Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

God cannot violate physical laws

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 5:46:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's argued that miracles and God violate physical laws as if they were commandments set in stone but that's not the scientific nature of law.

"Science can only say miracles do not occur in the ordinary course of nature. Science cannot 'forbid' miracles because natural laws do not cause, and therefore cannot forbid anything" (Little, Paul E. "Know why you believe." Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1967.)

Scientific laws are mere abstract descriptions of nature. If anything observable contradicts it, scientists search for new laws to better explain nature. Just as Newtonian gravity was replaced for a better model: Einstein's theory of relativity.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 6:39:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 5:46:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
"Science can only say miracles do not occur in the ordinary course of nature. Science cannot 'forbid' miracles because natural laws do not cause, and therefore cannot forbid anything" (Little, Paul E. "Know why you believe." Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1967.)

Actually, there are no miracles in science: there's only what we observe and what we don't observe. Science doesn't seek to say what's allowed and what's not.

So the real problem with alleged miracles isn't scientific theory, T_S; it's threefold:
1) Lack of objective evidence that anything unusual occurred in the first place;
2) The expertise, training and credibility of any witnesses claiming to have observed them; and
3) The independence of people claiming to interpret them.

For most of the incidents people claim to have observed as miracles there are better explanations -- principally to do with known problems in observing and interpreting evidence, but also to do with the known tendency of untrained historians to exaggerate and take biased positions.

I hope that helps.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 6:57:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 5:46:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
It's argued that miracles and God violate physical laws as if they were commandments set in stone but that's not the scientific nature of law.

"Science can only say miracles do not occur in the ordinary course of nature. Science cannot 'forbid' miracles because natural laws do not cause, and therefore cannot forbid anything" (Little, Paul E. "Know why you believe." Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1967.)

Scientific laws are mere abstract descriptions of nature. If anything observable contradicts it, scientists search for new laws to better explain nature. Just as Newtonian gravity was replaced for a better model: Einstein's theory of relativity.

First of all, no one knows the physical laws of our galaxy, the universe, or the cosmos.
Science has some 'Scientific laws', and they have a high probability of being acceptably accurate. They work well enough for our current purposes.
Scientists readily admits they could have some of them wrong.
It would be a good bet that they have fine details wrong on one or more of them, but no one knows which one(s).
Scientists readily admit they know nothing with absolute certainty.

It is not unreasonable to say 'There is a reasonable chance that some events scientists think are not reasonably possible, have in fact, occurred.'
In other words, some events that scientists believe would violate 'Scientific laws', are within the normal framework of the universe.
I have no suggestion what events these might be.
By comparison, we can be reasonability certain that there are other life forms in the universe, even though we have no idea where, or what kind.

There is nothing within science that precludes a god, that works within natural boundaries, but has caused events the vast majority of scientists would call 'a true miracle'.
God does not 'have to be' capable of supernatural events, with the exception that some dictionary definitions may say so. A dictionary definition and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:01:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 6:39:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/22/2015 5:46:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
"Science can only say miracles do not occur in the ordinary course of nature. Science cannot 'forbid' miracles because natural laws do not cause, and therefore cannot forbid anything" (Little, Paul E. "Know why you believe." Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1967.)

Actually, there are no miracles in science: there's only what we observe and what we don't observe. Science doesn't seek to say what's allowed and what's not.

So the real problem with alleged miracles isn't scientific theory, T_S; it's threefold:
1) Lack of objective evidence that anything unusual occurred in the first place;
2) The expertise, training and credibility of any witnesses claiming to have observed them; and
3) The independence of people claiming to interpret them.

For most of the incidents people claim to have observed as miracles there are better explanations -- principally to do with known problems in observing and interpreting evidence, but also to do with the known tendency of untrained historians to exaggerate and take biased positions.

I hope that helps.

Redirecting to this post lol

http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:16:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When will science experience the next revolution, with major paradigm shifts.
No one knows, and current scientists will probably be the last to know.

Keep in mind that a miracle is a type of anomaly.
Anomalies are not unusual in the history of science.

~~

Perhaps the best known philosopher of science in the last half century is Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), who was for many years a professor of philosophy and history of science at MIT. Kuhn, who died just a few years ago, held his PhD in physics, but was asked as a young faculty member to teach a course in history of science. He became fascinated with the process by which theories, once held to be true, were replaced by very different ones, also held to be true. For example, the view that all matter was made of Earth, Air, Water and Fire held sway for over two millenia; yet it now seems crude and even child-like in comparison to the modern theory of chemical elements. Nonetheless, it was held to be adequate for a much longer period of time.

For Kuhn, the problem was two-fold: (i) to explain why scientific theories are accepted, and (ii) to explain why scientific theories are replaced. These two aspects are intimately related, and the key concept that Kuhn develops is that of "paradigm" -- a reigning or dominant approach to solving problems in a given area of science.

Kuhn presented his views in Structure of Scientific Revolutions (first edition 1962, second edition 1970). He argued that scientific revolutions proceed through the following stages:
1."Normal Science", that is to say everyday, bread-and-butter science, is a "puzzle-solving" activity conducted under a reigning "paradigm".

The paradigm is the example or model of a great scientific achievement (such as Newton's theory of gravity, or Einstein's theory of relativity) which provides an inspiration and a guide showing how to do scientific research. It is not quite an explicit set of rules and regulations (not a recipe or formula), but it does clearly "show the way".
"Puzzle solving" is the normal or everyday activity of scientists, and consists of problems which are believed, in advance, to have a solution, if only enough ingenuity and effort is brought to bear, using the paradigm as a guide.

2.An "anomaly" arises when a puzzle, considered as important or essential in some way, cannot be solved. The anomaly cannot be written off as just an ill-conceived research project; it continues to assert itself as a thorn in the side of the practicing scientists. The anomaly is a novelty that cannot be written off, and which cannot be solved. Examples of anomalies include:

According to Newtonian mechanics, there should be a difference in the speed of light when it is issued from a moving source. Careful experiments in the late 19th century found no such difference, despite the most accurate of instruments.
According to the Theory of the special creation of species, a divine being created each species separately and individually, perfectly adapted to its environment. The discovery of the fossil remains of species not corresponding to any existing species (extinct species) contradicted this key assumption of biology before Darwin.

3.This opens up a period called the "crisis", during which time new methods and approaches are permitted, since the older ones have proved incapable of rising to the task at hand (solving the anomaly). Views and procedures previously considered heretical are temporarily permitted, in the hope of cracking the anomaly.

4.One of these new approaches is successful, and it becomes the new paradigm through a "paradigm shift". This constitutes the core of the scientific revolution.

5.The new paradigm is popularized in text-books, which serve as the instruction material for the next generation of scientists, who are brought up with the idea that the paradigm -- once new and revolutionary -- is just the way things are done. The novelty of the scientific revolution recedes and disappears, until the process is begun anew with another anomaly-crisis-paradigm shift.
http://bertie.ccsu.edu...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 5:37:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If God exists, he is the source of the laws of nature, hence they are not something outside of him that he must obey. I am curious why people think that the laws of nature (which we don't understand enough to discern what falls outside of it) can't be violated in the first place. Because they're all-powerful, omnipresent, and eternal? Oops, that sounds like projecting the attributes of God.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:07:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:01:56 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:39:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/22/2015 5:46:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
"Science can only say miracles do not occur in the ordinary course of nature. Science cannot 'forbid' miracles because natural laws do not cause, and therefore cannot forbid anything" (Little, Paul E. "Know why you believe." Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1967.)

Actually, there are no miracles in science: there's only what we observe and what we don't observe. Science doesn't seek to say what's allowed and what's not.

So the real problem with alleged miracles isn't scientific theory, T_S; it's threefold:
1) Lack of objective evidence that anything unusual occurred in the first place;
2) The expertise, training and credibility of any witnesses claiming to have observed them; and
3) The independence of people claiming to interpret them.

For most of the incidents people claim to have observed as miracles there are better explanations -- principally to do with known problems in observing and interpreting evidence, but also to do with the known tendency of untrained historians to exaggerate and take biased positions.

I hope that helps.

Redirecting to this post lol

http://www.debate.org...

Redirecting to this post lol

http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:23:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 5:46:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:

Scientific laws are mere abstract descriptions of nature. If anything observable contradicts it, scientists search for new laws to better explain nature. Just as Newtonian gravity was replaced for a better model: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Funny, how they can land a probe on Mars or send one past Jupiter and Saturn using only Newtons laws.

Sure, Einsteins model is different than Newtons' simply because Newton made a couple of errors based on a lack of technology on his part, that the speed of light was instantaneous and the gravity as a pulling force (action at a distance). Other than that, his models still work just fine.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth