Science and Logic

[LewisWildermuth]

LOL

I think you are only the second poster I have met who can read what I say and take from it precisely the opposite meaning from what I intended. I wonder if that is how you read scripture too.

I have seen that done here quite often, it seems more prevalent among American English speakers.

I think that it is from a basic failure to teach proper sentence structure and parsing by American schools.

There is only a few years in the average Americans education that one is taught how to properly form a sentence and deconstruct a sentence to get the intended meaning. Then the subject is dropped, never to be touched on again in any meaningful way unless one gets an English or Literary degree.

I know I suffer from this, and most of what I know about proper reading and forming of sentences I have had to teach myself, and even then books on the subject are not as easy to find as one might hope.

In a sad way, many Americans are high functioning illiterates when it comes to properly understanding the language they use, myself included.

 

[shernren]

Sigh. Here we go again.

My first question to Calminian:

Don't all Biblical miracles have physically observable consequences?

In other words, do you agree to the following? The occurrence of a miracle is always confirmed by the observation that the physical universe, or objects within it, have assumed particular configurations; furthermore, that these configurations assumed are objectively verifiable to all present observers, even those unconvinced that a miracle has occurred.

 

[Nathan45]

Thanks, I will check it out. This is a subject I'm finding overly relevant and underly discussed.

But is it always the best method all the time? Can something be logical, possible, but unscientific?

No and yes, but science has the advantage.

In the middle ages people posited that there were two sources of knowledge, reason and revelation. Revelation has proven itself wholely unreliable, so all we have is reason. If we had any reliable source of what God ever said or did, and that there is something out there capable of violating the natural laws, then that would be evidence of revelation. But the bible is not reliable.

Nor does inductive logic do this as it doesn't really start with axioms.

Deductive logic starts with premises, but afterward it's usually necessary to defend those premises.

Well, you use this kind of deductive reasoning in science, where you get premises from inductive reasoning and then use the premises to get additional information. But when i say deductive reasoning i'm mostly refering to mathematical systems where Truth is ultimately derived from axioms, which are generally regarded as truth before you even start.

Here's the problem. Science is basically a method that searches for causes, right? But what if there exists a cause that is not part of a repeating pattern that can be tested? I don't even have to cite the supernatural for this. What about freewill in humans? (freewill defined as libertarian or incompatibilistic). How would such a cause outside of direct observation, ever be detected by science? I believe that science can and should only search for certain kinds of causes. Once this is understood, people will not fallaciously used science to try to disprove causes outside of its realm.

Well it's not that you use science to prove or disprove the supernatural, you use it to determine the natural. If something ( like evolution ) follows perfectly from the natural laws, then there's no reason to posit any outside supernatural force for it, because of ockham's razor.

Also, to posit that God created the universe 6000 years ago, you'd have to posit that he also planted false evidence that it is much older... for example, there is starlight from stars that are billions of lightyears away... it is just now reaching earth. when he created the universe did he create the light already in transit? If the universe is 6000 years old, we shouldn't be able to see any part of the universe that is more than 6000 light years away, yet we can.

And increasing the speed of light in the past doesn't solve this problem, because you still have a lot of missing light. If light went faster in the past, then the light would be spread thinner, making the star appear dimmer ( since it's such a great distance, it would be so dim that you coudln't see it ) , unless more light was sent off during this time as well ( just enough to exactly make it appear that the star is billions of years old, mind you ). Furthermore, since light doesn't travel that fast anymore, you'd eventually hit a point where there would be a huge gap and the star would be dark for billions of years, until today's light sent at light-speed caught up, which should have already happened by now, unless the speed of light together with the increase in the light source was coordinating in such a way to form a perfect stream of light. I'm sure you can find some ad-hoc way of an omnipotent God getting around this, but everytime you do, you're violating ockham's razor again and again, and why would god work so hard to convince us that we're seeing light from stars billions of years old? If the earth is 6000 years old, God has done an incredible amount of work to show us otherwise, and this is only one example among hundreds of the evidence we have of the age of the universe.

Well, it can't be tested by science. But there can be testimonial verification (corroborative testimonial evidence). But it's true, that science must presuppose its nonexistence—which doesn't support anything, either way.

You have testimonial evidence, yet the testimonial doesn't agree with itself let alone what we already know from science, and furthermore it is thousands of years old. This isn't something to rest your hat on, especially when it contradicts what you already know from empiricism. Unless you're a madman, what you know and can test yourself is much more reliable than any testimony.

Er, well, that's a bit out of context. Testing God in that context has nothing to do with the subject at hand, material causes. God has no problem with tests, per se.

2Cor. 13:5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

1Th. 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

1John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Well, no one as of yet, that i know of, has been able to find God by testing him. Also, certain concepts in religion are constructed in a way to be completely untestable.

 

[gluadys]

I have seen that done here quite often, it seems more prevalent among American English speakers.

I think that it is from a basic failure to teach proper sentence structure and parsing by American schools.

There is only a few years in the average Americans education that one is taught how to properly form a sentence and deconstruct a sentence to get the intended meaning. Then the subject is dropped, never to be touched on again in any meaningful way unless one gets an English or Literary degree.

I know I suffer from this, and most of what I know about proper reading and forming of sentences I have had to teach myself, and even then books on the subject are not as easy to find as one might hope.

In a sad way, many Americans are high functioning illiterates when it comes to properly understanding the language they use, myself included.

In eighth grade we had an old-fashioned teacher that almost all the class detested. She actually made us memorize poetry--and not just a few lines. 20 whole short poems and one complete long poem of over 100 lines.

She also drilled and drilled and drilled us all year on parsing and sentence structure till we were sick of it.

Needless to say, I have often since been extremely thankful I was blessed with this teacher, however difficult I found the work at the time.

 

[Melethiel]

I was homeschooled, and got English grammar and literature drilled into me for years, as well as memorization of poetry (and my mom isn't even a native English speaker...she just made me do the work on my own). Much as I hated diagramming complex sentences, I'm thankful for it now...

 

[Calminian]

No and yes, but science has the advantage.

Science may be the most useful the majority of the time, but only because repeating patterns are the way God upholds the universe the majority of the time. But when it comes to biblical miracles, science will be of little use as they by definition are not repeating patterns.

In the middle ages people posited that there were two sources of knowledge, reason and revelation. Revelation has proven itself wholely unreliable, so all we have is reason.

Really! So, then you reject all history, not only biblical history such as the Resurrection of Christ, but also all world history and american history? You don't think there is any reason to accept our past presidents, since what we know about them is revealed by individuals and their writings, and not science? Or perhaps you're just referring to the individuals that wrote the Bible? This is quite a leap you're taking.

If we had any reliable source of what God ever said or did, and that there is something out there capable of violating the natural laws, then that would be evidence of revelation. But the bible is not reliable.

And of course all the theistic evolutionists on this board, must heed this point. It is valid deduction from your premise which they share.

 

[shernren]

Science may be the most useful the majority of the time, but only because repeating patterns are the way God upholds the universe the majority of the time. But when it comes to biblical miracles, science will be of little use as they by definition are not repeating patterns.

No, the point isn't that science can explain miracles. However, science can detect miracles. You haven't answered my question.

Don't all Biblical miracles have physically observable consequences?

In other words, do you agree to the following? The occurrence of a miracle is always confirmed by the observation that the physical universe, or objects within it, have assumed particular configurations; furthermore, that these configurations assumed are objectively verifiable to all present observers, even those unconvinced that a miracle has occurred.

 

[Calminian]

No, the point isn't that science can explain miracles. However, science can detect miracles. You haven't answered my question.

Don't all Biblical miracles have physically observable consequences?

In other words, do you agree to the following? The occurrence of a miracle is always confirmed by the observation that the physical universe, or objects within it, have assumed particular configurations; furthermore, that these configurations assumed are objectively verifiable to all present observers, even those unconvinced that a miracle has occurred.

You know, shernren, I've already had this conversation with you. You even admitted I had a point and that you were understanding terms wrongly. You were actually kind of civil about it. But now it's like you don't remember. Maybe you don't!

But no, the scientific method cannot detect a historical miracle. It must assume that the present effect it is observing has occurred as the result of normal natural causes in the past. Yes, miracles leave effects, but science cannot detect the miracle that caused them. I posted an illustration somewhere back in this thread about bullet holes and CSI investigators. That should bring previous discussions back to mind.

But if you can think of a hypothetical miracle in the past which could be extrapolated back to using science, please post it.

 

[gluadys]

You know, shernren, I've already had this conversation with you. You even admitted I had a point and that you were understanding terms wrongly. You were actually kind of civil about it. But now it's like you don't remember. Maybe you don't!

But no, the scientific method cannot detect a historical miracle. It must assume that the present effect it is observing has occurred as the result of normal natural causes in the past.

I think you are still missing the point. The question is not "Can science detect the cause of the miracle?" but "Don't all biblical miracles have physically detectable consequences?"

It may be true that some observers will assume a natural cause, even if they cannot put a finger on what that cause is, but there should be agreement on what the consequence is.

Consider, for example, the raising of Lazarus. Would observers have seen Lazarus alive and well four days after he was buried---irrespective of whether they believed in a miracle or a natural cause to explain this observation?

IOW would they have agreed on the physical detectable consequence, whether or not they agreed on the cause?

Shernren's question relates well to the question I posed and which you have not yet answered:

In general, what is the purpose of miracles?

Yes, miracles leave effects, but science cannot detect the miracle that caused them. I posted an illustration somewhere back in this thread about bullet holes and CSI investigators. That should bring previous discussions back to mind.

I think we are well aware of that hypothetical. It is whether or not the bible testifies to that sort of miracle that is the issue.

 

[Calminian]

I think you are still missing the point. The question is not "Can science detect the cause of the miracle?" but "Don't all biblical miracles have physically detectable consequences?"

Of course, which is exactly what I've stated all along in several examples. Problem is, those consequences won't tell an accurate story if viewed through the prism of science and all its necessary assumptions.

Think of the baskets of fish and bread left over from Jesus feeding the 5,000. The post-event observer would think they were the result of a normal feast that started out with several thousand fish and bread loafs. (let's assume there were fish skeletons left over that could be quantified.)

Ah, but what if a disciple eyewitness came to them and told them of the miraculous story?? We now have the addition of testimonial evidence. Well, some may choose to believe the testomony and see the evidence matches that scenario as well.

Others may choose to disbelieve it as they can't allow supernatural stories to enter into their scientific evaluation of evidence.

But then, there's a third group, the theistic naturalists (also known as TEs). This group claims to believe in Jesus (and many certainly do), but since the evidence shows a greater starting number than the story reveals, they refuse to believe that God would deceive them with faulty evidence. Now they have a dilemma. Do they believe the story or the evidence? The solution then comes to them. They choose to believe the story but reinterpret it as allegory. Problem solved!

 

[gluadys]

Ah, but what if a disciple eyewitness came to them and told them of the miraculous story?? We now have the addition of testimonial evidence. Well, some may choose to believe the testomony and see the evidence matches that scenario as well.

Others may choose to disbelieve it as they can't allow supernatural stories to enter into their scientific evaluation of evidence.

Actually, since as YOU have observed, we do not know the causes of the miracle, we do not know that the loaves and fishes were multiplied by supernatural means. IOW even with testimonial evidence, all we know is that the disciples saw a few loaves and fishes which they began, at Jesus' direction to serve to the crowds. And they saw twelve baskets full of leftover scraps afterwards.

The story nowhere explains the discrepancy between these two observations. It does not even say that Jesus multiplied the available food. Check it our for yourself.

So whether the miracle required the bending of any laws of nature remains an unanswered question.

What we do have is an observable discrepancy, and that is, in part, the basis for calling the event a miracle.

In your bullet hypothesis, there was no observable discrepancy to account for.

Which brings me back to that other still unanswered question:

In general, what is the purpose of biblical miracles?

But then, there's a third group, the theistic naturalists (also known as TEs). This group claims to believe in Jesus (and many certainly do), but since the evidence shows a greater starting number than the story reveals, they refuse to believe that God would deceive them with faulty evidence. Now they have a dilemma. Do they believe the story or the evidence? The solution then comes to them. They choose to believe the story but reinterpret it as allegory. Problem solved!

You are wrong about the evidence. It says nothing about a starting number. You can't get that from the physical evidence. You can get an estimate of how many people might have been fed from the amount of leftovers. But not an estimate of how much there was to begin with.

As for allegory, of course the feeding of the 5,000 is an allegory. That was well understood in the early church.

That does not require that there be no event or no miracle.

 

[Calminian]

Actually, since as YOU have observed, we do not know the causes of the miracle, we do not know that the loaves and fishes were multiplied by supernatural means.

nuff said.

 

[gluadys]

nuff said.

Ah, don't wimp out so fast. I would like to get, sometime, to where the real problems are.

Miracles are not a problem. But you have it so fixed in your mind that they are, that TEs must subscribe to naturalism, that you don't hear that, no matter how many times you are told.

Shall I try shouting?

MIRACLES ARE NOT A PROBLEM!.

Biblical miracles are not a problem.

But your hypothetical offered a sort of miracle that is never found in the bible. And YECism depends on creating miracles not referred to in the bible. Miracles, like your hypothetical, of a different sort and quality than those found in the bible.

Now, those are a problem, because they don't fit the pattern of biblical miracles.

Want an example of what I mean?

Where, anywhere in scripture, is there any intimation that the physics of light was ever miraculously altered?

That is a totally hypothetical miracle required by the theology of YECism.

But the bible is not there to fit into your theology.

 

[juvenissun]

Where, anywhere in scripture, is there any intimation that the physics of light was ever miraculously altered?

Job 36:30 Behold, he spreadeth his light upon it, and covereth the bottom of the sea.

How could the light "covers" the bottom of the sea, where we now know it is pitch dark there? (please do not argue with the bio light)?

Ha ha ... Be careful on what you said about the Bible. It is a treasure of magic.

 

[shernren]

You know, shernren, I've already had this conversation with you. You even admitted I had a point and that you were understanding terms wrongly. You were actually kind of civil about it. But now it's like you don't remember. Maybe you don't!

But no, the scientific method cannot detect a historical miracle. It must assume that the present effect it is observing has occurred as the result of normal natural causes in the past. Yes, miracles leave effects, but science cannot detect the miracle that caused them. I posted an illustration somewhere back in this thread about bullet holes and CSI investigators. That should bring previous discussions back to mind.

But if you can think of a hypothetical miracle in the past which could be extrapolated back to using science, please post it.

Yes, I honestly can't remember. In any case, I may well have changed my stance since then. People grow and learn. If you can find me the link to our previous discussion, feel free to refresh my memory. Memories can be deceptive, especially when it comes to the formalities of debate. Hence, I won't assume anything about what you know or believe, and ask where appropriate. I trust that this is the best thing for me to do to understand you.

And I trust I have not appeared uncivil to you thus far, have I?

You said:

Yes, miracles
leave effects

but science cannot detect the miracle that caused them.

Now, if miracles leave effects, do you not agree that the effects a miracle leaves can be detected by science?

You gave a concrete example that

The feeding of the five thousand
left the effect of several baskets of leftovers.

Now, my question is: can a scientific investigator verify, at a point historically close to the event (say a few hours later), that there were indeed several baskets of leftovers at the site?

The implicit heart of the question is this: would the belief system of the investigator affect the outcome of the investigation?
Suppose someone believed completely that miracles were not possible.
Would not s/he still detect that several baskets of leftovers were present at the site?

 

[gluadys]

Job 36:30 Behold, he spreadeth his light upon it, and covereth the bottom of the sea.

How could the light "covers" the bottom of the sea, where we now know it is pitch dark there? (please do not argue with the bio light)?

Ha ha ... Be careful on what you said about the Bible. It is a treasure of magic.

Job 36:30 (New International Version)
30 See how he scatters his lightning about him, bathing the depths of the sea.

Job 36:30 (New American Standard Bible)
30"Behold, He spreads His lightning about Him, And He covers the depths of the sea.

Job 36:30 (King James Version)
30 Behold, he spreadeth his light upon it, and covereth the bottom of the sea.

Job 36:30 (English Standard Version)
30Behold, he scatters his lightning about him
and covers the roots of the sea.

Job 36:30 (New Revised Standard Version)
30See, he scatters his lightning around him
and covers the roots of the sea.​

Unless you are a KJV only freak, it seems the text is speaking of lightning, and if you have seen lightning over the sea, the image of it striking to the roots of the sea seems very appropriate.

In any case, the verse does not allude to light with a different physics as required by YECism.

And the bible is not there to fit into your theology, either, juvenissun.

btw, there are some interesting alternate translations:

Today's English Version: He sends his lightning through all the sky, but the depths of the sea remain dark.

Jerusalem Bible: He spreads out the mist, wrapping it about him, and covers the tops of the mountains.

According to their notes, the JB translators chose to rely here on the Targums rather than the Hebrew.

 

[Calminian]

Ah, don't wimp out so fast.

Like I said, lately you've really stooped to a ad hom mode. Rational thinking rarely flows out of that.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, I honestly can't remember. In any case, I may well have changed my stance since then. People grow and learn. If you can find me the link to our previous discussion, feel free to refresh my memory. Memories can be deceptive, especially when it comes to the formalities of debate. Hence, I won't assume anything about what you know or believe, and ask where appropriate. I trust that this is the best thing for me to do to understand you.

And I trust I have not appeared uncivil to you thus far, have I?

You said:

Yes, miracles
leave effects

but science cannot detect the miracle that caused them.

Now, if miracles leave effects, do you not agree that the effects a miracle leaves can be detected by science?

You gave a concrete example that

The feeding of the five thousand
left the effect of several baskets of leftovers.

Now, my question is: can a scientific investigator verify, at a point historically close to the event (say a few hours later), that there were indeed several baskets of leftovers at the site?

The implicit heart of the question is this: would the belief system of the investigator affect the outcome of the investigation?
Suppose someone believed completely that miracles were not possible.
Would not s/he still detect that several baskets of leftovers were present at the site?

I think post 70 will address this.

 

[gluadys]

Like I said, lately you've really stooped to a ad hom mode. Rational thinking rarely flows out of that.

I would like not to, but it is frustrating when you completely ignore the primary substance of a post and refuse to engage with it. So here is the stuff I would really like to talk about:

What we do have [in the story of the feeding of the 5,000] is an observable discrepancy, and that is, in part, the basis for calling the event a miracle.

In your bullet hypothesis, there was no observable discrepancy to account for.

Which brings me back to that other still unanswered question:

In general, what is the purpose of biblical miracles?

Miracles are not a problem. But you have it so fixed in your mind that they are, that TEs must subscribe to naturalism, that you don't hear that, no matter how many times you are told.

But your hypothetical offered a sort of miracle that is never found in the bible. And YECism depends on creating miracles not referred to in the bible.

Now, those are a problem, because they don't fit the pattern of biblical miracles.

Want an example of what I mean?

Where, anywhere in scripture, is there any intimation that the physics of light was ever miraculously altered?

That is a totally hypothetical miracle required by the theology of YECism.

I think these issues are pertinent to getting to the basics of the questions raised in the OP.

 

[juvenissun]

Job 36:30 (New International Version)
30 See how he scatters his lightning about him, bathing the depths of the sea.

Job 36:30 (New American Standard Bible)
30"Behold, He spreads His lightning about Him, And He covers the depths of the sea.

Job 36:30 (King James Version)
30 Behold, he spreadeth his light upon it, and covereth the bottom of the sea.

Job 36:30 (English Standard Version)
30Behold, he scatters his lightning about him
and covers the roots of the sea.

Job 36:30 (New Revised Standard Version)
30See, he scatters his lightning around him
and covers the roots of the sea.​

Unless you are a KJV only freak, it seems the text is speaking of lightning, and if you have seen lightning over the sea, the image of it striking to the roots of the sea seems very appropriate.

In any case, the verse does not allude to light with a different physics as required by YECism.

And the bible is not there to fit into your theology, either, juvenissun.

btw, there are some interesting alternate translations:

Today's English Version: He sends his lightning through all the sky, but the depths of the sea remain dark.

Jerusalem Bible: He spreads out the mist, wrapping it about him, and covers the tops of the mountains.

According to their notes, the JB translators chose to rely here on the Targums rather than the Hebrew.

It seems you have no problem to accept, or are not so picky on, these many versions of translation (they ARE different from each other). To me, in particular, regards to all this type of hard-to-understand verses, I do not like any of them. To be fair, in your perception, my interpretation should be at least as good as their translations, if not better.