Evidence of miracles.

[Mountainmike]

For someone who noted they "have not read the thread"
And has not even quoted the entireity of what I said.... you have some cheek using the words hubris and arrogance!

I simply expressed the limitations of science. Science cannot conclude miracle, for no other reason than science is a man made model that does not have God in it. Science does not "explain" anything. It is simply a codification of repeatable observations. The laws exist only on peoples computers and in their minds. There is no reason to believe we observe all there is , or that what normally happens will always happen, or indeed that what for we do observe : the phenomena directly corresponds to a noumena in the universe itself. (kants term, I just cannot think of a better one)

Your use of the words natural and supernatural are imprecise. Natural defines what it normally does, by definition if it does something different , that IS supernatural, whatever the cause later determined , which is actually not a cause later determined, it is just a modification of the model to incorporate the new observation. It still says nothing about what is, or why is, or who done it. Only what it does..

Education should teach philosophy of science and metaphysics, the limits of what you can and cannot know. So what is the best you can actually do?
All of this is brought into sharp focus in trying to find "reality" in the quantum world for example

My post noted the criteria.

Which is a phenomenon that cannot co reside with the model of science as it is, and is a fundamental undermining of it, that occurs in a theistic context.

Take prophecy and the time arrow, and chaotic extrapolation. Prophecy cannot coreside with the basic paradigms of the model.

You cannot "prove" a miracle. But that is a limitation of science, not the evidence. I have stated the limits of what can be claimed.

This would imply that
1/ what we cannot explain is not possible to be explained except via the supernatural,

2/ the fundamental paradigm of science "as it is known" is in fact true and accurate,

3/ "credible" covers all possible means...

Any of these would indicate a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer, and taken together, borders on sheer hubris.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Take prophecy and the time arrow, and chaotic extrapolation. Prophecy cannot coreside with the basic paradigms of the model.

Is this supposed to mean something?

"prophecy and the time arrow" is what???

Most prophecy is either vague or already failed. Some does violate the arrow of time because it falsely claims to be old prophecy that has come true, but it is faked.

A chaotic system is by definition one which you cannot reliably project forward for very long.

You cannot "prove" a miracle. But that is a limitation of science, not the evidence. I have stated the limits of what can be claimed.

Which makes me wonder what you've been trying to do here.

 

[tas8831]

Humanism was at the heart of the German Nazi philosophy that resulted in millions of innocent people brutalized and murdered in concentration camps.

It is also at the heart of the philosophy behind thousands of unborn babies being murdered through abortion each year.

Hosea 13:16

Maybe those fetuses just, darn it, were not going to worship the right deity after they were born...

 

[tas8831]

Because this thread has gone beyond the original intention of the OP, it has gone past its use-by date. Therefore I am out of here.

Can't hang?

 

[tas8831]

My claim is that if "miraculous healings" do exist, they are the result of natural processes as God had planned them.

Humans Might Regrow Limbs in Your Lifetime - Business Insider
Scientists Regrow Frogs' Lost Legs. Will Human Limbs Be Next?

Evidence for the red part?

 

[Astrid]

For someone who noted they "have not read the thread"
And has not even quoted the entireity of what I said.... you have some cheek using the words hubris and arrogance!

I simply expressed the limitations of science. Science cannot conclude miracle, for no other reason than science is a man made model that does not have God in it. Science does not "explain" anything. It is simply a codification of repeatable observations. The laws exist only on peoples computers and in their minds. There is no reason to believe we observe all there is , or that what normally happens will always happen, or indeed that what for we do observe : the phenomena directly corresponds to a noumena in the universe itself. (kants term, I just cannot think of a better one)

Your use of the words natural and supernatural are imprecise. Natural defines what it normally does, by definition if it does something different , that IS supernatural, whatever the cause later determined , which is actually not a cause later determined, it is just a modification of the model to incorporate the new observation. It still says nothing about what is, or why is, or who done it. Only what it does..

Education should teach philosophy of science and metaphysics, the limits of what you can and cannot know. So what is the best you can actually do?
All of this is brought into sharp focus in trying to find "reality" in the quantum world for example

My post noted the criteria.

Which is a phenomenon that cannot co reside with the model of science as it is, and is a fundamental undermining of it, that occurs in a theistic context.

Take prophecy and the time arrow, and chaotic extrapolation. Prophecy cannot coreside with the basic paradigms of the model.

You cannot "prove" a miracle. But that is a limitation of science, not the evidence. I have stated the limits of what can be claimed.

I never seem to encounter limit to what gets
claimed for religion and "gods" though there is
no reason to think said entity (s) even exist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

For someone who noted they "have not read the thread"
And has not even quoted the entireity of what I said.... you have some cheek using the words hubris and arrogance!

Thank you.

I simply expressed the limitations of science. Science cannot conclude miracle, for no other reason than science is a man made model that does not have God in it.

Because science cannot have God in it. Science is a tool for studying the natural world, and so long as you choose to define "God" as a being who affects the natural world from outside it, science will never be capable of factoring Him into anything it measures.

It would be arrogant of scientists (hubris, one might even say) to claim total knowledge in their own field, let alone on a subject that is, by definition, beyond their field of study.

A very crude analogy would be for an air-conditioner repairman to attempt to operate on a lung cancer patient, thinking that he knows enough about cleaning blocked vents.

Science does not "explain" anything. It is simply a codification of repeatable observations. The laws exist only on peoples computers and in their minds. There is no reason to believe we observe all there is , or that what normally happens will always happen, or indeed that what for we do observe : the phenomena directly corresponds to a noumena in the universe itself. (kants term, I just cannot think of a better one)

Precisely -- and to assume otherwise would be...

...if you don't like my terms, feel free to use your own.

Your use of the words natural and supernatural are imprecise. Natural defines what it normally does, by definition if it does something different , that IS supernatural, whatever the cause later determined , which is actually not a cause later determined, it is just a modification of the model to incorporate the new observation. It still says nothing about what is, or why is, or who done it. Only what it does..

That is an utterly absurd definition -- you have expanded "supernatural" to incorporate the merely unusual.

Here in New Jersey, we normally don't get 60 degree weather in February. And yet we had such a day last weekend, and we're expecting another one tomorrow.

A miracle... eh?

Education should teach philosophy of science and metaphysics, the limits of what you can and cannot know. So what is the best you can actually do?

Not too shabby, given the presented alternatives.

All of this is brought into sharp focus in trying to find "reality" in the quantum world for example

My post noted the criteria.

Which is a phenomenon that cannot co reside with the model of science as it is, and is a fundamental undermining of it, that occurs in a theistic context.

You're assuming that the model of science as it is is accurate, infallible, and unchanging.

But as you said, models are man-made, and as such, limited to man's knowledge at the time they are used.

and the last time I checked, man is neither omniscient nor infallible..

...which means that is something happens that doesn't fit our current model, it would be arrogant (one might even call it hubris) to dismiss the possibility that the model is wrong.

When did we rule that out? I must have missed that post...

Take prophecy and the time arrow, and chaotic extrapolation. Prophecy cannot coreside with the basic paradigms of the model.

Nonsense. "Prophecy" can simply buck probability curves.... sometimes it's quite easy.

Tell me you're planning to walk up to Mike Tyson, slap him across the face, and call him the n-word... I "prophecize" that you are in for a very painful and unpleasant experience...

Another miracle?

You cannot "prove" a miracle. But that is a limitation of science, not the evidence. I have stated the limits of what can be claimed.

And what would you call an attempt by man to blithely ignore those limits?

 

[SkyWriting]

Evidence for the red part?

Evidence for natural processes follows standard investigative processes for historical accounts.
You just ask people about stuff and write down what they say.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science does not "explain" anything.

Given that key elements of science, the hypothesis and the theory, are generally considered to be explanatory propositions, can you define just what you mean by "explain" here (and why it is double-quoted)?

... the phenomena directly corresponds to a noumena in the universe itself. (kants term, I just cannot think of a better one)

By definition, we can't know if phenomena 'directly correspond to' noumena.

BTW, both 'phenomena' and 'noumena' are plural.

Your use of the words natural and supernatural are imprecise. Natural defines what it normally does, by definition if it does something different , that IS supernatural, whatever the cause later determined , which is actually not a cause later determined, it is just a modification of the model to incorporate the new observation.

Your definitions of 'natural' and 'supernatural' are unusual.

Education should teach philosophy of science and metaphysics, the limits of what you can and cannot know.

You mean epistemology?

You cannot "prove" a miracle. But that is a limitation of science, not the evidence. I have stated the limits of what can be claimed.

As has been said many times before, science doesn't "prove" anything.

But if it's a limitation of science, not the evidence, that implies there's a non-scientific way to "prove" a miracle (why the double-quotes?). How can a miracle be "proven"?

 

[Mountainmike]

The problem I have is the use of "natural" and "supernatural" on such as this forum is that it is used in a purely subjective manner. It is artificial to claim as "natural" something that has not happened, cannot be made to happen or is a so far unobserved aberration from the "natural".

There are things that have happened ie "natural" and things that have not.

The only useful distinction is "supernatural" is something beyond present "understanding" which is not understanding at a fundamental sense it actually means " not a logical extrapolation of the observation models" that is science. Sceptics like to further subdivide supernatural into two purely subjective categories which are hard to rationalise as other than things they like and things they dont like.

Read all the definitions you can find of "supernatural" and you will find it fits abiogenesis as viewed as a first cell from chemical soup. It is pure conjecture, not "natural"

The true distintion then is things that have been observed and things that not been observed,
of those there is a lesser subset of things that fit the scientific model as it is or are a logical extrapolation of it.

There are of course then categories of evidence. Of course science needs to take care with what has been observed and tricks played on observers when dealing with subjective experience, but that is the nature of consciousness. One subjective experience documented is weaker, than 1000000 similar experiences. It needs to take care with whether the observations were independent or some kind of mass hypnosis.

Carl Sagan was wrong in his reduction of science to subjectivism which is the antithesis of science. "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". All claims must cross the same threshold.

If you read the various books on out of body experience, near death experience and so on, you may dislike the evidence profoundly in its lack of ability to control in a lab, perhaps it simply cannot be controlled. Even as a sceptic , it would be arrogant to think we can control all of existence. . But there is so much of out of body it cannot be rationalised away as fluke. There are too many elements that defy random chance. People know things they cannot have known from consciousness confined to a brain.

They happened. Therefore they are "natural" , not supernatural.
The question of how, or why is secondary

Much to the chagrin of this forum, the so called eucharistic miracles happened. There is too much evidence to discount. There is No known means to reproduce the phenomena in their present state (let alone the transition to that state) so the idea a priest "did it" by sleight of hand is farcical.
They too are "natural" because they happened.

The question of what that signifies is something else.

Given that key elements of science, the hypothesis and the theory, are generally considered to be explanatory propositions, can you define just what you mean by "explain" here (and why it is double-quoted)?

By definition, we can't know if phenomena 'directly correspond to' noumena.

BTW, both 'phenomena' and 'noumena' are plural.

Your definitions of 'natural' and 'supernatural' are unusual.

You mean epistemology?

As has been said many times before, science doesn't "prove" anything.

But if it's a limitation of science, not the evidence, that implies there's a non-scientific way to "prove" a miracle (why the double-quotes?). How can a miracle be "proven"?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem I have is the use of "natural" and "supernatural" on such as this forum is that it is used in a purely subjective manner. It is artificial to claim as "natural" something that has not happened, cannot be made to happen or is a so far unobserved aberration from the "natural".

This is partly why I called your definitions unusual. It's not clear what you mean by 'artificial' above, but there are many things that have not yet happened, and/or cannot yet be made to happen that are considered natural - many scientific theories make predictions of this type. As for 'abberations from the "natural"', it depends on your definition of 'natural', which is what is at issue!

The only useful distinction is "supernatural" is something beyond present "understanding" which is not understanding at a fundamental sense it actually means " not a logical extrapolation of the observation models" that is science. Sceptics like to further subdivide supernatural into two purely subjective categories which are hard to rationalise as other than things they like and things they dont like.

If you mean, "Contrary to the known laws of physics/nature", I'd accept that; of course, it's provisional on the currently accepted laws. IOW, such things would be best stated as 'appearing supernatural', or, 'as if supernatural'. But in practice, effects that contravene known physics often turn out to be features of new physical paradigms, so the word is typically only used by believers (wishful thinking, confirmation bias, etc).

As for your claim about sceptics, can you give any examples?

Read all the definitions you can find of "supernatural" and you will find it fits abiogenesis as viewed as a first cell from chemical soup. It is pure conjecture, not "natural"

Your dictionaries also seem unusual... Here are a few that I found:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

• Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
• Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
• Of or relating to a deity.
• Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
• Of or relating to the miraculous.

Merriam Webster

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)​

The Cambridge Dictionary

Caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
Things that cannot be explained by science
​

Dictionary.com

adjective:
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
of a superlative degree; preternatural:a missile of supernatural speed.
of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

noun:
a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
the supernatural,

1. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
2. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence

IMO, none of those apply to abiogenesis. Perhaps you could show definition that does, or explain how you think abiogenesis satisfies the above definitions.

The true distintion then is things that have been observed and things that not been observed,
of those there is a lesser subset of things that fit the scientific model as it is or are a logical extrapolation of it.

There is no 'true' distinction. Distinctions are made by people; there is the common consensus, and there is what you made up and would like to be true.

One subjective experience documented is weaker, than 1000000 similar experiences.

I can't make sense of this.

Carl Sagan was wrong in his reduction of science to subjectivism which is the antithesis of science. "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". All claims must cross the same threshold.

Not really. Sagan's aphorism was Bayesian. Events with low prior probability need higher quality (probability) supporting evidence to achieve the same level of credibility than those with high priors. For example, the claim that I have a live dragon in my garage would need more and better evidence to reach the same level of credibility as the claim that I have a car in my garage.

If you read the various books on out of body experience, near death experience and so on, you may dislike the evidence profoundly in its lack of ability to control in a lab, perhaps it simply cannot be controlled. Even as a sceptic , it would be arrogant to think we can control all of existence. . But there is so much of out of body it cannot be rationalised away as fluke. There are too many elements that defy random chance. People know things they cannot have known from consciousness confined to a brain.

I've spent some time on OBEs and NDEs. There are plenty of stories, but nothing verifiable. The few that could be followed up turned out to be explicable in other ways. The AWARE studies into NDEs turned up nothing significant (the expected number of reported experiences, no reported OBEs of the environment were of what couldn't have been otherwise seen or heard, and one auditory report that was unexpected given the apparent level of consciousness).

In short, allowing for the usual level of recall exaggeration & confabulation, I've found nothing different from what one would expect if OBEs and NDEs were just dream-like events.

I would be interested in verifiable cases of people knowing things that, "they cannot have known from consciousness confined to a brain." Please give me whatever references you have for these cases.

 

[Mountainmike]

"prophecy and the time arrow" is what???

The time arrow is the problem for prohecy.

A chaotic system is by definition one which you cannot reliably project forward for very long.

See ... you do actually get the problem with prophecy.

Most prophecy is either vague or already failed. .

Some isn't , as per examples quoted.
Can't be bothered to repeat if you did not read them first time.
100 fakes do not prove a genuine artwork is fake. .

Which makes me wonder what you've been trying to do here.

I explained what is possible to conclude from science, because of the limitations of science. The problem is you need to study metaphysics. Philosophy of science. What it can tell you and what it cannot. You will not seemingly do so, so you are trapped in an intellectual cage of thinking the scientific model IS the real world, so your conclusions are fallacious.

 

[Mountainmike]

My definition is not unusual
Cambridge fits : "Things that cannot be explained by science"

And lets tidy other definitions. And show they conflict.
Because the use of "natural" and "supernatural" lead to conflict according to whether you describe obseration evidence, or you try to ascribe cause (whatever that means..).

"Natural" means it has been observed as happening. What else can it mean? At the evidential level it is clear.

By that reckoning Eucharistic miracles are therefore "natural". They have been observed. So many have happened in history, that the idea of a repeated fraud, when nobody knows how to replicate the science of even one is bizarre.

But They are also "supernatural". Since they cannot be "explained" by science.

So the point I make is natural and supernatural are not opposites because they are used in different ways according to whether you are pointing at evidence or are attempting to commment on "cause".

The problem is ascribing "natural cause" is pixie dust.

So What does "natural cause" mean? . It means is compatible with the axiomatic scientific model of the universe. Note that that means compatibility with the model, not the universe itself. So "explained by science" means fits the model. The model is where forces laws and "causes" are defined. In essence it means "does what it normally does", which is the normality used to derive the model.

If something does not fit the model. "has not been explained by science" and "cannot be explained by science" are temporarily the same thing.

So the science model is adapted to fit new observations. That does not make the "cause natural" (as somehow opposite to supernatural or theistic) it makes the model representative of a greater number of observations. There is still no basis to say the model must always fit.
It fits where it touches better. So the idea " a natural cause is found" is simply adopting new observations into the model. It has no greater philsosophical significance than that.

The boundary here is eucharistic miraces never will be explained by science or accomodated into the model.

Science has no framework to understand transubstantiation. The very basic tenets of the model are broken. It would take a whole new science. So eucharistic miracles are both natural (they happen) and supernatural (they in my view will never be adopted into the model, you would know how to start to fit them in).

The "What it is" "why it is" are still up for grabs in the universe..
Only "what it normally is observed to do" is modelled by science. There can be no certainty either that however much the universe normally does what it modelled to do, is a guarantee it can never do something different. Once. or repeatedly.

In short science is a useful tool. But it cannot be a complete explanation of what is or why is.


We are back at the essence of the question. What can science really tell us other than "fits a pattern" or not? Most of the time!


Out of body? Books full of them.
I already pointed at some like "after" greyson or "twin telepathy" playfair
It is all experiential. But that is the problem. Consciousness is experience.

And if consciousness itself can only observe not interact without a body, it is not surprising you cannot detect the thousand who may be observing you right now. Scary thought huh.

This is partly why I called your definitions unusual. It's not clear what you mean by 'artificial' above, but there are many things that have not yet happened, and/or cannot yet be made to happen that are considered natural - many scientific theories make predictions of this type. As for 'abberations from the "natural"', it depends on your definition of 'natural', which is what is at issue!

If you mean, "Contrary to the known laws of physics/nature", I'd accept that; of course, it's provisional on the currently accepted laws. IOW, such things would be best stated as 'appearing supernatural', or, 'as if supernatural'. But in practice, effects that contravene known physics often turn out to be features of new physical paradigms, so the word is typically only used by believers (wishful thinking, confirmation bias, etc).

As for your claim about sceptics, can you give any examples?


Your dictionaries also seem unusual... Here are a few that I found:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

• Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
• Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
• Of or relating to a deity.
• Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
• Of or relating to the miraculous.

Merriam Webster

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)​

The Cambridge Dictionary

Caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
Things that cannot be explained by science
​

Dictionary.com

adjective:
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
of a superlative degree; preternatural:a missile of supernatural speed.
of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

noun:
a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
the supernatural,

1. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
2. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence

IMO, none of those apply to abiogenesis. Perhaps you could show definition that does, or explain how you think abiogenesis satisfies the above definitions.


There is no 'true' distinction. Distinctions are made by people; there is the common consensus, and there is what you made up and would like to be true.

I can't make sense of this.

Not really. Sagan's aphorism was Bayesian. Events with low prior probability need higher quality (probability) supporting evidence to achieve the same level of credibility than those with high priors. For example, the claim that I have a live dragon in my garage would need more and better evidence to reach the same level of credibility as the claim that I have a car in my garage.

I've spent some time on OBEs and NDEs. There are plenty of stories, but nothing verifiable. The few that could be followed up turned out to be explicable in other ways. The AWARE studies into NDEs turned up nothing significant (the expected number of reported experiences, no reported OBEs of the environment were of what couldn't have been otherwise seen or heard, and one auditory report that was unexpected given the apparent level of consciousness).

In short, allowing for the usual level of recall exaggeration & confabulation, I've found nothing different from what one would expect if OBEs and NDEs were just dream-like events.

I would be interested in verifiable cases of people knowing things that, "they cannot have known from consciousness confined to a brain." Please give me whatever references you have for these cases.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

The time arrow is the problem for prohecy.


See ... you do actually get the problem with prophecy.


Some isn't , as per examples quoted.
Can't be bothered to repeat if you did not read them first time.
100 fakes do not prove a genuine artwork is fake. .


I explained what is possible to conclude from science, because of the limitations of science. The problem is you need to study metaphysics. Philosophy of science. What it can tell you and what it cannot. You will not seemingly do so, so you are trapped in an intellectual cage of thinking the scientific model IS the real world, so your conclusions are fallacious.

What information / data does metaphysics supply?

 

[SkyWriting]

Some isn't , as per examples quoted.
Can't be bothered to repeat if you did not read them first time.
100 fakes do not prove a genuine artwork is fake. .

But scripture should be 100% good prophesy, in the long run.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But scripture should be 100% good prophesy, in the long run.

And it ain't.

Even that a single error torpedoes the presumption of infallibility, that tells us a lot about the alleged source.

 

[SkyWriting]

And it ain't.

Even that a single error torpedoes the presumption of infallibility, that tells us a lot about the alleged source.

I've never made that presumption as you state it.

You can say what you want, but that doesn't mean I'll understand your sentence.
That would be a silly assumption. It would be wrong to claim I understand everything you write in a post. We know that's not reality.

 

[Astrid]

For someone who noted they "have not read the thread"
And has not even quoted the entireity of what I said.... you have some cheek using the words hubris and arrogance!

I simply expressed the limitations of science. Science cannot conclude miracle, for no other reason than science is a man made model that does not have God in it. Science does not "explain" anything. It is simply a codification of repeatable observations. The laws exist only on peoples computers and in their minds. There is no reason to believe we observe all there is , or that what normally happens will always happen, or indeed that what for we do observe : the phenomena directly corresponds to a noumena in the universe itself. (kants term, I just cannot think of a better one)

Your use of the words natural and supernatural are imprecise. Natural defines what it normally does, by definition if it does something different , that IS supernatural, whatever the cause later determined , which is actually not a cause later determined, it is just a modification of the model to incorporate the new observation. It still says nothing about what is, or why is, or who done it. Only what it does..

Education should teach philosophy of science and metaphysics, the limits of what you can and cannot know. So what is the best you can actually do?
All of this is brought into sharp focus in trying to find "reality" in the quantum world for example

My post noted the criteria.

Which is a phenomenon that cannot co reside with the model of science as it is, and is a fundamental undermining of it, that occurs in a theistic context.

Take prophecy and the time arrow, and chaotic extrapolation. Prophecy cannot coreside with the basic paradigms of the model.

You cannot "prove" a miracle. But that is a limitation of science, not the evidence. I have stated the limits of what can be claimed.

The prob for miracles is not proving them. Its performing them.
Trying to shift the failure to science with yammer about
" metaphysics" is just making excuses.

Science and nothing else can discover whether it was
cloudy the day king tut was born- same with claimed
miracles of yore. No trace.
That hardly makes Joseph Smith's gold books real,
or, ftm, any other "miracle". They are just highly
improbable stories.

Give us a highly detailed prediction of, oh, the weather
for Manhattan, labour day 2022. Temp, wind, humidity,
just like NWS.

Science? May not know how you did it, but can sure
affirm that you did it.

The problem is not with investigative methods. Its
the lack of something real to investigate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science and nothing else can discover whether it was cloudy the day king tut was born-

THAT I'd like to see.

Science couldn't find "cloudy" if the entire earth was raining in 2348 BC.