Talk:Miracles are scientifically impossible

From WikiSynergy

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree. "Miracle" is a religious term, and by definition, is the faith-based assumption of a divine cause. People who approach things from the perspective that "God did it" are being irrational in the sense that they really do not want someone to explain away their wonder with rational arguments, even if the arguments do support the fundamental contention that an etheric entity may have caused a physical event in behalf of a still physical person. When it is expressed as fact, then it is referred to as "paranormal phenomenon." I call it a trans-etheric influence. We are generally addressing the question of how to deal with paranormal phenomena throughout this wiki. Tom Butler 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

From the physical chemistry perspective, we have confirmed a lot about the distribution of matter and energy, and we can assign probabilities to these distributions. From this perspective, miracles are improbable enough such that we can say that no one will ever observe one,and if we did it would be so short so as to essentially be unobservable. Sterile 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

According to my rather old American Heritage Dictionary, a miracle is: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God. If you substitute "science" for "laws of nature," you can use the same definition for paranormal phenomena. Ghosts are "supernatural" yet thousands of people study them. I guess I do not understand what you mean by "never see one" or that it would be "so short so as to essentially be unobservable." Tom Butler 21:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He is probably talking about quantum probability. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 21:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... "This is incorrect, because there is no law of nature that says the laws of nature cannot be violated" - actually that is one of the first "laws of nature" - especially if we are allowed to conflate "laws of nature" with "science". It is a fundamental assumption, that the observed universe is consistent and follows the same rules everywhere (might be said more elegantly, this is just from memory). Human 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Human, in concept, you are right that "laws of nature" cannot be violated, but the problem is that the concept may be suspect. The Spiritualists are big on Natural Law, which is considered the principles which govern the operation of energy emanated by Infinite Intelligence. AKA laws of nature. Yet, while Spiritualists do not have a principle concerning Karma, many accept the concept of Karma. In that, violating Natural Law brings unspecified problems and the objective is to learn to live in accordance with Natural Law. Many of the Hermetic schools also teach this.

So there are "opinions" about what the laws of nature are and how inviolable they are. I like to think of there being at least two aspects of Natural Law. One is an "advisory" behavior modifier and the other is fundamental to the operation of reality--one does not violate it. Gravity is an example. ignore it at great peril but there is no escape (except for maybe levitation??).

There is a second classification to consider. What I like to call "local rules" may appear to be Natural Law, but may not apply outside of this aspect of reality. Gravity and propagation of electromagnetic radiation are two that come to mind. Even in quantum theory, these seem like local rules. Tom Butler 01:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, Human, a fundamental assumption. Perhaps then we need to explain the assumptions behind science, and say that they are only that. But science would still exist and be useful if natural laws could be violated. The only thing which would change is that science would be figuring out what almost always happens, instead of what always happens. If it is, as you say, an assumption, then stating it as a fact would be pseudoscientific, since not proven. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 02:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, in general, but however, as fundamental assumptions, the basic axioms behind science have given us more insight into the nature of reality (just think about the billions of tiny semiconductors it takes to get this message from me to you!) than any other endeavor in human history. Compare the monumental achievements based on these simple assumptions (which at this point are virtually proven true) to the following: "energy emanated by Infinite Intelligence" "the concept of Karma" "violating Natural Law brings unspecified problems" and lastly "local rules". But I am glad that gravity and QED are obeyed on this site, or it would be quite dizzying! Human 04:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Approximately the same as that parapsychology article says [1] However surely you must see that mainstream science is becoming more woo all the time. Multiple concepts are sounding similar to woo, like dark matter, multiple universes, big bang, invisibility, black holes, the idea that there is no time etc. The only way to distinguish between woo and science is to put a smiley face on the woo, to paraphrase. The "local rules" one is the same as multiple universes, so you cannot count it.

As an aside, who should I ask these questions, which are not answered on the web that I can find: I am backing up the database with phpMyAdmin, using the export feature. The SQL file does not read well in English, it has a lot of "800"s in it. Also, if I download a tar.gz file of the database, and at the same time leave the wiki open for editing, I do not have to worry, correct? Once the file is downloading, the server is not inserting more things in the gzip file? (I know it is possible to insert more stuff into a zipped file). And a third question: the database does not grow with more text, to any extent. It has been about 17 megabytes for a long time, and sometimes less than the last download. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 05:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: your aside, I really can't help you there, but maybe if you pop over to http://teflpedia.com/ and ask at the "student bar" the assembled technophiles will be able to help?

Re: Science = woo, no. Only the way it is explained and "mildly" understood meets that criteria (Black holes? Woooo!). But the more solid issues, and even more theoretical ones, that you mention, are backed up with in-depth mathematics; hypotheses, and skeptical triple-checking of any claims. Sadly, the media tend to report on science in a "woo"ish fashion (work that into the article?). Multiple universes are very hypothetical (and probably untestable). Black holes have been "observed" and the math/physics is good. Invisibility? Huh? Yeah, on a light wave level we have bent light around things so they can't be seen, but to call it "invisibility" is extreme. The way to distinguish is to look for the math and experiments - and the attempts to form coherent underlying explanations. By the way, one of my weekly amusements (akin to watching ghosthunters) is Prof. Micheo Kaku's abysmally bad radio show (8-11 PM sun EST on AM 1600 WWRL, etc.). Not only is he a poor "radio personality" but he plays into the worst of the "woo" in popularizing science. Human 06:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I think I disagree with almost every sentence

I have gone through this sentence by sentence and put my responses in italics.

• A miracle is any supernatural event. Mmmm. Are all supernatural events classified as miracles? And how does this fit with error 4?
• As such, a miracle cannot be studied scientifically except to document it occurrence. If it occurs why cannot it be studied?
• There is no natural law which says miracles can or cannot occur. Well, by definition they are violations of natural law.
• However, many miracles are claimed to be paranormal events, in which case they are natural events which science has not explained. Baffled by the real difference being claimed here.
• There are several errors which may occur when discussing miracles: I wouldn't doubt it.
• 1. Confusing miracles with the paranormal, and then acting as if miracles can be studied scientifically. But miracles would fall within the general definition of the paranormal surely. The definition of the paranormal in dictionaries is "that which cannot be explained by science."
• 2. Denying the existence of miracles: this requires proving a negative, and so it an irresponsible claim. Yes, it is incumbent on those proposing miracles to provide evidence. Lacking this there is no necessity to believe.
• 3. Affirming that miracles are acts of God, or making other claims about them. Since miracles cannot be studied scientifically, such things cannot be proven. Most dictionary definitions include a reference to acts of God.
• 4. Asserting that miracles are supernatural: since we do not know all the laws of nature, we cannot assert that miracles are not natural. We do not know, for example, if other universes (hypothesized by science) might intrude at times on our own, and we do not know if our universe allows things which seem like miracles to our current understanding. Miracles are supernatural by definition.
• 5. Thinking that miracles necessitate other concepts, such as God. Although miracles are culturally bound up with such concepts, since they are not subject to science we cannot claim to know this as a fact. Not according the dictionaries I have checked.
• 6. Thinking that miracles are impossible because they "violate the known laws of nature." This is incorrect, because there is no law of nature that says the laws of nature cannot be violated. While it is often thought that they cannot be violated because violations have never been observed, in the context of miracles, this is the very concept in question. Eh?
• There are many documented instances of miracles occurring. Fact? Please document them.
• However, it is not known whether they are supernatural events (as sometimes claimed) or whether they are unexplained events which can occur under known natural laws. And it is not known if they are paranormal events. They are unexplained until they are explained.
• Many claimed miracles, such as the appearance of the faces of religious figures in food would be expected to happen by chance, given the number of different physical configurations that foodstuffs can take. OK
• However, they may be associated with events, such as healings, which are harder to explain. Why?

--Bob M 15:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Response:

• A miracle is any supernatural event. Mmmm. Are all supernatural events classified as miracles? And how does this fit with error 4?

Yes, and corrected

No, a supernatural event has no natural explanation. A miracle is supposedly carried out by a higher spiritual being - at least according to my dictionary.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• As such, a miracle cannot be studied scientifically except to document it occurrence. If it occurs why cannot it be studied?

Because it does not conform to physical laws or consistencies, being supernatural.

If it cannot be studied, how can we say, or know, anything about it?--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is no natural law which says miracles can or cannot occur. Well, by definition they are violations of natural law.

But only by definition. That is just words. Nothing we know of prevents them from happening.

What do you mean "only by definition". If something is true "by definition" then it is true.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• However, many miracles are claimed to be paranormal events, in which case they are natural events which science has not explained. Baffled by the real difference being claimed here.

That is the difference, by definition, see paranormal

Not according to my dictionaries.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• There are several errors which may occur when discussing miracles: I wouldn't doubt it.

Heh.

• 1. Confusing miracles with the paranormal, and then acting as if miracles can be studied scientifically. But miracles would fall within the general definition of the paranormal surely. The definition of the paranormal in dictionaries is "that which cannot be explained by science."

That is a bad definition, which automatically means that anyone who studies anything paranormal is a pseudoscientist.

That is the dictionary definition. What flows logically from that is also true.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• 2. Denying the existence of miracles: this requires proving a negative, and so it an irresponsible claim. Yes, it is incumbent on those proposing miracles to provide evidence. Lacking this there is no necessity to believe.

Right.

Hey! We agree. Now we only need evidence. But wait. Thye can't be studied or repeated. So that make evidence a bit difficult.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• 3. Affirming that miracles are acts of God, or making other claims about them. Since miracles cannot be studied scientifically, such things cannot be proven. Most dictionary definitions include a reference to acts of God.

You are using dictionaries too much. The Devil, angels, demons, spirits, etc. are also said to do miracles. See this [2]

Ok, or other supernatural agents. I like dictionary definitions because they allow less room for imaginative definitions which people make up to fit their purposes.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• 4. Asserting that miracles are supernatural: since we do not know all the laws of nature, we cannot assert that miracles are not natural. We do not know, for example, if other universes (hypothesized by science) might intrude at times on our own, and we do not know if our universe allows things which seem like miracles to our current understanding. Miracles are supernatural by definition.

Corrected

Of course miracles are supernatural. They are carryed out by supernatural beings. As to the rest, there are many things that we do not know.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• 5. Thinking that miracles necessitate other concepts, such as God. Although miracles are culturally bound up with such concepts, since they are not subject to science we cannot claim to know this as a fact. Not according the dictionaries I have checked.

Dictionaries....

Yes, dictionaries are good because they don't allow us to make up convenient new definitions on the spot just because they make our case sound better.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• 6. Thinking that miracles are impossible because they "violate the known laws of nature." This is incorrect, because there is no law of nature that says the laws of nature cannot be violated. While it is often thought that they cannot be violated because violations have never been observed, in the context of miracles, this is the very concept in question. Eh?

?

This needs to be reworked for the sake of clarity.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• There are many documented instances of miracles occurring. Fact? Please document them.

Not my job, study the evidence. I make no claim they are supernatural or paranormal.

Then this is simply an unsupported assertion.--Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• However, it is not known whether they are supernatural events (as sometimes claimed) or whether they are unexplained events which can occur under known natural laws. And it is not known if they are paranormal events. They are unexplained until they are explained.

Good point, will fix later.

• Many claimed miracles, such as the appearance of the faces of religious figures in food would be expected to happen by chance, given the number of different physical configurations that foodstuffs can take. OK

Thanks

• However, they may be associated with events, such as healings, which are harder to explain. Why?

I don't know. Probably because people believe in them.

The fact that religious people believe in them does not make them harder to explain. Though it does explain why some people believe in them. --Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I will go into your points about the definitions later, and you may have caught some other things which need correction or explanation. Thanks! P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Now revised, see what you think. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I responded to your points above before reading this. I'm afraid that I presently lack the energy to go through it again. :-( --Bob M 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How we think about miracles ...

What if we thought of the low death rates during birth in modern countries as miracles? What if we saw 6-7 billion humans on Earth as a miracle? What if we saw peace, when it manifests in unexpected ways, as miracles? Others could perhaps think up other examples. If we thought of miracles like this then would miracles be scientifically impossible? There are many good things that science cannot explain it seems. It seems science says there must be a scientific explanation. Perhaps even the rise of science over the last couple/few hundred years and its progression could be considered a miracle. There may be a "scientific" explanation to this. I dunno. Wikademia

Right, one of the common definitions of miracle is just a good event, perhaps unlikely. In that sense there are miracles which science affirms. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Something to possibly add to the page creation request page A Course in Miracles Wikademia

[edit] Title

"Miracles are scientifically impossible" is not what seems to be being argued (this may be why it was so hard for me to follow v 1.0). Perhaps the title should be changed to something like "Why science cannot address miracles"? Human 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The basic idea was to use the same titles that Vinstonas Wu uses, but to make sure that whatever is said is fully vetted by skeptics. Perhaps we need to do something different here. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 00:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent, relevant New Scientist article.

By coincidence NS just published Opinion: Do you believe in miracles?--Bob M 09:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is one great article. I will get to it later, but thanks! It looks like it will make this article. I wonder if this is really meaningful:

I already said that there is no scientific law that says you cannot violate a scientific law. IOW, a miracle which is supernatural, not paranormal (merely unexplained), does break the laws of science, but these laws are merely assumptions. I do not see why anyone would argue that the laws of nature cannot be broken. Unless they are arguing that if a law is broken ipso facto it is not a law, so it was not broken (as above). To say that laws of nature cannot be broken is arguing from the inside of a system about things untouched and ungoverned by that system. Am I wrong in this? So we would need to define natural laws as "what usually or perhaps always happens," not as absolutes. Then there is no problem. But I would argue that it is pseudoscientific to define the laws as the quote above does, because such an assumption cannot be proved/tested. It is pure philosophy, nothing more than an idea. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point, but the only problem is that "accepted science" has done cool things like split the atom in a controlled fashion, put peeps on the moon, and make incredible semiconductor chips. Granted, those are all "engineering" feats, but they are all based on, you know, scientific laws as we understand them. And your computer is in no danger of melting down the reality of your house or life. The proponents of frontier topics have no such claims (as in, anything they ever predict ever happens?). I am waiting for them to succeed in such. I really hope they do, since their hypotheses are so, um, interesting. Human 05:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well The best argument against parapsychology. If you want to make that article clearer you should do so, BTW. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 08:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do find this interesting. It seems to me that some laws of nature could be broken given enough time. The gas molecules on one side of the room is one example, albeit it's still so unlikely as to be untenable. I guess some laws of nature are more statistically based (gases fill the container, or are statistically distributed) and I could see this point. Others not so much: how do you defy gravity? Sterile 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are basically saying that there is more than one kind of "law of nature," statistical and absolute? If we could do more on that it would make for a good article, at least a small one, in itself. Are the "more absolute" ones really absolute or only statistical? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sterile, where was the gas molecules thing? Because I really want to edit that talk page with my giant brainz, but I lost where it was... Human 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here. I don't know what I'm saying, I'm just thinking out loud at the moment. Sterile 13:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)