Is there a way to distinguish between "miracles" and "random chance"?

[ToddNotTodd]

You must use your other senses in order to "sense" the divine. This implies that the "divine feeling" is just that: a feeling. It is an emotion occasioned by the external senses. It is a feeling in the same way that love, sadness, frustration, etc. are feelings. And in most cases, the "divine feeling" would be described as "awe" or "wonder" which scraps the theistic baggage.

Do you also have a "sensus frustratus" or a "sensus melancholus"?

The reformed epistemologist would counter that it's not just a feeling. They'd point to the "due diligence" they've employed to counter any "defeater". William Lane Craig even points to a god-given "defeater defeater", which counters any possible defeater, seemingly without even considering it.

It's basically the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't hear you"...

 

[ExodusMe]

This is utter nonsense. You are not providing any sort of method to distinguish between a miracle and a non-miracle. All you have done is define the word miracle to be "something which has no natural cause".

The question is how do we know it has no natural cause? How can we determine it has no natural cause?

This is ultimately an argument from ignorance. And history does not treat such arguments well since many things which were once claimed to be "supernatural" were later found to have natural causes (i.e. sun, moon, lightning, electricity, fire, etc.)

This is just methodological naturalism. I have provided answers to your questions. Your only rebuttal is to beg the question and assume God does not exist.

Show me why isn't it possible for some events to be naturally inexplicable?

So, if you saw a man walking on the Thames River, would you immediately accept it as a miracle? Or would you be skeptical and seek out natural causes first?

Absolutely not. Go back to the criteria I listed for the rational basis for believing miracles. It can't be just any man walking on the river.

You must use your other senses in order to "sense" the divine. This implies that the "divine feeling" is just that: a feeling. It is an emotion occasioned by the external senses. It is a feeling in the same way that love, sadness, frustration, etc. are feelings. And in most cases, the "divine feeling" would be described as "awe" or "wonder" which scraps the theistic baggage.

Do you also have a "sensus frustratus" or a "sensus melancholus"?

Sensus divinitatis is a sense as described in the model. It occasions belief about God and not feelings.

You sound pretty desperate for objections at this point. Not really even sure what to do with that as it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Show me why isn't it possible for some events to be naturally inexplicable?

Plenty of things are inexplicable. However, if you want to assert a cause, no matter what it is, you have the burden of proof. "We don't have a natural explanation at this time" cannot get you to the supernatural and certainly cannot get you to Yahweh.

 

[ExodusMe]

@Gene Parmesan I see the problem you guys are having now. You have assumed that methodological naturalism is the only form of scientific inquiry. This is an issue for you an not for myself. Christian's are wholly able to operate their own scientific inquiry and include the knowledge they have about God in their investigation. Christian's should in fact do this, although it hasn't been happening in these modern times, which has resulted in the downfall of public education & universities.

Here are a few shortfalls of methodological naturalism

I'll begin with a quote from Michael Ruse in Darwinism Defended "Furthermore, even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a scientific explanation of origins. Rather, at most, it could prove that science shows that there can be no scientific explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law."

A major problem with methodological naturalism (which you seem to admit) is that it deals with events that are repeatable and naturally explicable. It can be said that the origin of the universe is not a repeatable event. Should it, therefore, not be a scientific question? Methodological naturalism is a failure to modern science & society.

Further, nobody is making a claim to a miracle in this thread. What burden of proof do I have?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Teleological thinking is not a fallacy

Except that it is....

Let's go to an easy to understand example...
There is this rock and it has a sharp edge. A cat uses the sharp edge to scratch itself in places it can reach on its own.

1. Is the rock sharp so that the cat can scratch itself?
2. Or is the cat merely taking advantage of this rock, which happens to have a sharp edge, to scratch itself?

The teleological answer is the first option.
This example is actually a psychology test for children.

Up until a certain age, toddlers will consider 1 to be correct. As they get older, they understand why that is incorrect.

I am perfectly happy to grant that a royal flush has more or less the same probability as any hand

Actually, not just "more or less" the same. Rather, exactly the same probability.

Getting a royal flush 10 times in a row on the other hand, is a different story

Why?

It is imporrant to understand the difference between an outcome, and a functional outcome.

It is equally important to understand the difference between contextual functionality and sheer probability.

The "functionality" of the royal flush is something that we impose on it. It is not inherent to the cards, nore does that imposed "value" have any relevance to its probabilities.

The sort of rationale you're applying doesn't work in the real world, unless you want to get conned every time you play cards.

The problem with your rationale is that you fail to understand that imposed value, is not the same as inherent value.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

@Gene Parmesan I see the problem you guys are having now. You have assumed that methodological naturalism is the only form of scientific inquiry. This is an issue for you an not for myself. Christian's are wholly able to operate their own scientific inquiry and include the knowledge they have about God in their investigation. Christian's should in fact do this, although it hasn't been happening in these modern times, which has resulted in the downfall of public education & universities.

Here are a few shortfalls of methodological naturalism

I'll begin with a quote from Michael Ruse in Darwinism Defended "Furthermore, even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a scientific explanation of origins. Rather, at most, it could prove that science shows that there can be no scientific explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law."

A major problem with methodological naturalism (which you seem to admit) is that it deals with events that are repeatable and naturally explicable. It can be said that the origin of the universe is not a repeatable event. Should it, therefore, not be a scientific question? Methodological naturalism is a failure to modern science & society.

Further, nobody is making a claim to a miracle in this thread. What burden of proof do I have?

I have no problem understanding that certain things cannot be explained scientifically, at least not right now. I have had no problem conceding it, as you may recall. Now, my question to you is, since the scientific method cannot be employed to discover a miracle, what method CAN be used? This has been my question for the entire discussion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

@Gene Parmesan I see the problem you guys are having now. You have assumed that methodological naturalism is the only form of scientific inquiry. This is an issue for you an not for myself.

No. You need to remember the topic. It is not about how to identify natural causes for events in reality. It is about identifying supernatural causes - specifically, on how one can do that.

And the method being proposed, comes down to an appeal to ignorance.

I can perfectly imagine events that don't have a natural cause.
The problem however, is how one can determine such a thing in reality, without appealing to mere ignorance.

Christian's are wholly able to operate their own scientific inquiry

Contrary to what you seem to believe... there is no such thing as "christian scientific inquiry" and "islamic scientific inquiry". There is just "scientific inquiry".

and include the knowledge they have about God in their investigation.

You mean "beliefs". As in: "...and include the beliefs they have about God..."

Knowledge is demonstrable. Beliefs (in this sense) is what you have when you accept something as true, without being able to demonstrate it.

Christian's should in fact do this, although it hasn't been happening in these modern times, which has resulted in the downfall of public education & universities.

Errr.... the more secular a society is, the higher its quality of education becomes.
There is a direct correlation there.

Your claim doesn't seem to hold up.

Here are a few shortfalls of methodological naturalism

I'll begin with a quote from Michael Ruse in Darwinism Defended "Furthermore, even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a scientific explanation of origins. Rather, at most, it could prove that science shows that there can be no scientific explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law."

I disagree that it is "by definition" that science only deals with the natural.
It is not "by definition". It rather is "by necessity". For the simple reason that the "supernatural" is simply untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable.

For the simple reason that the supernatural doesn't demonstrable show up anywhere. There is no detectable manifestation thereof.

So the supernatural isn't really "excluded" by definition. The thing rather is that there is nothing there that can be demonstrated, to include.

Which, off course, is a serious problem when the question is "how does one determine that an event is supernatural?".

And that problem is exactly the reason why the "method" being proposed to do that, is by a process of elimination wich, in reality, ends up as an appeal to ignorance.

The "method" to determine a supernatural event is NOT by bringing a case FOR the supernatural... It rather is by trying to bring a case AGAINST the natural - assuming that the supernatural is then the only possible alternative.

But, as I have explained multiple times now, this is not something that can be done in reality... For the simple reason that you can't know what you don't know.

Not having an explanation for any given phenomena is NOT THE SAME as there objectively being NO explanation for that phenomena. It could be that there is no such explanation - but there is no way to know that. More then likely, there IS an explanation and we just are ignorant about what that explanation is.

So this "method" for determining supernatural events might sound nice in theory... in practice though, it does not work. It requires an appeal to ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

It would only works in a hypothetical world where we know and understand everything there is to know and understand about nature. And even then, we'ld still require the undemonstrated assumption that the only other alternative is the supernatural (from your prefered religion of choice).

Methodological naturalism is a failure to modern science & society.

...written on a PC connected to the interwebs and posted at light speed after which it was instantly readable by any other person using a device connected to the interwebs.

Doesn't sound like such a failure to me....

 

[ExodusMe]

I have no problem understanding that certain things cannot be explained scientifically, at least not right now. I have had no problem conceding it, as you may recall. Now, my question to you is, since the scientific method cannot be employed to discover a miracle, what method CAN be used? This has been my question for the entire discussion.

Law of excluded middle allows us to say that if an event does not have a natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause. You haven't provided what other cause an event could have if it isn't natural.

 

[ExodusMe]

No. You need to remember the topic. It is not about how to identify natural causes for events in reality. It is about identifying supernatural causes - specifically, on how one can do that.

And the method being proposed, comes down to an appeal to ignorance.

Law of excluded middle allows us to say that if an event does not have a natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause. You haven't provided what other cause an event could have if it isn't natural.

Contrary to what you seem to believe... there is no such thing as "christian scientific inquiry" and "islamic scientific inquiry". There is just "scientific inquiry".

That is just your opinion.

You mean "beliefs". As in: "...and include the beliefs they have about God..."

Knowledge is demonstrable. Beliefs (in this sense) is what you have when you accept something as true, without being able to demonstrate it.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Many of your responses do not even deserve an answer they are so rudimentary.

I disagree that it is "by definition" that science only deals with the natural.
It is not "by definition". It rather is "by necessity". For the simple reason that the "supernatural" is simply untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable.

For the simple reason that the supernatural doesn't demonstrable show up anywhere. There is no detectable manifestation thereof.

So the supernatural isn't really "excluded" by definition. The thing rather is that there is nothing there that can be demonstrated, to include.

Which, off course, is a serious problem when the question is "how does one determine that an event is supernatural?".

And that problem is exactly the reason why the "method" being proposed to do that, is by a process of elimination wich, in reality, ends up as an appeal to ignorance.

The "method" to determine a supernatural event is NOT by bringing a case FOR the supernatural... It rather is by trying to bring a case AGAINST the natural - assuming that the supernatural is then the only possible alternative.

But, as I have explained multiple times now, this is not something that can be done in reality... For the simple reason that you can't know what you don't know.

Not having an explanation for any given phenomena is NOT THE SAME as there objectively being NO explanation for that phenomena. It could be that there is no such explanation - but there is no way to know that. More then likely, there IS an explanation and we just are ignorant about what that explanation is.

So this "method" for determining supernatural events might sound nice in theory... in practice though, it does not work. It requires an appeal to ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

It would only works in a hypothetical world where we know and understand everything there is to know and understand about nature. And even then, we'ld still require the undemonstrated assumption that the only other alternative is the supernatural (from your prefered religion of choice).

Hopefully you didn't miss that Michael Ruse is an atheist.

Hopefully you understand that a miracle is an explanation. A person who claims a miracle isn't going "I don't know... MUST BE A MRRRICLE!" - they are making a specific claim of - I do know and it was a miracle from God. This can be empirically verified using the law of excluded middle. If an event does not have a natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause.

Finally, you do not need to know every possible cause of everything in order to make a claim that an event has a cause for the glaringly obvious reason that you make claims about events in reality and you do not know everything there is to know about nature.

This is so painful talking to you. I am doing my best.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Law of excluded middle allows us to say that if an event does not have a natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause. You haven't provided what other cause an event could have if it isn't natural.

We've been over this. While I already conceded that this sounds nice in theory, it does not work in practice, because it requires knowing and understanding everything there is to know and understand about nature.

In practice, we are unable to distinguish "there is no natural explanation" and "we are ignorant of the natural explanation".

In other words, this "method" only works in a hypothetical world which is not the world we actually live in.

Appealing to a miracle isn't an appeal to ignorance

For crying out loud......... Please actually read what I write.
I didn't say that "appealing to a miracle" is an appeal to ignorance.

I said that the method being proposed on how to identify miracles requires an appeal to ignorance, by saying "we don't know about a natural explanation - therefor it is supernatural"

A miracle is testable using the methodology above.

I have repeatedly explained why that method doesn't work and not a single time have even attempted at showing otherwise.

You're just repeating the same claims ad nauseum.

It is just like making any other claim. If you put a pot of water on the stove while it is boiling and your friend comes in the room and you ask him what made the pot of water boil and they say "the stove", but you actually did it over a fire somewhere and then put it on the stove your friend is not appealing to ignorance.

Neither the stove nore the fire are supernatural things that can't be tested.
Furthermore, while the stove would indeed by the wrong answer in that particular (trickery) case, it can easily be demonstrated that putting pots of water on a stove, will make the water boil.
Lastly, the "stove" conclusion was not the result of attempting to eliminate all other possible answers. Instead, it is a reasonable conclusion based on past experience and the very real demonstrable phenomena of water boiling by putting it on a stove.

Your analogy fails in just about every way possible.

That is just your opinion.

It is not.

Jumping from the Eiffel Tower without a parachute will result in certain death, no matter of the humper is a muslim, a christian or a hindu.

Taking a cyanide pill will kill you, again no matter what religion you happen to follow.

Not adjusting the internal atomic clock of a GPS satellite so that it ticks at a different rate then clocks on earth, will make your GPS fail - no matter if the owner of the GPS is muslim, hindu or christian. Relativity is relativity. There's no such thing as the christian theory of relativity.

If you get infected by germs, you will become sick - no matter your religion. The only thing that could yield a different result is if you have an immunity to said illness - and that immunity will also be completely independent of whatever your religious beliefs happen to be.

Atoms work the way they work, no matter if they are part of a muslim, hindu or christian body.

Plate tectonics explains the apparant movement of continents, vulcanism, etc, no matter if the geologist is christian, muslim or jew.

No, religions are demonstrably completely irrelevant to the natural sciences.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Many of your responses do not even deserve an answer they are so rudimentary.

Nice attempt at dodging.

Hopefully you didn't miss that Michael Ruse is an atheist.

I'm not allowed to disagree with an atheist?
I don't care who said it.
I disagree with it, regardless of who said it.

Hopefully you understand that a miracle is an explanation.

Completely disagree. An explanation is something that explains to clarify something, make it more understandable, to gain deeper insight into a problem or phenomena.

Calling something a "miracle" does nothing of the sort. At best, it just sticks a label on something that has no explanation.

Labels are not explanations.

A person who claims a miracle isn't going "I don't know... MUST BE A MRRRICLE!"

Yet, that is exactly the method being proposed here to identify miracles: not having a natural explanation.
In practice, that literally comes down to "we don't know, therefor supernatural".

- they are making a specific claim of - I do know and it was a miracle from God. This can be empirically verified using the law of excluded middle.

I have explained countless times how in practice, that results in an argument from ignorance, because it requires the equivocation of "we don't know about a natural explanation" and "there is no natural explanation".

There's no way around that.

If an event does not have a natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause.

And now for the bazillion dollar question that you categorically refuse to answer:

How does one determine that there is no natural explanation?

How do you get from "we don't know" to "there is no"?

Finally, you do not need to know every possible cause of everything in order to make a claim that an event has a cause for the glaringly obvious reason that you make claims about events in reality and you do not know everything there is to know about nature.

If you admittingly don't know everything there is to know about nature, then how on earth could you EVER conclude that there is no natural explanation????????????

This is so painful talking to you. I am doing my best.

Right back at ya.

 

[ExodusMe]

This is your problem. Not mine. A Christian, according to his body of knowledge, has miracles as an explanation to naturally inexplicable events.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

This is your problem. Not mine. A Christian, according to his body of knowledge, has miracles as an explanation to naturally inexplicable events.

Having an explanation is the easy part. I could come up with counltess explanations for something. How can we know which is the CORRECT explanation?

 

[ExodusMe]

Having an explanation is the easy part. I could come up with counltess explanations for something. How can we know which is the CORRECT explanation?

1) You are operating on the assumption that every event has a natural explanation. You haven't shown why that is true.

2) I am not an advocate for God-of-the-gaps theology. I am not advocating Christian's shouldn't look further than "it was a miracle". You are just stating some Duhemian science (i.e. science cannot employ
assumptions or commitments that are not universally shared). There is no reason to think that science has to operate under these conditions always. Christian's can operate under Duhemian and non-Duhemian assumptions.

3) By scientific inquiry we should be able to understand what the correct explanation is. Christian's are able to use miracles as an explanation to naturally inexplicable events.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Law of excluded middle allows us to say that if an event does not have a natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause. You haven't provided what other cause an event could have if it isn't natural.

And you haven't provided any reason to believe that not all events have natural causes. Or that the term "supernatural" is a coherent term.

So... do that.

 

[ExodusMe]

And you haven't provided any reason to believe that not all events have natural causes. Or that the term "supernatural" is a coherent term.

So... do that.

There is an entire history of arguments for the existence of God.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Christian's are able to use miracles as an explanation to naturally inexplicable events.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There is an entire history of arguments for the existence of God.

Your statement doesn't address what I wrote.

Please provide evidence that not all events have natural causes, or that the term "supernatural" is coherent.

 

[ExodusMe]

Your statement doesn't address what I wrote.

Please provide evidence that not all events have natural causes, or that the term "supernatural" is coherent.

The arguments for the existence of God is evidence and miracles would be a logical deduction from the existence of God.

 

[ExodusMe]

Maybe we should start a thread on the failure of methodological naturalism.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The arguments for the existence of God is evidence

Unless you have a definition of "evidence" that includes any statement at all, no they aren't.

A. You have to show the arguments are necessarily true, which no one has done in the history of apologetics.

B. You have to show that a god existing necessarily points to some events not having natural causes, which no one has ever done either.

and miracles would be a logical deduction from the existence of God.

No it wouldn't. See B above.

I'll try again:

Please provide evidence that not all events have natural causes, or that the term "supernatural" is coherent.