How can science "explain" miracles?

Lion Hearted Man said:

Then stop praying for anything. God's will be done, after all. If you're only allowed to pray for things to happen that could happen naturally, what's the point?

Click to expand...

There is a part of you that is a part of God.

xfreakazoidx said:

How can science "explain" miracles?

Click to expand...

By saying, "We don't know," or "We don't know yet."

In kinesics, by scratching their heads.

I have no problem with that, until they say, "We don't know, and neither do you."

That's where I usually come in.

AV1611VET said:

By saying, "We don't know," or "We don't know yet."

In kinesics, by scratching their heads.

I have no problem with that, until they say, "We don't know, and neither do you."

That's where I usually come in.

Click to expand...

There's humility in admitting you don't know something.

"Miracles" fall under "God of the Gap" theology, plain and simple. We don't understand how something happens, therefore God did it. It's never held up to scrutiny. There are no instances where there wasn't a rational explanation when viewed objectively, even if the probability of that rational explanation is low.

This is why skeptics demand more extraordinary evidence -- like an amputee growing back a limb. We have no mechanism for how that could happen. We do, however, have a mechanism for the spontaneous remission of cancer. So more healed amputees and less healed cancer patients please for your miracle database.

Lion Hearted Man said:

There's humility in admitting you don't know something.

Click to expand...

Unless it's on a national scale, right?

Then we're what? 26th place?

Lion Hearted Man said:

"Miracles" fall under "God of the Gap" theology, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

So does evolution.

Lion Hearted Man said:

We don't understand how something happens, therefore God did it.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said, chief.

Let me say it again, with emphasis:

I have no problem with that, until they say, "We don't know, and neither do you."

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

So does evolution.

Click to expand...

What a strange world you live in.

AV1611VET said:

That's not what I said, chief.

Let me say it again, with emphasis:

Click to expand...

Calling something a miracle attaches a supernatural cause to it.

Greg1234 said:

How about we resurrect him instead?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't he have to be dead first?

AV1611VET said:

So does evolution.

Click to expand...

No, but your strawman of evolution does.

I've yet to see a miracle that cannot be explained by science.

xfreakazoidx said:

I'd love to see a miracle where someone gets an arm cut off, but on the way to the hospital the arm reataches and is healed. I'd like to see science explain that!

Click to expand...

If only God had the power to do things science can't explain, eh?

Ah, the most disgusting of all symptoms of theism.

Greg1234 said:

The flow of water hinges on the ability of the tap.

Click to expand...

Blaming misfortune on the victim.

xfreakazoidx said:

At a previus forum I went to made up of MANY diffrent people (christians, atheists, wiccans, spirtualists...etc) they would try to explain miracles and things like the "light" you see in near death experiences.

My question is I hear about miracles every day, but it seems the non believers ignore them or makr make excuses on how the "miracle" happened. So how can they say miracles aren't real?

A good example I tell them is when I was a teen people came to me with prayer requests because my prayers always got answered. One day my dads friend came over and asked for prayer for a little girl who had cancer. She was days away from dying and there was no hope for her at all. I believe she was in a coma too. ANyways, I prayed for her that night and a few hours later in the morning the friend called crying because the girl was talking and feeling great. They scanned for cancer and didn't understand because there was no cancer anymore! Even the doctor said it had to be miriacle.

How can someone explain that scientificly and say it was not a miracle?!? I'd love to see a miracle where someone gets an arm cut off, but on the way to the hospital the arm reataches and is healed. I'd like to see science explain that!

Click to expand...

The more we understand about science, the more we understand the causes behind what used to be consider miracles. After all, God works miracles through his own creation, and because God is the master of all creation, the laws, mechanisms, and principles he put in place will act according to his will. God can cure cancer at the genetic level. The miracle, then, is that God acted.

It's no surprise that unbelievers will refute evidence that doesn't fit their preconceptions, and this of course need not be logical to satisfy their mind's cognitive dissonance. It's called confirmation bias, and there are other cognitive biases at play as well. Basically, the psychology behind their hardened hearts is this: cognitive dissonance occurs when the mind holds two conflicting ideas at once, but the mind subconsciously holds whatever is in-line with the beliefs already present and shuns what doesn't fit. This is why two sides of an issue can come to opposite conclusions based on the same body of evidence. Then there's experimenter's bias, which any of several points from hypothesis to experiment to analyses are affected by "the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations." - List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. What we see more often is the further effects of cognitive biases in the minds of those who have dropped all pretense of objectivity on the matter.

JediMobius said:

It's no surprise that unbelievers will refute evidence that doesn't fit their preconceptions, and this of course need not be logical to satisfy their minds. .

Click to expand...

what evidence are you talking about that 'non-believers' reject?

Some guy on a forum saying 'I used to heal people with prayer' when I was young is not any sort of evidence to a reasonable person.

mathclub said:

what evidence are you talking about that 'non-believers' reject?

Some guy on a forum saying 'I used to heal people with prayer' when I was young is not any sort of evidence to a reasonable person.

Click to expand...

This is what bias does. Focus on one piece to the exclusion of the whole. It should be clear that the assumed conclusion is not what I'm talking about in the context of my argument in its entirety.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. (from wikipedia)

JediMobius said:

This is what bias does. Focus on one piece to the exclusion of the whole. It should be clear that the assumed conclusion is not what I'm talking about in the context of my argument in its entirety.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. (from wikipedia)

Click to expand...

well what specific evidence are you talking about that backs up your claim is being ignored then?

I didn't ask for a definition of evidence. I asked for specific evidence.

JediMobius said:

This is what bias does. Focus on one piece to the exclusion of the whole. It should be clear that the assumed conclusion is not what I'm talking about in the context of my argument in its entirety.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. (from wikipedia)

Click to expand...

But what qualifies as evidence is what it really comes down to.

Lion Hearted Man said:

But what qualifies as evidence is what it really comes down to.

Click to expand...

obviously.

But his point was that there is a lot of evidence that non-believers choose to ignore, and I want him to back this up by providing said 'evidence'.

Instead he wants to start debating what evidence is, lol. Sounds like he was just talking trash and got caught out.

mathclub said:

obviously.

But his point was that there is a lot of evidence that non-believers choose to ignore, and I want him to back this up by providing said 'evidence'.

Instead he wants to start debating what evidence is, lol. Sounds like he was just talking trash and got caught out.

Click to expand...

Hopefully he brings it up, then we'll see if it qualifies

That's just it. Cognitive biases affect what an individual even accepts as evidence, and what is rejected. This has less to do with the source or type of evidence, and more to do with subconsciously confirming and preserving firmly held beliefs, or, worldviews. Cognitive dissonance must be resolved, and the brain reinforces efficiency over logic.

Because cognitive biases are psychological tendencies affecting critical thinking, to focus on one instance or example only ignores the dynamics at play. Evidence is not singular, it is encompassing, the "body of evidence."

If it's proof of such bias that's lacking, look no further than mathclub's speculation ad hominem. The mind searches for ways to discredit and refute the opposition before the argument is even presented. That's the underpinnings of cognitive bias in a nutshell.

Ok, now that that's said, would you please provide the evidence you mentioned earlier?

There's a lot going on here:

JediMobius said:

That's just it. Cognitive biases affect what an individual even accepts as evidence, and what is rejected. This has less to do with the source or type of evidence, and more to do with subconsciously confirming and preserving firmly held beliefs, or, worldviews. Cognitive dissonance must be resolved, and the brain reinforces efficiency over logic.

Because cognitive biases are psychological tendencies affecting critical thinking, to focus on one instance or example only ignores the dynamics at play. Evidence is not singular, it is encompassing, the "body of evidence."

If it's proof of such bias that's lacking, look no further than mathclub's speculation ad hominem. The mind searches for ways to discredit and refute the opposition before the argument is even presented. That's the underpinnings of cognitive bias in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

There's some kind of inferiority complex that occasionally goes on in believers. Their arguments are so confidently torn up by people using fancy words like "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias" so many times...

...and at the same time that they develop a resentment of this treatment, they being trying to emulate the language of the people administering it.

Now a confirmation bias is basically a double standard for what counts as evidence or "proof." So if you suffer from confirmation bias, claims about supernatural powers or the metaphysics of the universe by random strangers on internet forums might be taken as evidence for things you want to believe or already believe, but not as evidence for things you do not believe and do not want to believe.

If you are not being affected by any kind of confirmation bias then, everything else being equal, you'll either always accept or always reject that sort of claim, regardless of it's precise details.

So a participant who refuses to accept as evidence any claims about extraordinary powers or personal metaphysical revelations from other posters is not engaging in any kind of confirmation bias. On the other hand, a poster who declares that divine revelation are evidence for God but rejects my claim that I had a moment of clarity in which I realized there could be no such thing as an ultimate creator is suffering from confirmation bias.

So you see, using fancy words to accuse others of a double standard doesn't distract anyone from your own.