Total Posts:205|Showing Posts:181-205|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Miracles Are Not Violations of Physical Law

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:34:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:02:35 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/25/2013 9:46:07 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/25/2013 9:32:22 PM, drafterman wrote:



You're no arbiter of science. So no need to "try again." Each are physical events which aren't addressed by physical law. They're surprising phenomena. And so they're anomalous in the strict and loose sense of the word. Step into my field bro.

So, you've never heard of cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanics abiogenesis? I seem to recall those fields addressing the phenomena you just mentioned.

I'm a philosopher of science and a practicing geophysicist, don't darken my council with such rubbish. Of course I know of those fields of inquiry and that is precisely WHY I can say that the things we DO know from those fields show that each thing I described ISN'T described by physical law, but it's a physically possible, indeed physically occurring, event. You're totally misunderstanding, and misrepresenting my position. It's by time you get on my level. Bro.

We're talking about my position here, not yours, so there is no misrepresentation. The fact is, those phenomena are addressed by science. So, you failed at the task.


You're blind, they're addressed by science but not physical law.

Still waiting on how you determined that raising from the dead is a physical impossibility.

I'd like to know how it's physically possible that an actual dead man, dead after three days, rise from the grave unaided. THAT'S what I mean by a physically impossible event. There are no physical laws that describe the potential for that, and there never will be, not because of what we don't know, but because of what we DO know about human cell death moments after the brain stops receiving oxygen.

So, you determined that it's physically impossible because it's a violation of physical laws?

No.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:52:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:34:31 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:02:35 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/25/2013 9:46:07 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/25/2013 9:32:22 PM, drafterman wrote:



You're no arbiter of science. So no need to "try again." Each are physical events which aren't addressed by physical law. They're surprising phenomena. And so they're anomalous in the strict and loose sense of the word. Step into my field bro.

So, you've never heard of cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanics abiogenesis? I seem to recall those fields addressing the phenomena you just mentioned.

I'm a philosopher of science and a practicing geophysicist, don't darken my council with such rubbish. Of course I know of those fields of inquiry and that is precisely WHY I can say that the things we DO know from those fields show that each thing I described ISN'T described by physical law, but it's a physically possible, indeed physically occurring, event. You're totally misunderstanding, and misrepresenting my position. It's by time you get on my level. Bro.

We're talking about my position here, not yours, so there is no misrepresentation. The fact is, those phenomena are addressed by science. So, you failed at the task.


You're blind, they're addressed by science but not physical law.

What's the difference, O' Great One?


Still waiting on how you determined that raising from the dead is a physical impossibility.

I'd like to know how it's physically possible that an actual dead man, dead after three days, rise from the grave unaided. THAT'S what I mean by a physically impossible event. There are no physical laws that describe the potential for that, and there never will be, not because of what we don't know, but because of what we DO know about human cell death moments after the brain stops receiving oxygen.

So, you determined that it's physically impossible because it's a violation of physical laws?

No.

It sure seems like you did (of course, I ignored your argument from incredulity at the beginning, since that hardly befits a person of your station).

"There are no physical laws that describe the potential for that..."

Perhaps you can restate your explanation without referring to the physical laws you aren't violating.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:01:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2013 7:13:38 AM, phantom wrote:
According to the Bible, the sun stopped for a full day as well as the moon so as to prolong the day. How could this be explained while being consistent with physics? (Maybe it can. I'm just wandering)

The sun is stopped all the time. Not amazing. If it can be explained in some sort of way with natural physical laws, then we can never know if it's from God or not. Since it could be just a natural event, no god needed
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:03:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:01:23 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 2/24/2013 7:13:38 AM, phantom wrote:
According to the Bible, the sun stopped for a full day as well as the moon so as to prolong the day. How could this be explained while being consistent with physics? (Maybe it can. I'm just wandering)


The sun is stopped all the time. Not amazing. If it can be explained in some sort of way with natural physical laws, then we can never know if it's from God or not. Since it could be just a natural event, no god needed

Hahahahahhaha, I love how they have it as a false dichotomy: either the sun stopped and can be explained by science; or the sun stopped and cannot be explained by science. Major lol
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:28:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2013 9:57:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:47:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
I'm sure you will...

yes, I will... man are you cynical or what?

Did you ever manage to manage to respond to that which you said you would respond to? No? It looks like my cynicism was correct.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:11:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:28:20 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:57:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:47:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
I'm sure you will...

yes, I will... man are you cynical or what?

Did you ever manage to manage to respond to that which you said you would respond to? No? It looks like my cynicism was correct.

Chill, I've got all the time in the world. Me + sofa remember?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:24:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:52:17 AM, drafterman wrote:




We're talking about my position here, not yours, so there is no misrepresentation. The fact is, those phenomena are addressed by science. So, you failed at the task.


You're blind, they're addressed by science but not physical law.

What's the difference, O' Great One?

I'm sorry this is just not a question worthy of the great one's time. But I'll answer it because the great one is one of grace, fortunately for you.

Science is a human project of attempting to understand the physical world through empirical observation and experimentation, roughly. Physical law on the other hand is a product of that human endeavor. As stated before there are three Natural Law Theories: Regularity, Nomic Necessity, and Causal Disposition. Let's look at each in turn.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.





So, you determined that it's physically impossible because it's a violation of physical laws?

No.

It sure seems like you did (of course, I ignored your argument from incredulity at the beginning, since that hardly befits a person of your station).

It seems that I didn't. Refer above.

"There are no physical laws that describe the potential for that..."

Perhaps you can restate your explanation without referring to the physical laws you aren't violating.

Perhaps there's no need to. Refer above.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:29:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:11:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:28:20 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:57:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:47:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
I'm sure you will...

yes, I will... man are you cynical or what?

Did you ever manage to manage to respond to that which you said you would respond to? No? It looks like my cynicism was correct.

Chill, I've got all the time in the world. Me + sofa remember?

You could have answered it long ago. It was a rather simple question, so I don't know what could possibly take so long. I think you intentionally delay.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:44:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2013 11:24:00 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:19:06 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Haha, this discourse is getting ridiculous. It's all revolving around semantic and semantic. We move from one definition, argue about that definition for a while, then more on to a new definition.

Who's fault is that do you reckon?

No one, mainly you. But no one in particular other than you. Regard my sofa.

If you're using the colloquial sense of anomaly in a discussion about science, then yes it very much is a discussion over definitions.

That's bunk. I can always qualify it for ya using the best logic for the job. Oh but then you'll complain it's a tautology, what definition isn't trivially defined?

The whole debate argument is a matter of semantics. To argue that "Miracles Are Not Violations of Physical Law" and that "[It's a miracle] ...if it's physically impossible", then a number of definitions of "physically impossible" would refute your central claim.

No actually, I gave all the theories of physical law to date and showed how each one had no content therein that precluded a miracle not being a violation of physical law. You've yet to respond to this now ancient, and might I say weighty, critique. Think sofa.

All while it just boils down to you complaining about the definitions I give, you have any idea how easy that is to do? I've not seen you put one argument forth for your position that a miracle isn't a physically impossible event, nor have I seen you answer my question regarding the three paradigms of physical law.

Why do you think I continually insisted that you answer my question?

Because it's fun to repeat in the midst of my answer to it? ... damn, maybe you're on a sofa too! :-D

So that it wouldn't just devolve into arguing semantics. I had a point I was trying to make, but I needed a direct answer from you in order to make that point.

This is the text book definition of a loaded question, you're cracking me up polar bear fairy angel man-bear-pig esquire III.

My argument would depend on your response.

As all loaded questions do.

How many times did I ask you the same question?

How many times did I answer it? And esp in the way that does an end run around the loadedness of your loady load? Ha... load.

DON'T BLOW IT

So I have to find it somewhat ironic that you complain that I haven't made an argument.

That argument is stored deep in that loaded question. No complaints here bro, I'm on a sofa for one, for two I can laugh at how many times I've answered the question despite how much you don't like my answer, and despite how much it doesn't work for your response. I think I'm just way too smart for you. If we were in a texas shoot out, I'd be on my sofa whipping you with your own 6-shooter water pistol. Step in to my world bro.

I also seem to remember you saying you would "respond to it later". Did you?

Silence!

Now your whole question revolves around the definition of an anomaly, a word I can give 20 different definitions for, oh but then when I qualify it the most reasonable way we humans HAVE at our rational disposal, you want to be skeptical of that, then when a professor of logic wants to challenge you on your skepticism, you want to decline.

You can define it however you like, but "Anomaly" like "Theory" or "Law" in science possesses a precising definition. It has a very specific usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Haha! You know in the philosophy of science, we philosophers have a more rigorous standard, it's called qualifying definitions. Science looks to philosophy for this. "precising" isn't nearly as rigorous. It's even kind of hokey.


Yes the origin of life is not explained by any law. That's one of the problems facing abiogeneticists these days. Call it an anomaly, call it whatever you want. But it's a physical process that's certainly not described by any physical law.

Sure it is:
Law of definite proportions
Chemical equilibrium
Conservation of Mass
Conservation of Energy

That's stupid, of course any explanation of phenomena will be in accord with already accepted physical law. That's not my point with Abiogenesis. My point was there is no LAW OF the origin of life. There is no "necessity" of life based on some law of life. What you have above are laws describing how matter and energy behaves. It doesn't explain at all how life originates out of that matter and energy.

Although I should point out that, in the case Abiogenesis, it is the hypothesis which does the explaining. Being an explanation that you are not entirely satisfied with doesn't make it any less consonant with the laws of nature.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:45:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:29:56 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:11:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:28:20 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:57:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:47:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
I'm sure you will...

yes, I will... man are you cynical or what?

Did you ever manage to manage to respond to that which you said you would respond to? No? It looks like my cynicism was correct.

Chill, I've got all the time in the world. Me + sofa remember?

You could have answered it long ago.

I did just that.

It was a rather simple question,

No it was simplistic.

so I don't know what could possibly take so long.

Midterms took priority over a question I've already answered.

I think you intentionally delay.

I think you're self-deluded in this thread.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:46:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here's my repeating my answer to your question again, I even did it for drafeter.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:56:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:46:47 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Here's my repeating my answer to your question again, I even did it for drafeter.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.

No miracle which would necessarily transcend the laws of nature has ever happened. Ever. Ever so called "miracle" conveniently happens in such a way that brings with it the possibility of random happenstance being the cause. Never before has a "miracle" stood the test of science.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:12:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:56:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:46:47 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Here's my repeating my answer to your question again, I even did it for drafeter.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.

No miracle which would necessarily transcend the laws of nature has ever happened. Ever. Ever so called "miracle" conveniently happens in such a way that brings with it the possibility of random happenstance being the cause. Never before has a "miracle" stood the test of science.

I suggest you actually read and comprehend what I wrote above.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:15:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:12:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:56:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:46:47 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Here's my repeating my answer to your question again, I even did it for drafeter.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.

No miracle which would necessarily transcend the laws of nature has ever happened. Ever. Ever so called "miracle" conveniently happens in such a way that brings with it the possibility of random happenstance being the cause. Never before has a "miracle" stood the test of science.

I suggest you actually read and comprehend what I wrote above.

I suggest that you use your reasoning, and adopt a policy of not believing in things without justification and evidence.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:19:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:15:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:12:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:56:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:46:47 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Here's my repeating my answer to your question again, I even did it for drafeter.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.

No miracle which would necessarily transcend the laws of nature has ever happened. Ever. Ever so called "miracle" conveniently happens in such a way that brings with it the possibility of random happenstance being the cause. Never before has a "miracle" stood the test of science.

I suggest you actually read and comprehend what I wrote above.

I suggest that you use your reasoning, and adopt a policy of not believing in things without justification and evidence.

Ah, sound's like you're feeling froggy again on that, how about you leap and show my that little red notification on my computer indicating you want to debate my on faith and reason...
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:25:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:19:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:15:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:12:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:56:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:46:47 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Here's my repeating my answer to your question again, I even did it for drafeter.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.

No miracle which would necessarily transcend the laws of nature has ever happened. Ever. Ever so called "miracle" conveniently happens in such a way that brings with it the possibility of random happenstance being the cause. Never before has a "miracle" stood the test of science.

I suggest you actually read and comprehend what I wrote above.

I suggest that you use your reasoning, and adopt a policy of not believing in things without justification and evidence.

Ah, sound's like you're feeling froggy again on that, how about you leap and show my that little red notification on my computer indicating you want to debate my on faith and reason...

I might if I have the time and energy necessary to rebut the inevitable sophistry, logical fallacies, and flat-out invalid arguments that you will post.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:27:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:25:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:19:31 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:15:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:12:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:56:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:46:47 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Here's my repeating my answer to your question again, I even did it for drafeter.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.

No miracle which would necessarily transcend the laws of nature has ever happened. Ever. Ever so called "miracle" conveniently happens in such a way that brings with it the possibility of random happenstance being the cause. Never before has a "miracle" stood the test of science.

I suggest you actually read and comprehend what I wrote above.

I suggest that you use your reasoning, and adopt a policy of not believing in things without justification and evidence.

Ah, sound's like you're feeling froggy again on that, how about you leap and show my that little red notification on my computer indicating you want to debate my on faith and reason...

I might if I have the time and energy necessary to rebut the inevitable sophistry, logical fallacies, and flat-out invalid arguments that you will post.

http://www.youtube.com...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:41:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:44:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:

No one, mainly you. But no one in particular other than you. Regard my sofa.

Perhaps then you are the troll, I think.

If you're using the colloquial sense of anomaly in a discussion about science, then yes it very much is a discussion over definitions.

That's bunk. I can always qualify it for ya using the best logic for the job. Oh but then you'll complain it's a tautology, what definition isn't trivially defined?

So you define your argument in such a way to make it true by definition. Magnificent!

The whole debate argument is a matter of semantics. To argue that "Miracles Are Not Violations of Physical Law" and that "[It's a miracle] ...if it's physically impossible", then a number of definitions of "physically impossible" would refute your central claim.

No actually, I gave all the theories of physical law to date and showed how each one had no content therein that precluded a miracle not being a violation of physical law. You've yet to respond to this now ancient, and might I say weighty, critique. Think sofa.

No, rather you argue in a way precluding most anything from being a violation, which you would have to do to justify such a claim. I'm not impressed.

So that it wouldn't just devolve into arguing semantics. I had a point I was trying to make, but I needed a direct answer from you in order to make that point.

This is the text book definition of a loaded question, you're cracking me up polar bear fairy angel man-bear-pig esquire III.

Basing my rebuttal on your response to my question, makes it a loaded question? It is quite fitting that you make such a poor joke, because that is how I would characterize your argument thus far.

How many times did I ask you the same question?

How many times did I answer it?

Zero times.

And esp in the way that does an end run around the loadedness of your loady load? Ha... load.

DON'T BLOW IT

This doesn't merit a response.

So I have to find it somewhat ironic that you complain that I haven't made an argument.

That argument is stored deep in that loaded question. No complaints here bro, I'm on a sofa for one, for two I can laugh at how many times I've answered the question despite how much you don't like my answer, and despite how much it doesn't work for your response.

No, you don't even know what my response is. Sidewalker has answered my question, you however have not. Perhaps you could take notes from him. You simply talk in circles.

I think I'm just way too smart for you.

Yup, that's definitely it...

If we were in a texas shoot out, I'd be on my sofa whipping you with your own 6-shooter water pistol. Step in to my world bro.

These kind of sophomoric responses, I think are indicative of the intellectual character (or lack thereof) of your arguments.

You can define it however you like, but "Anomaly" like "Theory" or "Law" in science possesses a precising definition. It has a very specific usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Haha! You know in the philosophy of science, we philosophers have a more rigorous standard, it's called qualifying definitions. Science looks to philosophy for this. "precising" isn't nearly as rigorous. It's even kind of hokey.

No, dear student, a "qualifying definition" is what we use in debate, in the exercise of science 'Anomaly' would constitute a precising definition. The only thing in science close to a "qualifying definition" would be what is called a Stipulative definition. Point being that in Science it has an established definition, necessary for statistical analysis, and we cannot just use whatever definition suits our argument.

That's stupid, of course any explanation of phenomena will be in accord with already accepted physical law.

No, not pseudoscience.

That's not my point with Abiogenesis. My point was there is no LAW OF the origin of life.

Of course there isn't. Nobody suggested there was a law of the origin if life, nor would there have to be. That's an insipid point to be making. There's no law of cells either, but no one is suggesting that cell theory is incompatible with the laws of nature.

Do you know what a law is, in science?

There is no "necessity" of life based on some law of life. What you have above are laws describing how matter and energy behaves. It doesn't explain at all how life originates out of that matter and energy.

That's not what laws do, to begin with. Laws describe; theories explain.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:23:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:24:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:52:17 AM, drafterman wrote:




We're talking about my position here, not yours, so there is no misrepresentation. The fact is, those phenomena are addressed by science. So, you failed at the task.


You're blind, they're addressed by science but not physical law.

What's the difference, O' Great One?

I'm sorry this is just not a question worthy of the great one's time. But I'll answer it because the great one is one of grace, fortunately for you.

Science is a human project of attempting to understand the physical world through empirical observation and experimentation, roughly. Physical law on the other hand is a product of that human endeavor. As stated before there are three Natural Law Theories: Regularity, Nomic Necessity, and Causal Disposition. Let's look at each in turn.

Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

Then again, neither can anything that actually happens be considered an impossibility, on this understanding. If it happens, it was obviously possible.


On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

You're just repeating yourself now, so I'll respond in kind:

It's an anomaly either violates the law, revises it, or is dismissed as a bogus observation.


On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.





So, you determined that it's physically impossible because it's a violation of physical laws?

No.

It sure seems like you did (of course, I ignored your argument from incredulity at the beginning, since that hardly befits a person of your station).

It seems that I didn't. Refer above.

"There are no physical laws that describe the potential for that..."

Perhaps you can restate your explanation without referring to the physical laws you aren't violating.


Perhaps there's no need to. Refer above.

There still is a need to.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 12:09:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:41:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:44:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:

No one, mainly you. But no one in particular other than you. Regard my sofa.

Perhaps then you are the troll, I think.

If you're using the colloquial sense of anomaly in a discussion about science, then yes it very much is a discussion over definitions.

That's bunk. I can always qualify it for ya using the best logic for the job. Oh but then you'll complain it's a tautology, what definition isn't trivially defined?

So you define your argument in such a way to make it true by definition. Magnificent!




The whole debate argument is a matter of semantics. To argue that "Miracles Are Not Violations of Physical Law" and that "[It's a miracle] ...if it's physically impossible", then a number of definitions of "physically impossible" would refute your central claim.

No actually, I gave all the theories of physical law to date and showed how each one had no content therein that precluded a miracle not being a violation of physical law. You've yet to respond to this now ancient, and might I say weighty, critique. Think sofa.

No, rather you argue in a way precluding most anything from being a violation, which you would have to do to justify such a claim. I'm not impressed.





So that it wouldn't just devolve into arguing semantics. I had a point I was trying to make, but I needed a direct answer from you in order to make that point.

This is the text book definition of a loaded question, you're cracking me up polar bear fairy angel man-bear-pig esquire III.

Basing my rebuttal on your response to my question, makes it a loaded question? It is quite fitting that you make such a poor joke, because that is how I would characterize your argument thus far.


How many times did I ask you the same question?

How many times did I answer it?

Zero times.


And esp in the way that does an end run around the loadedness of your loady load? Ha... load.

DON'T BLOW IT

This doesn't merit a response.



So I have to find it somewhat ironic that you complain that I haven't made an argument.

That argument is stored deep in that loaded question. No complaints here bro, I'm on a sofa for one, for two I can laugh at how many times I've answered the question despite how much you don't like my answer, and despite how much it doesn't work for your response.

No, you don't even know what my response is. Sidewalker has answered my question, you however have not. Perhaps you could take notes from him. You simply talk in circles.


I think I'm just way too smart for you.

Yup, that's definitely it...


If we were in a texas shoot out, I'd be on my sofa whipping you with your own 6-shooter water pistol. Step in to my world bro.

These kind of sophomoric responses, I think are indicative of the intellectual character (or lack thereof) of your arguments.




You can define it however you like, but "Anomaly" like "Theory" or "Law" in science possesses a precising definition. It has a very specific usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Haha! You know in the philosophy of science, we philosophers have a more rigorous standard, it's called qualifying definitions. Science looks to philosophy for this. "precising" isn't nearly as rigorous. It's even kind of hokey.

No, dear student, a "qualifying definition" is what we use in debate, in the exercise of science 'Anomaly' would constitute a precising definition. The only thing in science close to a "qualifying definition" would be what is called a Stipulative definition. Point being that in Science it has an established definition, necessary for statistical analysis, and we cannot just use whatever definition suits our argument.




That's stupid, of course any explanation of phenomena will be in accord with already accepted physical law.

No, not pseudoscience.

That's not my point with Abiogenesis. My point was there is no LAW OF the origin of life.

Of course there isn't. Nobody suggested there was a law of the origin if life, nor would there have to be. That's an insipid point to be making. There's no law of cells either, but no one is suggesting that cell theory is incompatible with the laws of nature.

Do you know what a law is, in science?


There is no "necessity" of life based on some law of life. What you have above are laws describing how matter and energy behaves. It doesn't explain at all how life originates out of that matter and energy.

That's not what laws do, to begin with. Laws describe; theories explain.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:32:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:41:07 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:44:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:

No one, mainly you. But no one in particular other than you. Regard my sofa.

Perhaps then you are the troll, I think.

Nah, just adding to the content of the variety known as "pissing contest."

If you're using the colloquial sense of anomaly in a discussion about science, then yes it very much is a discussion over definitions.

That's bunk. I can always qualify it for ya using the best logic for the job. Oh but then you'll complain it's a tautology, what definition isn't trivially defined?

So you define your argument in such a way to make it true by definition. Magnificent!

Again, this reflects your misunderstanding of what defining something is, a definition qua definition doesn't need inherent in its definition a proof of the existence of the thing being defined. I defined a miracles as a physically impossible event, that doesn't mean that miracles are therefore true. Who's the troll? ... getting awfully close to that third warning my polar bear friend.


The whole debate argument is a matter of semantics. To argue that "Miracles Are Not Violations of Physical Law" and that "[It's a miracle] ...if it's physically impossible", then a number of definitions of "physically impossible" would refute your central claim.

No actually, I gave all the theories of physical law to date and showed how each one had no content therein that precluded a miracle not being a violation of physical law. You've yet to respond to this now ancient, and might I say weighty, critique. Think sofa.

No, rather you argue in a way precluding most anything from being a violation, which you would have to do to justify such a claim. I'm not impressed.

I'm not here to impress you, I'm here to cash out someone worthy of debating me on this topic. And so far, you're almost at a 3rd strike bro.

Anyhow, I gave all the theories of physical law that are out there in the literature, unless and until you can find a physical law theory which has internal content that includes miracles as "violations" then my position remains to be correct.

Further, my contention doesn't preclude "anything" from being a violation, some miracles can obviously violate moral laws. Others can violate logical laws. Both types of law have content that would make such miracles out to be violations. But that's not the case with physical law for the reasons I've given.


So that it wouldn't just devolve into arguing semantics. I had a point I was trying to make, but I needed a direct answer from you in order to make that point.

This is the text book definition of a loaded question, you're cracking me up polar bear fairy angel man-bear-pig esquire III.

Basing my rebuttal on your response to my question, makes it a loaded question? It is quite fitting that you make such a poor joke, because that is how I would characterize your argument thus far.

Any joke I make it's for the audience of me, not you. Anyhow, I'd advise you educate yourself on an elementary definition here,

http://en.wikipedia.org...


How many times did I ask you the same question?

How many times did I answer it?

Zero times.

Nine and counting thus far.

And esp in the way that does an end run around the loadedness of your loady load? Ha... load.

DON'T BLOW IT

This doesn't merit a response.

Again, audience of me, not you.


So I have to find it somewhat ironic that you complain that I haven't made an argument.

That argument is stored deep in that loaded question. No complaints here bro, I'm on a sofa for one, for two I can laugh at how many times I've answered the question despite how much you don't like my answer, and despite how much it doesn't work for your response.

No, you don't even know what my response is. Sidewalker has answered my question, you however have not. Perhaps you could take notes from him. You simply talk in circles.


I think I'm just way too smart for you.

Yup, that's definitely it...

Sorry if that offended ya.


If we were in a texas shoot out, I'd be on my sofa whipping you with your own 6-shooter water pistol. Step in to my world bro.

These kind of sophomoric responses, I think are indicative of the intellectual character (or lack thereof) of your arguments.

Again, audience of me.

You can define it however you like, but "Anomaly" like "Theory" or "Law" in science possesses a precising definition. It has a very specific usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Haha! You know in the philosophy of science, we philosophers have a more rigorous standard, it's called qualifying definitions. Science looks to philosophy for this. "precising" isn't nearly as rigorous. It's even kind of hokey.

No, dear student, a "qualifying definition" is what we use in debate, in the exercise of science 'Anomaly' would constitute a precising definition. The only thing in science close to a "qualifying definition" would be what is called a Stipulative definition. Point being that in Science it has an established definition, necessary for statistical analysis, and we cannot just use whatever definition suits our argument.

Apparently there's an audience of you, as well, if you make the joke that I'm your student. A qualifying definition isn't just used in debate, it's of a higher order discipline and science continuously consults the philosophy of science on such matters. This is why the logical positivists recognized philosophy as the handmaid of science.

Even so, a precising definition is a sloppy qualification with some logic left out. A miracle, since it has little to do with science, doesn't require a precising definition. We can regard it as an anomaly since it happened, and we don't know why, physically, this even fits within your precising definition.


That's stupid, of course any explanation of phenomena will be in accord with already accepted physical law.

No, not pseudoscience.

that's why pseudo means false. You're right, but this doesn't negate my claim.

That's not my point with Abiogenesis. My point was there is no LAW OF the origin of life.

Of course there isn't. Nobody suggested there was a law of the origin if life, nor would there have to be.

You're contradicting yourself again, big suprise, regard,

Me: it's [abiogenesis] a physical process that's certainly not described by any physical law.

You: Sure it is

That's an insipid point to be making. There's no law of cells either, but no one is suggesting that cell theory is incompatible with the laws of nature.

We're obviously agreed on the matter then.

Do you know what a law is, in science?

Another loaded Q. Yes I know what a law is in science. It's either 1 0f those three theories of law I gave.


There is no "necessity" of life based on some law of life. What you have above are laws describing how matter and energy behaves. It doesn't explain at all how life originates out of that matter and energy.

That's not what laws do, to begin with. Laws describe; theories explain.

OK then you agree with the Nomic Necessity understanding of physical law. Right?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:33:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:10:32 PM, Polaris wrote:
??

What is the purpose of doing that?

There was none, DDO crapped out on the message I typed back. Cool your paws there polar bear guy.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:38:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:23:20 AM, drafterman wrote:




Regularity doesn't view physical laws as laws at all; but rather the way things happen, so no event can be a "violation" on this understanding.

Then again, neither can anything that actually happens be considered an impossibility, on this understanding. If it happens, it was obviously possible.

Yes. Exactly. Logical possibility isn't physical possibility.


On Nomic Necessity, physical laws are not descriptive, but physical laws merely says what can/not happen, they're universal generalizations based on experience. Thus a physical law revised if an event occurred which the law didn"t previously permit. It assume an "all things being equal" norm. When an anomaly occurs, the Law is neither violated nor revised: So when God acts specially, the law is neither violated nor revised. Hence miracles are just "naturally impossible events."

You're just repeating yourself now, so I'll respond in kind:

It's an anomaly either violates the law, revises it, or is dismissed as a bogus observation.

Under what theory of physical law can you cite content there in that classifies miracles as a violation? I gave three, the only three there are. I'm uninterested in your hokey and ad hoc definitions of physical law.


On Causal Dispositions: Things have essences, salt has an essence which dissolves in water, etc. God"s action doesn"t violate dispositions though.

So on all these theories of physical law, we see that they're each a product of science, but not science itself, and each leave no room in the theory for a physical law being "violated" by a miracle.

Now to clarify this whole discussion, the reason miracles were looked at as "violations" of nature in the first place was due to the whole debate taking place against the deterministic backdrop of the Newtonian World Machine, where God created the world perfect and immutable so that his miracle working would be thought of as him "fixing" his perfect creation, which is a contradiction to the Newtonian. But ever since that immutability crap was done away with by theologians, the problem of miracles has resurfaced under a different light. Now it's basically our inability to observe such things that happened in the past, postmodernism, etc. But talk of a "violation" is an out-dated incoherent idea.





So, you determined that it's physically impossible because it's a violation of physical laws?

No.

It sure seems like you did (of course, I ignored your argument from incredulity at the beginning, since that hardly befits a person of your station).

It seems that I didn't. Refer above.

"There are no physical laws that describe the potential for that..."

Perhaps you can restate your explanation without referring to the physical laws you aren't violating.


Perhaps there's no need to. Refer above.

There still is a need to.

Far from it.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.