Evidence of miracles.

[Astrid]

Then perhaps you would like to tell the medical professors who said it! that the area reconstructed is way past natural healing process or experience.
Your medical qualifications are- I’m guessing ZIP- but certainly less than theirs!
If you ever bothered to study before comment you might find out what medicine thinks.

Your snark is highly inappropriate.
So much for any intent to have a " good natured discussion"

The statement that " areas of bone structure cannot regrow"
is as i said, ridiculous.

Personal experience with a shattered fibula.
Xrays. Pieces here and there. Seeing how an
amorphous mass grew in the area, connecting the
pieces, then absorbing the displaced fragments,
and regrowing the gap into bone identical to
its previous contours.

Now, you may have some specific thing in mind.
Obviously some things cannot regrow.

The vague general thing about " areas" is as i said, ridiculous.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Which demonstrates why you hold the views you do.
You refuse to study other than what is pushed in front of you.
The XRays and commentary make interesting reading, but only for those who want education.

You still have not responded to any of the flaws I described in your arguments and evidence. Why should I investigate any further when the arguments and evidence you provided are bad? It is not my fault that your arguments have flaws, it is not my fault that you won't respond to my comments and it is not my fault that you did not provide good evidence to support your claims.

Here is a video of an Islamic healer. Now do your work to prove to me this is not real. Show me you are not shallow.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I have to say these threads are an eye opener.

I came for a what could have been an interesting good natured discussion on scientific evidence.

Eg if the Eucharistic miracles were faked how was it possible
How is that flesh could so intimately intermingle with bread?
Or how is that the change from bread to flesh is progressive?
How can leucocytes be present in vitro after years, a sign of life.
How can flesh test positive for DNA but refuse to yield a nuclear profile, only mitochondrial?
Repeated in places. across the world.
And so on. All good science.

I’ve discovered that none here actually study evidence, just preferring one of a list of apriori sceptic tropes however out of context or inappropriate.

Then I realised the problems:

For theists miracles are neither here nor there. If there is evidence great, it is hardly surprising , if disproven who cares? The church is just about the most sceptic agency out there.

But for sceptics ALL the evidence must be ruthless denounced by any means possible because a single instance destroys the sceptic world view.

That’s why academic institutions - take Bialystok university over Sokolka - stop at nothing to fabricate untruths to squash a perfectly good and verifiable forensic report. The behaviour of the shroud false RC daters was appalling, as any one reading Harry goves emails would discover.

Even greater in number than the badly behaved are those in academia who refuse to even look, so refuse assignments. Numerous instances occurred in the analysis of Eucharistic miracles. Why?

If it were easy to debunk, you would have thought a neo darwininian university would take great pleasure in doing so. The behaviour says the reverse. They are terrified of what they might find.

Farewell all.

I won’t be back until - and if - I see people interested in discussing the science, not imposing a priori sceptic nonsense.

There is a fascinating world out there for those prepare to take their ideological blinkers off. Even aside from theism , there is the fascinating study of consciousness outside the brain, or shared experience between twins.

As for philosophy of science? Even hawking recognised in the end that a unique scientific model isn’t possible.

That’s because the universe is infinitely more complex than we can ever perceive or model. The model we have is but a projection. Kant summed it up, but Plato said the same long before: we cannot know the reality, we observe only a shadow of it.

It’s a pity high school science hasn’t caught up with the reality of science.

...aaaand your still have not responded to the flaws I pointed out in your arguments and evidence. or the thoughts others have as well. Noted. I know we are not as smart as you but maybe just maybe we are not the problem.

 

[Ophiolite]

. Science is a blunt tool based on things that repeat not exceptions. Science has little to say until and if it repeats.

Nonsense. A single example refutes your claim and demonstrates your ignorance of science and implicilty questions your grasp of philosophy. Let's see. Scientists have reasonably established the singular formation of the moon via a protoplanet collision with the primeval Earth. That didn't repeat itself, yet . . . yes, it's out there, the moon, scientifically verified.

Just note that science is an observation model in our sensor space. It models what we observe the universe normally does.

No. As the models are refined, as the quantity, quality and resolution of observations improve, we also model what the universe does not normally do, but does occassionally.

Not what it actually IS.

That's why we call it a model! If you have a method for determining what it actually is, stop waffling and lay it out there.

Not only that. U.K. our observations are also limited to our senses. So only a shadow ( in platos terms), not the universe itself.

Where have you been living? I guess the James Webb telescope is one big bust then, since we don't sense IR too well.

The observation model cannot rule out occasional discrepancy of the universe from the model.

Duh! That's why we keep testing the model; that's why we tackle it from different directions; that's why we keep taking observations; that's why we prod it, and kick it, and turn it inside out, and boil it, and freeze it. We are actively searching for discrepancies. It's as though you had less than zero idea of how science works and how our understanding advances.
And yet you have the audacity, the inexcusable gall to suggest that we don't have a grasp of philosophy in respect of science. Astounding! Climb to the top of your mountain Mike, and use that Sigma 4 IQ for once, else it is wasted.

 

[Astrid]

Nonsense. A single example refutes your claim and demonstrates your ignorance of science and implicilty questions your grasp of philosophy. Let's see. Scientists have reasonable established the singular formation of the moon via a protoplanet collision with the primeval Earth. That didn't repeat itself, yet . . . yes, it's out there, the moon, scientifically verified.

No. As the models are refined, as the quantity, quality and resolution of observations improve, we also model what the universe does not normally do, but does occassionally.

That's why we call it a model! If you have a method for determining what it actually is, stop waffling and lay it out there.

Where have you been living? I guess the James Webb telescope is one big bust then, since we don't sense IR too well.

Duh! That's why we keep testing the model; that's why we tackle it from different directions; that's why we keep taking observations; that's why we prod it, and kick it, and turn it inside out, and boil it, and freeze it. We are actively searching for discrepancies. It's as though you had less than zero idea of how science works and how our understanding advances.
And yet you have the audacity, the inexcusable gall to suggest that we don't have a grasp of philosophy in respect of science. Astounding! Climb to the top of your mountain Mike, and use that Sigma 4 IQ for once, else it is wasted.

So very many who know more than every scientist on earth
but never publish, never cure cancer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now reread what you have highlighted. “Medically inexplicable”
It’s all that can ever be concluded in the case of a miracle.

So any medically inexplicable recovery is a miracle?

Something that was incurable with the medicine of the time , spontaneously, instantly , and permanently healed without any medical treatment that could have influenced it.


Occurred in theistic context. Lourdes.
No similar cases happen elsewhere

There are a number of examples of spontaneous remission and recovery from cancer that are, as yet, medically inexplicable. Are they all miracles, or do they have to occur in a 'theistic context' to qualify?

Is the definition of miracle now 'currently inexplicable', IOW, unexplained ?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I won’t be back until - and if - I see people interested in discussing the science, not imposing a priori sceptic nonsense.

Always interested in discussing the science, with healthy scepticism. If you come back, bring a scientific definition of 'miracle' and we can discuss that too.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you come back, bring a scientific definition of 'miracle' and we can discuss that too.

Here's a Biblical definition of "miracles," by experts who were there:

Exodus 8:19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:

 

[Hans Blaster]

So your criticism of it , had no impact on the veracity of the content. Got it. What was the purpose in criticising?

And you didn’t do what I’ve asked all to do: study the process of approval, the criteria for approval & who approves it. That is what all must trust. They won’t understand the technical detail.

THe article you linked in the OP didn't have the data that could sustain the veracity of the claim. What it did have is a bunch of commentary thrown around that is very much on your frequency about accepting miracles and supernatural claims if no (known) natural solution can be found.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So any medically inexplicable recovery is a miracle?

There are a number of examples of spontaneous remission and recovery from cancer that are, as yet, medically inexplicable. Are they all miracles, or do they have to occur in a 'theistic context' to qualify?

Is the definition of miracle now 'currently inexplicable', IOW, unexplained ?

It would seem by that definition my life's work is "debunking miracles" because what I do is consider how unexplained things happen and explain them. Cool.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would seem by that definition my life's work is "debunking miracles" because what I do is consider how unexplained things happen and explain them. Cool.

One of these days though, some people will realize they went too far with their debunking and, unfortunately, it will be too late.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One of these days though, some people will realize they went too far with their debunking and, unfortunately, it will be too late.

If you mean "debunking" in the way I used it above, then...

No, never!

 

[stevevw]

There's a lot of incoherence here, but I'll see what I can make of it. [Steve -- are you OK?]

I don't think that the "methodological naturalism" assumption necessarily leads to circular reasoning. At sciences's fundamental principle of looking for natural explanations that natural phenomena has not only explained a great deal, but many things that seemed beyond that methodology not long before. The things that science can't currently explain could be things that we can't yet explain or they could be things beyond the realm of naturalistic investigation.

But isn't that assuming that methodlogical naturalism is the only way to explain things. If the method only describes what is happening it is not really explaining what caused it to happen. Its also assuming that the explanation is correct as observations can be explained in more ways than naturalistic terms but are ruled out.

In the latter case, some of those things could be recognized as inexplicable by natural means. One way to get to that conclusion would be for the supernatural intervention to be arbitrary.

So therefore other ways of explaining things need to be formulated somehow. Perhaps the first things we can do is not assume that everything is naturalistics to begin with. This could open the door for other methods.

I'm not sure what you mean by science not having any creative power. I'm inclined to think otherwise, so I suspect we're using different understanding of those phrases.

I can best explain this by what Professor Lennon said "Newtons laws describe what will happen, they don't cause motion. He says this seems to be a fundelemntal mistake some scientists make as if Maths and other scientific descriptions of what is happening actually are the cause what is happening when they only desribe what is happening.

Now it looks like you've entangled methodological and philosophical naturalism. "Science doesn't have a current explanation." is exactly the sort of response you should expect from science to an actual miracle. (It leaves in the hope of future natural explanation, but doesn't require it.)

Yes but thats because it discounts it in the first place. This is based on there possibly being other ways of accounting for reality other than naturalism. What I mean is if we do have a miracle then science may come up with a scientific reason even if that is not really the case. Dark matter is one example.

Because there is this anomely in the current theories conflicting with what is seen a naturalistic idea is proposed like Dark Matter even when it cannot be verified and another and another idea will be proposed along those lines. Scientific explanations can be fudged to some extent because of the assumption is has to account for everything. We are seeing this more and more since the advent of QM.

I'm sorry you don't find the deepest layers of physics intuitive. It takes years for physicists to develop good intuition about things unseen to the common experience of the world that we all have, but we do develop useful intuitions about things like quantum mechanics, turbulence, and particle physics. (Intuitions that have to be checked by data, but they are very useful in making discoveries.)

I agree intuition is an important part of the process but if I were to use that same logic for non-physical ideas like our belief that the world is how we experience it then poeple dismiss intuition.

For example we have no way of telling that the physical world is not just some simulation and we have been programmed to think what we see is real. There is no way to step outside our reality to verify it is what it is. So we make intuitions about reality based on how we experience it and then test that when we venture into the world. But that same logic can be applied to non-physical realities. Our justified beliefs based on experience are the basis for reality.

There is no naturalistic evidence that consciousness is anything other than a property of living brains. It is certainly not at the level of the fundamental fields and forces.

And yet even science itself is proposing counter intuitive ideas like pans-physicism because it actually seems to fit better with what is happening and explains more than just our brains being only physical.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But isn't that assuming that methodlogical naturalism is the only way to explain things. If the method only describes what is happening it is not really explaining what caused it to happen. Its also assuming that the explanation is correct as observations can be explained in more ways than naturalistic terms but are ruled out.

So therefore other ways of explaining things need to be formulated somehow. Perhaps the first things we can do is not assume that everything is naturalistics to begin with. This could open the door for other methods.

I can best explain this by what Professor Lennon said "Newtons laws describe what will happen, they don't cause motion. He says this seems to be a fundelemntal mistake some scientists make as if Maths and other scientific descriptions of what is happening actually are the cause what is happening when they only desribe what is happening.

If something is truly not natural, then the scientific method will not be able to study it, though as I thought I implied earlier, it may leave a signal demonstrating non-naturalness that can be detected using scientific techniques. There is nothing about scientific methodological naturalism that requires the totality of everything be natural for it to be useful, only that *some* parts of the world are natural.

I may respond to some of the latter parts of you message later, but it is late and the themes are a bit different.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But isn't that assuming that methodlogical naturalism is the only way to explain things. If the method only describes what is happening it is not really explaining what caused it to happen. Its also assuming that the explanation is correct as observations can be explained in more ways than naturalistic terms but are ruled out.

Explanations that fit the data and are well-tested are provisionally accepted until they no longer fit the data. If a proposed explanation is falsifiable, or at least testable, it will not be ruled out (although if it doesn't rate as highly as other explanations by the criteria for a good explanation, it may not be considered worth testing unless the other explanations fail).

So therefore other ways of explaining things need to be formulated somehow. Perhaps the first things we can do is not assume that everything is naturalistics to begin with. This could open the door for other methods.

I've asked you this before - as far as science is concerned, anything objectively observable is data; how do you propose 'non-naturalistic' explanations be investigated?

What I mean is if we do have a miracle then science may come up with a scientific reason even if that is not really the case. Dark matter is one example.

Are you suggesting dark matter is a miracle?

Because there is this anomely in the current theories conflicting with what is seen a naturalistic idea is proposed like Dark Matter even when it cannot be verified and another and another idea will be proposed along those lines.

We don't yet know what the dark matter phenomenon is, but the more data we get, the more it looks like a particle. How do you know this can't be verified?

...we make intuitions about reality based on how we experience it and then test that when we venture into the world. But that same logic can be applied to non-physical realities.

If the same logic applies, how do you propose to test your intuitions about 'non-physical realities'? IOW, how could you falsify your intuitions about non-physical realities?

And yet even science itself is proposing counter intuitive ideas like pans-physicism because it actually seems to fit better with what is happening and explains more than just our brains being only physical.

It explains nothing - it has none of the characteristics of a good explanation. But if you disagree, tell me what it explains and how it can be tested and/or falsified.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can best explain this by what Professor Lennon said "Newtons laws describe what will happen, they don't cause motion. He says this seems to be a fundelemntal mistake some scientists make as if Maths and other scientific descriptions of what is happening actually are the cause what is happening when they only desribe what is happening.

Who is professor Lennon and why should we be expected to recognize his authority when randomly dropped into a paragraph?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes but thats because it discounts it in the first place. This is based on there possibly being other ways of accounting for reality other than naturalism. What I mean is if we do have a miracle then science may come up with a scientific reason even if that is not really the case. Dark matter is one example.

Because there is this anomely in the current theories conflicting with what is seen a naturalistic idea is proposed like Dark Matter even when it cannot be verified and another and another idea will be proposed along those lines. Scientific explanations can be fudged to some extent because of the assumption is has to account for everything. We are seeing this more and more since the advent of QM.

OK, let's talk about dark matter.

If you accept that Newton's model of gravitation works (and it works *REALLY* well in the Solar System) then observations of galaxy rotation curves, galaxy clusters, and several other things indicate that there is several times as much mass in these galaxies and clusters than can be found with ordinary matter. One obvious possibility (and the simplest) is that there is some sort of matter that does not interact with light (electromagnetically) that is more common than ordinary (baryonic) matter. Then you can think about the other possible properties (how dense is it? does it self interact and clump? what kind of particle is it?) or think of alternatives (like long-range modified gravity). Some of these things we think we understand others we don't yet. This doesn't make DM some sort of empty "fudge" of a "science miracle".

There are lots of things in physics whose existence was inferred from their absence until they were directly detected including neutrinos and atoms.

[EDIT addition:] These unseen things that physics proposes are always consistent/repeatable. There was always missing energy in beta decays (the neutrino), just as the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is consistent within our ability to measure either. That's why it's scientific.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For example we have no way of telling that the physical world is not just some simulation and we have been programmed to think what we see is real. There is no way to step outside our reality to verify it is what it is.

No one who's ever constructed a simulation would ever think the Universe was a simulation. It's just an incredibly dumb idea.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No one who's ever constructed a simulation would ever think the Universe was a simulation. It's just an incredibly dumb idea.

Frankly, it makes no difference - we can only model the behaviour of what we observe. Whether we call it reality, illusion, or simulation makes little difference.

Until we have data to support and test a simulation hypothesis, or any other exotic hypothesis (e.g. brains-in-vats, Boltzmann brains, etc) we have no grounds for taking it seriously.

 

[Ophiolite]

No one who's ever constructed a simulation would ever think the Universe was a simulation. It's just an incredibly dumb idea.

While I typically agree with your posts this one made me feel you were channelling Lord Kelvin as he denied the age of the Earth since radioactive heating was then an unknown. I think you may be undersestimating the technical advances possible in four or five million years.