Autumn Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Miracles are not scientific (supernatural) but they have observable consequences (empirical). If a god suspends a natural law to perform a miracle, the cause cannot be understood through science. Scientists can investigate but will never "find god" under a microscope. The most they will be able to conclude is that an otherwise absolute natural law was violated in this sole instance. The alleged existence of both our hypothetical god and your pet wyvern are not scientific claims. If we wanted to argue one or both was real we'd have to produce non-empirical justification. You can speculate and test said speculations though. If one of those hypothesis is accurate then certainly the cause could be found. This is how every paradigm shift happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I don't understand what you mean. If a physical law holds true except when it is suspended miraculously, all scientists could conclude is that this law is absolute except for that one instance. There would be no paradigm shifts because the source for this exception is supernatural and beyond the scope of the scientific method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) I don't understand what you mean. If a physical law holds true except when it is suspended miraculously, all scientists could conclude is that this law is absolute except for that one instance. There would be no paradigm shifts because the source for this exception is supernatural and beyond the scope of the scientific method. Everything that exists must be allowed to exist by the attributes of nature, including miracles. If a miracle happens, then we were wrong about the scope of what nature allows. Physical laws are based on the observation that no force would ever be able to suspend them. If a god existed, he too would have to have been allowed to exist by the attributes of nature. Edited November 7, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) I don't understand what you mean. If a physical law holds true except when it is suspended miraculously, all scientists could conclude is that this law is absolute except for that one instance. There would be no paradigm shifts because the source for this exception is supernatural and beyond the scope of the scientific method.If the law is not absolute in one instance, it's not "absolute except" - it is simply not absolute. Science would have no ability to determine that the law would not be violated again (or that it had not been violated already), barring the possibility that they come to understand the mechanics that allow the law to be violated (which you already ruled out in an earlier post). Moreover, if one law can be violated and the only explanation comes down to "the law is inviolable except when it is not, and it is not every time god decides it will not be," that would suggest the possibility that every law can be violated. That would certainly cause a paradigm shift, since that would mean that natural laws discovered by science could no longer be relied upon. Additionally. there would be a failure to offer a different reliable law. In the situation you describe, the law would no longer be a law, but rather something like a tendency or a strong likelihood. Edited November 7, 2015 by Severian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Miracles are not scientific (supernatural) but they have observable consequences (empirical). If a god suspends a natural law to perform a miracle, the cause cannot be understood through science. Scientists can investigate but will never "find god" under a microscope. The most they will be able to conclude is that an otherwise absolute natural law was violated in this sole instance. the problem here is that you've adjusted your definitions in a way that appears to make your argument work, but it still doesn't work because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of science. i don't see how miracles are unscientific. science is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." if one were to observe some aberrant behavior in the physical world, then that behavior can be investigated scientifically. if the aberrant behavior truly cannot be accounted for with any amount of observation or experimentation, then that might lend credence to the hypothesis that this behavior was the result of a miracle, but you may not presuppose that this behavior is a miracle, which is what you are doing. supposing that miracles were to actually exist, we would not be able to determine if a miracle is indeed a miracle without a scientific inquiry. hence miracles are scientific claims. in medicine we have the concept of "diagnosis of exclusion" where specific diseases can only be diagnosed when all other diseases with similar presentations have been proven negative. the miracle is a hypothesis of exclusion. a miracle cannot be confirmed without the scientific method! The alleged existence of both our hypothetical god and your pet wyvern are not scientific claims. If we wanted to argue one or both was real we'd have to produce non-empirical justification. the lack of physical evidence for the existence of my pet wyvern supports the hypothesis that my pet wyvern does not physically exist. my pet wyvern being a figment of my imagination does not magically preclude it from examination in the realm of science. Edited November 7, 2015 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I will respond to the above three posters at once. Science is inductive, and induction by definition cannot produce certain knowledge. When we talk about physical laws being "constant" or "absolute" or "unbreakable," what we really mean is that a great deal of observations have been made and all support / none contradict that law. An "absolute except" (I like that term Severian) is plausible. If a wide body of observations confirm a proposed law except in a single, seemingly miraculous instance, that law appears absolute except. If nature does not allow this law to be broken when left to its own devices, we were not wrong about what "nature allows." We were correct but a god suspended that rule temporarily. Saying nature "allows god" to exist is a simple category mistake; it would be the other way around. I agree with all but two of dondon's points: 1. I am not presupposing a seemingly inexplicable act is probably a miracle. If a miracle does occur, science will be unable to determine its cause. It can investigate the consequences of the miracle but not the miracle itself. 2. If you claim ownership of a pet wyvern (or invisible unicorn, etc.) that cannot be empirically sensed, science has nothing to say about its existence or nonexistence. We would have to turn to metaphysics and ask questions like "How do you know this wyvern exists?" or "Would our experiences make better sense if this wyvern was real?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 If nature does not allow this law to be broken when left to its own devices, we were not wrong about what "nature allows." We were correct but a god suspended that rule temporarily. Saying nature "allows god" to exist is a simple category mistake; it would be the other way around. In order for God to exist it must first be possible for him to exist. In order for God to have the attributes he has it must be possible for him to have them. How is that not "within the constraints of nature"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Because it has nothing to do with nature. God is a supernatural concept / being. Edited November 7, 2015 by feplus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Because it has nothing to do with nature. God is a supernatural concept / being. "Supernatural" is by definition a meaningless concept. Everything that exists must first be possible. The idea that something can be impossible and still exist is a contradiction. Edited November 7, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) I don't understand what you mean. If a physical law holds true except when it is suspended miraculously, all scientists could conclude is that this law is absolute except for that one instance. There would be no paradigm shifts because the source for this exception is supernatural and beyond the scope of the scientific method. Yes just like the "law" that disease was caused by "miasma", backed up by countless accounts of bad air being around when people get sick. So when Anton van Leeuwenhoek found that there was tiny microscopic organisms when he looked at them through a microscope for the first time, he had found a piece of the puzzle to something that was seemingly supernatural. Yes just like the "law" that disease grew by spontaneous generation, backed up by countless accounts of people seeing mould grow from nowhere. So when Louis Pasteur "exposed freshly boiled broth to air in vessels that contained a filter to stop all particles passing through to the growth medium, and even with no filter at all, with air being admitted via a long tortuous tube that would not pass dust particles. Nothing grew in the broths: therefore the living organisms that grew in such broths came from outside, as spores on dust, rather than being generated within the broth."(wikipedia) Causing a paradigm shift, scientifically explaining something that was seemingly supernatural and contradicted an established "law". Edited November 8, 2015 by Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) "Supernatural" is a clearly defined concept. Anything that exists beyond the natural world is supernatural. If you're suggesting the supernatural is "impossible," we don't need to have that conversation; this is not a scientific claim and has no bearing on the compatibility of science and religion. I don't know what bunk claims of previous centuries have to do with this conversation. If a physical law held true for all observations except one (not the case for those other examples), the law would be an "absolute except" and science would have nothing to say about the exceptional observation's cause. Edited November 8, 2015 by feplus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I don't know what bunk claims of previous centuries have to do with this conversation. If a physical law held true for all observations except one (not the case for those other examples), the law would be an "absolute except" and science would have nothing to say about the exceptional observation's cause. Of course it has to do with this conversation. What is seemingly supernatural now may be, like miasma, a "bunk claim of previous centuries" in a few centuries time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 This hypothetical does not deal with something that "seems" supernatural. It deals with something that is supernatural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) This hypothetical does not deal with something that "seems" supernatural. It deals with something that is supernatural. Pretty useless hypothetical because we have not got something that is definitively supernatural, ever. If God manifested himself before us right now he would be part of nature as well. If that's not part of what you're talking about then you're derailing the thread, lel. Edited November 8, 2015 by Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 If God manifested himself before us right now he would be part of nature as well. 1. Explain why you think this. 2. Keep the FFtF stuff in FFtF, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 If you do not understand the purpose of a thought experiment then there is no sense in continuing this conversation. If you are interested in learning more I would recommend this SEP article as a primer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 1. Explain why you think this. 2. Keep the FFtF stuff in FFtF, thanks. 1. I thought it was self explanatory. Nature is defined as the phenomena of the physical world collectively. If god manifested himself in the world, thus proving his existance, than he would, by definition be part of nature. Everything that exists is part of the environment. 2. I don't understand your problem with what I said? I was directly responding to feplus here. I also mentioned it wasn't relevant to the original topic at hand. If you do not understand the purpose of a thought experiment then there is no sense in continuing this conversation. If you are interested in learning more I would recommend this SEP article as a primer. Your thought experiment makes the conclusion you draw an inevitability. That's not very meaningful. Science is the method in which the natural world can be studied, by hypothesizing an imaginary phenomena that is unnatural and cannot be explained in human terms, is just saying "Science can't explain things it cannot explain" which is, again, a useless thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 "Supernatural" is a clearly defined concept. Anything that exists beyond the natural world is supernatural. If you're suggesting the supernatural is "impossible," we don't need to have that conversation; this is not a scientific claim and has no bearing on the compatibility of science and religion. I'm saying that for something to exist it must be possible and if it is possible then it is possible within some set of principles. That set of principles are attributes of "nature". Something being outside of nature is meaningless because being outside nature means not interacting with nature or "manifestng" relative to nature in any way--also known as not existing. The category mistake is assuming that nature is not "everything that happens". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Something outside of nature could interact with it. There is no conceptual contradiction there. If we define nature in part as "a set of principles that makes things possible to exist," that would include any supernatural as well as natural beings. The supernatural would become natural. This is a poor definition prima facie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 1. I thought it was self explanatory. Nature is defined as the phenomena of the physical world collectively. If god manifested himself in the world, thus proving his existance, than he would, by definition be part of nature. Everything that exists is part of the environment. 2. I don't understand your problem with what I said? I was directly responding to feplus here. I also mentioned it wasn't relevant to the original topic at hand. (curse you randomly broken quote tags!) 1. No, it's not, hence why I asked you. I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm not interested in pursuing them, because I have other things I need to get done. 2. My problem has nothing to do with your argument, but the attitude conveyed within it. I don't care what stance you take, but do NOT dismiss the person you're addressing (and tacking "lel" to the end of what you say is dismissive). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Science allows us to look at what exists and from those measurements arise patterns. By process of elimination we can arrive at a set of principles that, if absolute, would cause these patterns. If it exists and has patterns, then it can be analyzed scientifically. The only things that science cannot analyze are things whose existence and non-existence have identical results. Science applies to "everything that happens" even if nature is more specific than that. Nature is just the word I chose for the environment that binds all existence. The term supernatural is meaningless in this discussion and continuing to use it implies an outer bound for science that is simply not accurate. Edited November 8, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 But science does not apply to everything that happens. It deals strictly in empirical content. You are conflating nature and existence, and then you are assuming all existence is material. That is a bad definition and a specious claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) But science does not apply to everything that happens. It deals strictly in empirical content. You are conflating nature and existence, and then you are assuming all existence is material. That is a bad definition and a specious claim. If something exists yet has no effect on the observable universe, then its existence is identical to its non-existence. It may exist, but not meaningfully. Likewise if something happens but does not happen relative to anything else, then it never happened at all as those things are concerned (see: relativity). When you say that the laws of nature may be supernaturally suspended you're saying that something exists and its existence has distinguishable empirical results, yet science cannot analyze it--that's a contradiction. Edited November 8, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 . . .what about those things that do exist, but we humans haven't figured out how to detect/measure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) . . .what about those things that do exist, but we humans haven't figured out how to detect/measure?Do they have any effect on us?Yes -- they exist meaningfully and can be analyzed indirectly by their effects on things we can measure No -- they may as well not exist relative to us Not sure if you meant this, but human error is not a failure of the scientific method. Human limits are not science's limits. Edited November 8, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.