Atheism and Faith

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

There are two categories of miracles:

1) Those that happen only once, and hence are not reproducible. They generally are not regarded as "real" miracles, since they can't be reproduced.
2) Those that happen reproducibly (gravity, birth, the "dual slit" experiment in particle physics) and hence are not "real" miracles because they are reproducible.

1) All of those kinda miracles are known only by word of mouth.
2) These are called the obeyance of Natural Laws - nothing miraculous.

1) is pretty dodgy, though, seeing as they are all known to us via fallible storytelling. Is is well known, though, that nothing can violate 2). So anything that claims to do so with flaky evidence, would naturally be suspect.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

...Is is well known, though, that nothing can violate 2). So anything that claims to do so with flaky evidence, would naturally be suspect.

Of course not. If anything does, we redefine 2). This is a syllogism, not a defense.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

2) These are called the obeyance of Natural Laws - nothing miraculous.

Suppose (for example) that we were to prove that Jesus' resurrection was:

1) in compliance with natural law, but
2) the circumstances for the resurrection only happenned once.

Jesus' resurrection would then be a part of natural law. That is, this particular "miracle" would be a part of natural law (again, like gravity or the dual-slit experiment).

Why does the notation of "miracle" (in the single-event sense) add any import?

I think my petunias are miraculous. Ocean waves are miraculous. Hemoglobin is miraculous. So what? All are outside and any notion of predictability through basic science methods. And we presume they will never be predictable (attibuted to "chaos"). Why aren't my petunias real miracles?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

There are two categories of miracles:

1) Those that happen only once, and hence are not reproducible. They generally are not regarded as "real" miracles, since they can't be reproduced.
2) Those that happen reproducibly (gravity, birth, the "dual slit" experiment in particle physics) and hence are not "real" miracles because they are reproducible.

Oh, I'd add a third--possibly orthogonal--kind of miracle: those that leave tangible evidence. This kinda gets at B's point above, since it addresses whether reproducible events are miraculous or can be explained. You are bringing out the key issue of "believability," but evidence can certainly spread belief more effectively via logic rather than faith.

My point above though is that its easy to perceive claims of miraculous events as being much less than they could be given a truly "all-powerful" creator. It requires the commonly heard justifications of "He does not *want* us to see him" which just plain stinks. Me, I prefer a non-meddling creator, who may not even be very aware of this little pool of slime teaming with life in this insignificant backwater of what may be a nearly uncountable number of universes. That however goes against people's desire to think that God thinks about *them specifically* and will do what they pray for if they're good enough, which to me is an awfully selfish attitude.

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I think the fact that we can have this sort of discussion is a miracle.

Amen!

A humble insignificant spec in Her noodly creation,
Buffy

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I think my petunias are miraculous. Ocean waves are miraculous. Hemoglobin is miraculous. So what? All are outside and any notion of predictability through basic science methods. And we presume they will never be predictable (attibuted to "chaos"). Why aren't my petunias real miracles?

I think you're watering down the meaning of "miracle" here Bio. Not that I disagree with doing so, but this entire line of argument in the thread is supposed to deal with events that "prove the existence of God", and like I say, I agree that little things like your petunias might be miracles, but as B says, we understand the pretty much the whole process of how they work. Why they came to be and the meaning of their beauty is so ephemeral though, that it can be debated endlessly, and as I say above, "you call this *proof*?"

C'mon God, pull out the big guns! *Show* us that you're a Republican!

Supernaturally,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Oh, I'd add a third--possibly orthogonal--kind of miracle: those that leave tangible evidence....but evidence can certainly spread belief more effectively via logic rather than faith....A humble insignificant spec in Her noodly creation..

1) Anyone who can use "orthogonal" in a sentence cannot, by definition, be an insignificant spec.

2) I suspect you would have a hard time proving that belief spreads better through evidence. (chuckle- you need evidence to prove the value of evidence)

Even in American medicine, physicans only rarely practice evidence-based medicine. These folks regard themselves as scientists, but still treat medicine as more art than science, even when the science is well established, and is at odds with their "art".

Even "scientists" don't believe in evidence.

[Boerseun]

You're clutching at straws here, Bio.

Anything that can happen only once is not compliant with natural laws. Natural laws are stating the exact opposite, that thing under similar circumstances will allways react in the same way, repeatably, predictably, in any lab in the universe.

And if we have to agree to a flawed premise before we can continue the argument, well then, we can prove just about anything, I guess.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I think you're watering down the meaning of "miracle" here Bio.

True. And I was doing it intentionally to bait folks (gotcha). But my point really is that VERY few folks are convinced by evidence. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Probably applies to women too.

..I agree that little things like your petunias might be miracles, but as B says, we understand the pretty much the whole process of how they work. ..

Now I really gotcha. We don't understand 1% of how petunias work. And the more we learn, the more our estimate of the fraction falls.

You weren't really serious about that statement were you?

[Rebiu]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Like contradiction is intuitive?

You no doubt recall that there are 3-space shapes that have infinite surface area and finite volume (such as the 3-space hyperbola for the domain where x>1). This means that you could fill these shapes with paint, and not cover the inside surface. The fact that this is counterintuitive (and apparently overtly contradictory) does not make it false. This is a fact. Pure math. Deal with it.

I guess you would have to give me you definition of fill.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Anything that can happen only once is not compliant with natural laws.

Heard of the Big Bang? Please don't tell me that it might have happenned more than once. Got evidence for that?