Miracle Physics

[AV1611VET]

Here is a brief description of cartoon physics, from Wikipedia:

Cartoon physics is a jocular system of laws of physics that supersedes the normal laws, used in animation for humorous effect. Normal physical laws are referential (i.e., objective, invariant), but cartoon physics are preferential (i.e., subjective, varying).

Using the above definition as a template, I propose the following definition for miracle physics:

Miracle physics is a divine system of laws of physics that supersedes the normal laws, used in science for explanatory effect. Normal physical laws are referential (i.e., objective, invariant), but miracle physics are preferential (i.e., subjective, varying).

Why should Bible-believing Christians subordinate miracle physics to normal physics in any case where normal physics would contradict the Bible?

 

[Elendur]

But science doesn't use miracle physics for explanatory effect.

Also, did you just make a comparison with fantasies and claimed miracles?

 

[mkatzwork]

Here is a brief description of cartoon physics, from Wikipedia:
Using the above definition as a template, I propose the following definition for miracle physics:
Why should Bible-believing Christians subordinate miracle physics to normal physics in any case where normal physics would contradict the Bible?

How are you defining 'normal physics'?

 

[AV1611VET]

How are you defining 'normal physics'?

I'm not ... feel free to use the current industry standard definition (if there is one).

 

[AV1611VET]

But science doesn't use miracle physics for explanatory effect.

Let me clarify.

When I said:

Miracle physics is a divine system of laws of physics that supersedes the normal laws, used in science for explanatory effect.

I meant:

Miracle physics is a divine system of laws of physics that supersedes the normal laws, [which normal laws] are used in science for explanatory effect.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Think of it this way:

Miracles are violations of natural "laws".

Natural laws are established through many, many, many instances of prior experience

A miracle is a singular violation of all prior experiences.

NOW since I, the one who hears about the miracle have no prior experience of this natural law being violated I have to consider what I do have experience of:

I have many instances of prior experiences of people being mistaken in what they think they saw, or not telling a true report of what they saw. Both of these are quite common experiences I have seen.

So which is more likely? That all my prior experiences in one area are violated this one time, or that none of my prior experiences are violated (in that the person reporting the miracle could be mistaken or not telling the truth, which is a prior experience I have seen).

But let's go one step further:

There is a man who was born and grew up in the hottest part of India long before freezers were invented, say in the 1500's. It never gets cold there and he's never seen water freeze. One day he meets a man who in his travels saw water turned solid!

The indian man is in no way incorrect to assume this is not possible. But if he travels to cooler climates he will see it as a recurring event. It is possible, at which point it becomes a recurring physical "law" that water can and does freeze under certain conditions.

Roughly speaking this is what the philosopher David Hume was on about with regards to miracles:

A Miracle is either irrational to believe due to the first part (the "which is more rational?" test) or it is merely a natural event that one has no repeated experience of.

 

[AV1611VET]

The indian man is in no way incorrect to assume this is not possible.

Why do you say that?

If the Indian man assumes this is not possible, then his assumption is wrong, is it not?

(Look at it from a third-party perspective.)

 

[mkatzwork]

I'm not ... feel free to use the current industry standard definition (if there is one).

If you aren't defining it then you are comparing apples to..."er...not sure...something? Maybe? Pick whatever you want".

This is an intrinsically meaningless comparison, comparison is where you take two defined things and examine the differences. Both things have to be defined for the comparison to have meaning, to even be a 'comparison'.

i.e. - I'm not asking how other people define 'normal physics', the question is how you define it, because you're using it in a comparative definition with 'miracle physics'. It doesn't matter what we think you mean or what other people mean when they refer to 'normal physics'...what do you mean?

So the question stands - how are you defining 'normal physics'?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Why do you say that?

If the Indian man assumes this is not possible, then his assumption is wrong, is it not?

(Look at it from a third-party perspective.)

The Indian man would hear a "miracle". But it isn't a miracle, correct? From a 3rd party observer the Indian man merely has no prior experience of the water freezing.

The idea is not to figure out if the Indian man had the impression of a miracle but to show how a miracle may not be a miracle simply because we have not yet had experience of this particular physical "law" or "effect".

A perfectly natural event that we are ignorant of is not a miracle.

Basically it's an indication that a miracle is probably not logically possible. It is either something we would be irrational in accepting (if it only occured once and could be liable to errors or untruths) or it is something that is perfectly natural that we are merely unaware of. If the latter then it isn't a miracle. If the former we shouldn't accept it as a miracle.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the question stands - how are you defining 'normal physics'?

I'll pass on your inquisition ... thanks.

I don't feel a need to explain myself to those who are intellectually superior.

If you aren't willing to look down at me, don't expect me to look up at you.

If the OP is too hard for you, feel free to ignore it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Indian man would hear a "miracle". But it isn't a miracle, correct? From a 3rd party observer the Indian man merely has no prior experience of the water freezing.

Correct on all counts.

The Indian man did not hear a 'miracle'; because it wasn't a miracle.

But he is still wrong, if he assumes it is not possible.

I don't think like a scientist, but it seems to me that the scientific thing to do would be to withhold a conclusion until the man's story can be checked out.

This is one of the main reasons I frequently tell people to 'keep looking.'

 

[Belk]

Miracle physics is a divine system of laws of physics that supersedes the normal laws, used in science for explanatory effect. Normal physical laws are referential (i.e., objective, invariant), but miracle physics are preferential (i.e., subjective, varying).

The only problem with this I see is the use of the word "law". In scientific terms a law describes a consistent behavior under specific circumstances. Since your proposed miracle physics would be subject to the will of God and could change at any given moment it would not be a law in the way we understand it. Perhaps "...a divine system of operation of physics..."?

 

[mkatzwork]

The OP isn't hard, it's flawed. You want to introduce an entirely new concept using scientific terminology but yet you don't want to have it thoroughly examined?

Intellectual superiority has nothing to do with it, your opinions are as valid as mine and as game for examination as mine - when you (and not I) invite comparisons between your idea and "normal physics", I can quite reasonably dive in and ask you what you think "normal physics" means. I'm not looking for a textbook definition, I'm interested in your opinion.

Here's why - if walking on water, water into wine etc. etc. were physically demonstrable and possible, they'd be included in "normal physics", chemistry, whatever, because they'd be part of the world around us. Science only seeks to describe and understand that, so if they indeed existed as a possibility, they'd be very much included. Miracles are always such elusive things, never once do they happen when close scrutiny is being paid, which is strange, because if they did, they'd be infinitely more powerful things.

It's not a loaded question; I'm also interested as to why you think miracles need a divine set of 'laws' - why wouldn't they simply be a suspension of the natural law? Why do you need to create an arbitrary second set of laws on God's behalf for something that should clearly not abide by any law if it exists?

I'll pass on your inquisition ... thanks.

I don't feel a need to explain myself to those who are intellectually superior.

If you aren't willing to look down at me, don't expect me to look up at you.

If the OP is too hard for you, feel free to ignore it.

 

[Split Rock]

Here is a brief description of cartoon physics, from Wikipedia:
Using the above definition as a template, I propose the following definition for miracle physics:
Why should Bible-believing Christians subordinate miracle physics to normal physics in any case where normal physics would contradict the Bible?

Maybe because you are basing "Miracle physics" on "Cartoon physics?"

 

[Non sequitur]

Here is a brief description of cartoon physics, from Wikipedia:
Using the above definition as a template, I propose the following definition for miracle physics:
Why should Bible-believing Christians subordinate miracle physics to normal physics in any case where normal physics would contradict the Bible?

So, natural/normal physics + x, with the x being... anything other than.

I guess you could do that, but it's not very helpful, unless you need to have another category, for some reason.

Plus, cartoon physics can be repeated and re-demonstrated to us, in whatever form they are displayed. Miricle physics cannot.

 

[Freodin]

Here is a brief description of cartoon physics, from Wikipedia:
Using the above definition as a template, I propose the following definition for miracle physics:
Why should Bible-believing Christians subordinate miracle physics to normal physics in any case where normal physics would contradict the Bible?

Cartoon physics only work in cartoons, which are a subordinate category of "reality".

So the analogue "miracle physics" would only work in the Biblical stories... which are a subordinate category of "reality".

"Normal physics" on the other hand do work in reality.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

But he is still wrong, if he assumes it is not possible.

I don't think like a scientist, but it seems to me that the scientific thing to do would be to withhold a conclusion until the man's story can be checked out.

If called upon to believe, say, that Jesus turned water into wine which is the more rational conclusion?

1. The person telling the story (who was, by most understandings of Gospel authorship not an eye witness, but even if he was it won't change this analysis), mistaken or making up a story or telling a story someone else made up (ALL OF WHICH ARE THINGS WE'VE ALL EXPERIENCED PEOPLE DOING REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT HISTORY)

2. Observing (or hearing about) an event in which someone is literally able to turn water into wine. (In order to see any real value in this it would be best for it to be repeated so others can experience it, at which point it likely is an aspect of nature we simply didn't know about before. At this point it turns into a regular "non-miracle" like the miracle of freezing water)

or

3. There literally was a bending of all known laws of physics and chemistry which can never be verified ever again. (SOMETHING WE HAVE ALMOST NO EXPERIENCE OF)

You see, the point is that "miracles" are either far more rationally considered to be "non-truths" than actual miracles. And if one were able to get past the possibility of it being a non-truth (ie through repeated observation) it would likely become another physical law (and hence not a miracle).

This is one of the main reasons I frequently tell people to 'keep looking.'

So are you of that opinion if I tell you there's a giant invisible monkey-tick the size of a small dog sucking on your left shoulder? It's invisible so you can't see it, and it has no mass, so you can't feel it. And it's sucking action doesn't cause any actual feeling.

Are you going to "keep looking" for it? Or will you tell me that this scenario is so unlikely that you will fail to believe it unless I can provide evidence for it?

See how this game is played?

 

[ReverendDG]

Here is a brief description of cartoon physics, from Wikipedia:
Using the above definition as a template, I propose the following definition for miracle physics:
Why should Bible-believing Christians subordinate miracle physics to normal physics in any case where normal physics would contradict the Bible?

apparently you have decided to make "miracle" meaningless now AV. the idea that there is a such a thing as miracle physics when miracles are events that defy normal physics, is absurd.

"miracle physics" would be an oxymoron. we look to REAL physics because the bible is a spiritual book not a physics book.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

apparently you have decided to make "miracle" meaningless now AV. the idea that there is a such a thing as miracle physics when miracles are events that defy normal physics, is absurd.

"miracle physics" would be an oxymoron. we look to REAL physics because the bible is a spiritual book not a physics book.

Looking at AV's posts I note a pattern. As in his "embedded age" discussions which I have reviewed it appears that AV may be doing one of two things:

1. Attempting to shoehorn science and religion into the same box out of some deep seated need to make them comport together.

or

2. Just playing a mental game to see how he can push them together (kind of a Large Hadron Collider of Ideas, accelerating them at each other to see where the pieces fall out or see if he's turned lead into gold, but nothing more than a mental "exercise")

If it is #1 then he is doing what many people of faith feel a need to do when they fear that science is at odds with their faith. Since not many Christians are thus hamstrung it is a small group of people. But at least if #1 is the case then he understands that science simply cannot be "ignored" as many "Creationists" appear to do. But it also leads to some philosophical and scientifically "hollowed out" points. The details lie in the real basic disjunct between the two.

If it is #2, then good for him. It's a fun game and everyone seems to play it with him. Only problem is, it seems like he never really "turns off the LHC beam" long enough to look at the pieces. And everyone is running around trying to show him how the collision just crushed everything in his original point, but he just ignores it and moves onto the next two concepts to crush together at high speed. Occasionally he appears to revisit the first "collider experiment" by merely turning the beam back on and telling everyone to look at his experiment, but seldom looking at what people present to him as the findings.

 

[Greg1234]

If called upon to believe, say, that Jesus turned water into wine which is the more rational conclusion?

Starting with the premise that mind is reducible to the brain?

So are you of that opinion if I tell you there's a giant invisible monkey-tick the size of a small dog sucking on your left shoulder? It's invisible so you can't see it, and it has no mass, so you can't feel it. And it's sucking action doesn't cause any actual feeling.

Are you going to "keep looking" for it? Or will you tell me that this scenario is so unlikely that you will fail to believe it unless I can provide evidence for it?

See how this game is played?

So what if I told you that a rock on an island exists and the rock as you see it is all that exists about the rock? Any motion or energy in the rock is reducible to what your hands can touch and what your eyes can see. How would you react to such a scenario?