get confused between force and energy."

*sigh*...

'There are some very speculative ideas about the future of the universe. One suggests that phantom energy causes divergent expansion, which would imply that the effective force of dark energy continues growing until it dominates all other forces in the universe.'


'Dark energy - the mysterious force that is speeding up the expansion of the Universe - has been a part of space for at least nine billion years.'


'The Dark Force and Dark Matter'


'Physicists hunt for dark forces'


'Dark Matter and Dark Forces'


"you were confusing energy and force to begin with."

Show me the force that is independent of energy. If there is a dark force, there must be a dark energy. If there is no dark force, there is no dark energy.

Gotterdammerung 04-Aug-2012 07:21

To this day the existance of Dark Matter remains theoretical. It has never been observed directly by science. The theory has merely been concocted by desperate mathematicians so that their precious equations can appear to remain relevant. It sure does appear that the universe is not totally logical, which to a scientist is a non-issue, but to a mathematician this equals unemployment.

String theory is the perfect example of what happens when you give mathematicians too much rope. The theory, while impressive to other mathematicians, is simply not scientific. Astronomers can physically look at early radiation patterns of the universe and learn about it, while mathematicians manufacture abstractions about the 10th dimension that deprive learning.

Deprive because logic is a limitation to science. Logicians don't have all the information, so, naturally, their conclusions are flawed. While mathematicians expect Dark Matter to exist - and indeed, insist that it exists necessarily - Cosmologists are open minded and are guided only by observation, not swayed by flawed abstractions.

Therefore, more to the point, if an event was to somehow break the laws of nature, like the big bang, whoses effects continued ambiguously through unexplainable forces like those caused by Dark Matter, then the existance of miracles are not only plausible but fundamental to the workings of the universe. If, at all, the universe can be observed to work illogically, which it continues to be, then by this very fact the laws of nature must be non-essential, and therefore breakable, modified or otherwise non-causally effected.


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 06:30.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2005, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.