Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My scientific defense of miracles

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:02:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to write a book on a "scientific defence" (not sure what that means) of miracles, then you should probably first study some basic philosophy of science, scientific methodology, and understand what scientific integrity is all about. Otherwise, you're going to make a fool of yourself. Just to be clear, I'm not calling you a fool. I'm just trying to tell you that you're going to need a revolutionary new argument that is scientifically valid. So far, it doesn't look like you have anything approaching that, and it doesn't look like you understand how to determine whether an argument is scientific or not (hint, the fact that it contains scientifically established facts is an insufficient condition).
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:34:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science says the probability of any event happening is greater zero.
What does science say about the earth standing still?
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Not likely, but has a probability greater than zero.
No historical miracle can be denied based on science.
"Mighty slim chance." - You bet.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.)

Good luck with that endeavour, TS.

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?

As one trained to research science, I confess that the definition eludes me.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 2:20:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.)

Good luck with that endeavour, TS.

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?

As one trained to research science, I confess that the definition eludes me.

A little hard to answer but basically any event disrupting the norm in nature. I can't have a biased view leaning towards my religious definition.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 2:22:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 2:20:38 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?
A little hard to answer but basically any event disrupting the norm in nature. I can't have a biased view leaning towards my religious definition.

There's my concern, TS. Who defines the norm? What makes it normative? How can one distinguish a change in norm from a better understanding of the norm?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 2:40:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 2:20:38 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.)

Good luck with that endeavour, TS.

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?

As one trained to research science, I confess that the definition eludes me.

A little hard to answer but basically any event disrupting the norm in nature. I can't have a biased view leaning towards my religious definition.

A good place to start is with the Catholic church, who has a formal process for recognizing miracles.
http://www.newadvent.org...

Obviously protestant churches may disagree, but they have no formal process.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:01:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 2:40:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:20:38 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.)

Good luck with that endeavour, TS.

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?

As one trained to research science, I confess that the definition eludes me.

A little hard to answer but basically any event disrupting the norm in nature. I can't have a biased view leaning towards my religious definition.

A good place to start is with the Catholic church, who has a formal process for recognizing miracles.
http://www.newadvent.org...

Obviously protestant churches may disagree, but they have no formal process.

Unfortunately, a theological process is not the same as a scientific process. Science requires certain methodological assumptions that may be incompatible.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:04:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 2:22:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:20:38 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?
A little hard to answer but basically any event disrupting the norm in nature. I can't have a biased view leaning towards my religious definition.

There's my concern, TS. Who defines the norm? What makes it normative? How can one distinguish a change in norm from a better understanding of the norm?

That's where the scientific laws come in. I'm trying to calculate the likelihood of events as described are. First is the establishment of the historical authenticity of the transmission of events next is the scientific accuracy.

There should be a model of the probability of all events in nature happening at a world wide scale. A percentage of events should have repeatable patterns and there should be some events happening at random.

How likely is it for someone to raise others from the dead based on what we know about biology? If it's not likely, could it be a part of the randomness of the universe? If it is random then it's scientifically possible for such an event to happen without breaking any known law. It'd be classified as "an exception."
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:28:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:01:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:40:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:20:38 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.)

Good luck with that endeavour, TS.

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?

As one trained to research science, I confess that the definition eludes me.

A little hard to answer but basically any event disrupting the norm in nature. I can't have a biased view leaning towards my religious definition.

A good place to start is with the Catholic church, who has a formal process for recognizing miracles.
http://www.newadvent.org...

Obviously protestant churches may disagree, but they have no formal process.

Unfortunately, a theological process is not the same as a scientific process. Science requires certain methodological assumptions that may be incompatible.

Hey goofball, do you think science has a definition for miracle.
Of course not, science has no opinion on such things, but scientists do.
"Let us define a "miracle" simply as an event which violates at least one law of nature. "
http://infidels.org...

Of course, as your toadie has told us, no person or organization speaks for Science.

Science recognizes NO miracle. Ask any member of the scientific community if they have ever verified a miracle, and you will hear either laughter, or a resounding "No".

So we know this - The process of Science assumes miracles cannot happen, not that they can't, just that it will be assumed they cannot.

A commonly accepted assumption of science is: 3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.
http://www.debate.org...

So you see Grand Poobah, there is no such thing as a "Scientific miracle".

Expecting science to provide any adequate definition of 'miracle', would be like expecting religion to provide a definition of a Scientific Law.
Verboten.
One would think you would be aware of this.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:34:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:28:13 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
"Let us define a "miracle" simply as an event which violates at least one law of nature. "

Please see my earlier response to Truth_Seeker, WW. Whence do laws of nature arise, if not inference from observation? So what makes one observation natural, while another is not?

So we know this - The process of Science assumes miracles cannot happen, not that they can't, just that it will be assumed they cannot.

I think it's deeper than that, WW -- hence my question. I think science's definition of 'natural' is 'that which can be observed'. So there are no unnatural observations. At which point, what does 'miracle' mean?
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:38:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:28:13 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:01:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:40:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:20:38 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.)

Good luck with that endeavour, TS.

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?

As one trained to research science, I confess that the definition eludes me.

A little hard to answer but basically any event disrupting the norm in nature. I can't have a biased view leaning towards my religious definition.

A good place to start is with the Catholic church, who has a formal process for recognizing miracles.
http://www.newadvent.org...

Obviously protestant churches may disagree, but they have no formal process.

Unfortunately, a theological process is not the same as a scientific process. Science requires certain methodological assumptions that may be incompatible.

Hey goofball, do you think science has a definition for miracle.
Of course not, science has no opinion on such things, but scientists do.
"Let us define a "miracle" simply as an event which violates at least one law of nature. "
http://infidels.org...

Of course, as your toadie has told us, no person or organization speaks for Science.

Science recognizes NO miracle. Ask any member of the scientific community if they have ever verified a miracle, and you will hear either laughter, or a resounding "No".

So we know this - The process of Science assumes miracles cannot happen, not that they can't, just that it will be assumed they cannot.

A commonly accepted assumption of science is: 3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.
http://www.debate.org...

So you see Grand Poobah, there is no such thing as a "Scientific miracle".

Expecting science to provide any adequate definition of 'miracle', would be like expecting religion to provide a definition of a Scientific Law.
Verboten.
One would think you would be aware of this.

Are you in middle school? If not, please act like an adult.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:47:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:34:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:28:13 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
"Let us define a "miracle" simply as an event which violates at least one law of nature. "

Please see my earlier response to Truth_Seeker, WW. Whence do laws of nature arise, if not inference from observation? So what makes one observation natural, while another is not?

So we know this - The process of Science assumes miracles cannot happen, not that they can't, just that it will be assumed they cannot.

I think it's deeper than that, WW -- hence my question. I think science's definition of 'natural' is 'that which can be observed'. So there are no unnatural observations. At which point, what does 'miracle' mean?

Listen numbnutz, those of us familiar with your color commentary know you think Science gets to make all the definitions for all words used by all disciplines.
We have tried to enlighten you on this, and you are obstinent.
Science does not have the authority to speak on matters of religion, or philosophy for that matter.
And, as your toadie has told us, you have no authority to speak for Science.

No part of any working definition of 'miracle' is in the realm of Science.
"No part!.' Capish?
At this point no one in control of their faculties would be concerned about what Science says about anything.
Once a working meaning has been established, it may be of value to see how it relates to terns used in Science.
Or not.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:10:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

No part of any working definition of 'miracle' is in the realm of Science.
"No part!.' Capish?

What is to say then that the "miracle" is not understood by science? I could say just about anything is a miracle, even when it is well understood. The trick is bridging these worlds.

At this point no one in control of their faculties would be concerned about what Science says about anything.

What?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:25:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:38:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:28:13 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:01:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:40:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:20:38 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:15:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.)

Good luck with that endeavour, TS.

To begin with then, might I ask how, in scientific terms, you would define a miracle?

As one trained to research science, I confess that the definition eludes me.

A little hard to answer but basically any event disrupting the norm in nature. I can't have a biased view leaning towards my religious definition.

A good place to start is with the Catholic church, who has a formal process for recognizing miracles.
http://www.newadvent.org...

Obviously protestant churches may disagree, but they have no formal process.

Unfortunately, a theological process is not the same as a scientific process. Science requires certain methodological assumptions that may be incompatible.

Hey goofball, do you think science has a definition for miracle.
Of course not, science has no opinion on such things, but scientists do.
"Let us define a "miracle" simply as an event which violates at least one law of nature. "
http://infidels.org...

Of course, as your toadie has told us, no person or organization speaks for Science.

Science recognizes NO miracle. Ask any member of the scientific community if they have ever verified a miracle, and you will hear either laughter, or a resounding "No".

So we know this - The process of Science assumes miracles cannot happen, not that they can't, just that it will be assumed they cannot.

A commonly accepted assumption of science is: 3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science), although humans may not currently recognize what those processes are.
http://www.debate.org...

So you see Grand Poobah, there is no such thing as a "Scientific miracle".

Expecting science to provide any adequate definition of 'miracle', would be like expecting religion to provide a definition of a Scientific Law.
Verboten.
One would think you would be aware of this.

Are you in middle school? If not, please act like an adult.

Mr Poobah backed me into a corner requesting a cease and desist order against me.
"I now understand you have rapidly formed a personal hatred and will be chasing me about in forums trying to abuse and humiliate me."
http://www.debate.org...

As a gentleman, I agreed to stop commenting on his posts:
Which I take to mean that once again my challenges to your bogus claims will go unanswered.
This time about the intentional attempts to blur the meaning of the term customer, when none exists.
This has become a very common rebuttal technique or yours - silence.
I call this the ostrich technique.
I'll hide my head, maybe the problem will go away.
To aid you in your efforts I will not respond to any of your posts, that should free you from believing you are being chased.
As for being humiliated, mostly by our actions, we do that to ourselves.
http://www.debate.org...

He now insists on commenting on my posts.
He is, in my opinion, a stalker.
He is dishonorable.
Once or twice I ignored him, probably more. I have had enough.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:33:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:10:57 PM, TBR wrote:

No part of any working definition of 'miracle' is in the realm of Science.
"No part!.' Capish?

What is to say then that the "miracle" is not understood by science? I could say just about anything is a miracle, even when it is well understood. The trick is bridging these worlds.

At this point no one in control of their faculties would be concerned about what Science says about anything.

What?
First establish a working meaning of 'miracle', as used by religion.
If we are to defend religious miracles, it may be handy to know what they are.
What has Science to do with the meaning of religious miracles????
I say, as should be obvious to the clear minded, nothing.

After that, this bridge you speak of.
Do you see it differently?
Does any concern of Science have anything to do with the meaning of 'miracles' as used in religion?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:41:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:47:59 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:34:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science does not have the authority to speak on matters of religion, or philosophy for that matter.
There are two problems with that position, Welfare-Worker...

1) History, sociology, psychology and anthropology are all sciences, and all make studies of human beliefs and practices. So they are definitely in scientific purview;

2) It seems reasonable that any attempt to understand miracles scientifically should begin with a scientific definition of what a miracle is. Otherwise, we're not offering scientific support for miracles; rather we're arguing for theological dismissal of science. At this point I have nothing to say about the latter, save that it should not be misrepresented as the former.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:46:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

Pointing out bias does not absolve your side of bias. If you're going to charge skepticism as a form of bias than you've already denounced science and you may as well just say "If it's a miracle only the minimal of testing should be enough"

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

Miracles are acts of God, relying on randomness negates conscious acts. Also the universe isn't so random that defying the laws of physics can occur, such as crying statues or blood turning into wine.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

You started a thread about the shroud of turin and it was shown to be a fraud. Why you would bring this up after that is beyond me and shows how your bias will effect you. Also there has never been a recorded case of parthenogenesis in humans, to say it's possible simply because we are technically related to other animals is silly. Maybe you should write more of a pamphlet than a book.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:54:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:41:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:47:59 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:34:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science does not have the authority to speak on matters of religion, or philosophy for that matter.
There are two problems with that position, Welfare-Worker...

1) History, sociology, psychology and anthropology are all sciences, and all make studies of human beliefs and practices. So they are definitely in scientific purview;

2) It seems reasonable that any attempt to understand miracles scientifically should begin with a scientific definition of what a miracle is. Otherwise, we're not offering scientific support for miracles; rather we're arguing for theological dismissal of science. At this point I have nothing to say about the latter, save that it should not be misrepresented as the former.

Your world begins and ends with science, we get it.
Science gets to define God. We get it.
Nothing happens under the sun that is not under the umbrella of Science. We get it.

Not to break your heart, but others disagree.

To begin with, Religious miracles must be understood completely devoid of Science.
I know, you disagree, even though you do not speak for Science.

I am again returning to my promise to not reply to any of your posts.
Stay the heck away from mine.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:57:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:46:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

Pointing out bias does not absolve your side of bias. If you're going to charge skepticism as a form of bias than you've already denounced science and you may as well just say "If it's a miracle only the minimal of testing should be enough"
No where was skepticism mentioned.
2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

Miracles are acts of God, relying on randomness negates conscious acts. Also the universe isn't so random that defying the laws of physics can occur, such as crying statues or blood turning into wine.
You haven't shown sources for that.
3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

You started a thread about the shroud of turin and it was shown to be a fraud. Why you would bring this up after that is beyond me and shows how your bias will effect you. Also there has never been a recorded case of parthenogenesis in humans, to say it's possible simply because we are technically related to other animals is silly. Maybe you should write more of a pamphlet than a book.

We all have biases including you.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 5:05:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:57:35 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:46:30 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

Pointing out bias does not absolve your side of bias. If you're going to charge skepticism as a form of bias than you've already denounced science and you may as well just say "If it's a miracle only the minimal of testing should be enough"
No where was skepticism mentioned.

You talk about the ingrained beliefs of atheism, skepticism is one of them. Do you reject that bias response to magical claims? That of skepticism?

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

Miracles are acts of God, relying on randomness negates conscious acts. Also the universe isn't so random that defying the laws of physics can occur, such as crying statues or blood turning into wine.
You haven't shown sources for that.

Are you kidding me? Where are your sources claiming miracles are possible? Where is your evidence that the LAWS of physics can be broken above the sub atomic level?

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

You started a thread about the shroud of turin and it was shown to be a fraud. Why you would bring this up after that is beyond me and shows how your bias will effect you. Also there has never been a recorded case of parthenogenesis in humans, to say it's possible simply because we are technically related to other animals is silly. Maybe you should write more of a pamphlet than a book.

We all have biases including you.

Lol wow your responses really disappoint me. You do not seek the Truth, you seek BS to substantiate your previously held belief.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 5:13:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:54:13 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Your world begins and ends with science, we get it.
No, I love art too.

I think a shared human understanding can only arise from shared observation and shared experience -- those things we have in common.

That includes the objective since we can all share that, but also includes the sharable subjective -- a lot of which we capture in art.

So are miracles defined objectively or subjectively? If it's objective, then science can understand it as a definition. But if it's subjective, then is it sharable? And is that sharing more a matter for science or for art?

I am again returning to my promise to not reply to any of your posts.
You seem to have broken that commitment in the first place by interjecting on an exchange I was having with Truth_seeker. To be clear: I feel I understand your viewpoint, though I don't agree with it; and you are welcome to talk again in future if you change your mind.

Stay the heck away from mine.
It seems you're blaming me for your own recent, disgraceful immaturity.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your adult responsibilities for you, WW. But you can grow to do so, if you choose.

In the meantime, if you feel unable to manage them, may I suggest using the block facility?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 4:06:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to scientificaly demonstrate the happening of miracles, you may start by demonstrating the existence of God. If not, I feel it would be like demonstrating the existence of mermaid songs while we still haven't demonstrated the existence of mermaids to begin with. Do you get my point?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 4:10:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 4:06:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to scientificaly demonstrate the happening of miracles, you may start by demonstrating the existence of God. If not, I feel it would be like demonstrating the existence of mermaid songs while we still haven't demonstrated the existence of mermaids to begin with. Do you get my point?

Miracles doesn't imply the existence of God nor is the point of this to prove he exists. It's up to you to decide.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 4:14:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 4:10:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:06:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to scientificaly demonstrate the happening of miracles, you may start by demonstrating the existence of God. If not, I feel it would be like demonstrating the existence of mermaid songs while we still haven't demonstrated the existence of mermaids to begin with. Do you get my point?

Miracles doesn't imply the existence of God nor is the point of this to prove he exists. It's up to you to decide.

In fact it is up to you to decide. It is you who is going to demonstrate the existence of miracles. And it is also nice that you are specifying what a miracle is. For the moment, I take that is not a God-driven process. So, it is still a supernatural process though? Or purely natural?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 4:20:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 4:14:40 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:10:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:06:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to scientificaly demonstrate the happening of miracles, you may start by demonstrating the existence of God. If not, I feel it would be like demonstrating the existence of mermaid songs while we still haven't demonstrated the existence of mermaids to begin with. Do you get my point?

Miracles doesn't imply the existence of God nor is the point of this to prove he exists. It's up to you to decide.

In fact it is up to you to decide. It is you who is going to demonstrate the existence of miracles. And it is also nice that you are specifying what a miracle is. For the moment, I take that is not a God-driven process. So, it is still a supernatural process though? Or purely natural?

In Scientific terms it'd be an abnormal seemingly random occurrence of nature.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 5:13:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 4:20:05 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:14:40 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:10:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:06:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to scientificaly demonstrate the happening of miracles, you may start by demonstrating the existence of God. If not, I feel it would be like demonstrating the existence of mermaid songs while we still haven't demonstrated the existence of mermaids to begin with. Do you get my point?

Miracles doesn't imply the existence of God nor is the point of this to prove he exists. It's up to you to decide.

In fact it is up to you to decide. It is you who is going to demonstrate the existence of miracles. And it is also nice that you are specifying what a miracle is. For the moment, I take that is not a God-driven process. So, it is still a supernatural process though? Or purely natural?

In Scientific terms it'd be an abnormal seemingly random occurrence of nature.

But then you wouldn't be demonstrating anything. Aren't things like the inversion of the magnetic poles of Earth, abnormal seemingly random occurrences? Even Earthquakes could fit into that definition. Those things are already understood in science.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 5:37:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 5:13:42 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:20:05 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:14:40 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:10:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:06:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to scientificaly demonstrate the happening of miracles, you may start by demonstrating the existence of God. If not, I feel it would be like demonstrating the existence of mermaid songs while we still haven't demonstrated the existence of mermaids to begin with. Do you get my point?

Miracles doesn't imply the existence of God nor is the point of this to prove he exists. It's up to you to decide.

In fact it is up to you to decide. It is you who is going to demonstrate the existence of miracles. And it is also nice that you are specifying what a miracle is. For the moment, I take that is not a God-driven process. So, it is still a supernatural process though? Or purely natural?

In Scientific terms it'd be an abnormal seemingly random occurrence of nature.

But then you wouldn't be demonstrating anything. Aren't things like the inversion of the magnetic poles of Earth, abnormal seemingly random occurrences? Even Earthquakes could fit into that definition. Those things are already understood in science.

Miracles aren't fully supernatural. When you add God then it seems that way but focus only on proving that the sheer act of water turning into wine then it becomes plausible to be tested.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 5:41:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 5:37:06 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 5:13:42 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:20:05 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:14:40 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:10:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:06:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to scientificaly demonstrate the happening of miracles, you may start by demonstrating the existence of God. If not, I feel it would be like demonstrating the existence of mermaid songs while we still haven't demonstrated the existence of mermaids to begin with. Do you get my point?

Miracles doesn't imply the existence of God nor is the point of this to prove he exists. It's up to you to decide.

In fact it is up to you to decide. It is you who is going to demonstrate the existence of miracles. And it is also nice that you are specifying what a miracle is. For the moment, I take that is not a God-driven process. So, it is still a supernatural process though? Or purely natural?

In Scientific terms it'd be an abnormal seemingly random occurrence of nature.

But then you wouldn't be demonstrating anything. Aren't things like the inversion of the magnetic poles of Earth, abnormal seemingly random occurrences? Even Earthquakes could fit into that definition. Those things are already understood in science.

Miracles aren't fully supernatural. When you add God then it seems that way but focus only on proving that the sheer act of water turning into wine then it becomes plausible to be tested.

Well, if by water you mean grape-juice, then it can certainly be turned into wine, but if by water you mean regular water, how exactly can someone turn that into wine?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 5:45:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 5:41:44 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 5:37:06 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 5:13:42 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:20:05 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:14:40 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:10:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/15/2015 4:06:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:36:40 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced of the Christian apologetics defense of miracles, so i've decided to build my own scientific argument for the plausibility of miracles (might write a book on it.) It's argued that miracles would break the laws of the universe which is very unlikely to happen. I will argue for several things:

1. There is psychological evidence for secular bias against religion " There's already evidence that even though atheists don't believe in God, they have other "supernatural" and irrational beliefs ingrained in them. Biblical critics are just as vulnerable to "re-interpreting evidence" to fit their beliefs as believers are.

2. The universe has a degree of randomness " If i can find several scientific/mathematical models showing that the laws of the universe have exceptions then it proves that the universe allows for miracles to occur.

3. There's evidence that miracles are plausible " For example, if the Shroud of Turin is proven to be authentic and we can collect blood samples then we should expect to find evidence for the virgin birth. From what i've learned, Parthenogenesis has happened among animals. Since we evolved from a common ancestor, we're related to almost every living thing (bone structure, DNA, etc.) Humans should also be able to undergo parthenogenesis.

If you want to scientificaly demonstrate the happening of miracles, you may start by demonstrating the existence of God. If not, I feel it would be like demonstrating the existence of mermaid songs while we still haven't demonstrated the existence of mermaids to begin with. Do you get my point?

Miracles doesn't imply the existence of God nor is the point of this to prove he exists. It's up to you to decide.

In fact it is up to you to decide. It is you who is going to demonstrate the existence of miracles. And it is also nice that you are specifying what a miracle is. For the moment, I take that is not a God-driven process. So, it is still a supernatural process though? Or purely natural?

In Scientific terms it'd be an abnormal seemingly random occurrence of nature.

But then you wouldn't be demonstrating anything. Aren't things like the inversion of the magnetic poles of Earth, abnormal seemingly random occurrences? Even Earthquakes could fit into that definition. Those things are already understood in science.

Miracles aren't fully supernatural. When you add God then it seems that way but focus only on proving that the sheer act of water turning into wine then it becomes plausible to be tested.

Well, if by water you mean grape-juice, then it can certainly be turned into wine, but if by water you mean regular water, how exactly can someone turn that into wine?

That's what i'm trying to figure out lol. There are several natural explanations for it. For example the parting of the Red Sea is theorized to have been caused by a huge violent rushing wind that can part it in 2 for several moments. It's described as miraculous but scientists have a natural explanation for it's occurrence.