Do miracles disprove science?

@write4u

Yeah well….this goes both ways. If you try to disprove science, you can expect to be subjected to the same reciprocal judgement. You can have your cake, but don’t try to eat mine also.
Who is disproving science? Apollo 8. “Astronauts Bill Anders, Jim Lovell, and Frank Borman, the first humans to travel to the Moon, recited verses 1 through 10 of the Genesis creation narrative from the King James Bible.” (Wikipedia) Apollo 14 transported a copy of the Bible to the lunar surface.

American Christians are very comfortable with their practice of science which is an integral part of their lives. They are not denying your right to practice your version of science meant for atheists.

Wow! I’m always amazed at how a single question can elicit such a wide range of responses. Actually I find such responses a bit messy but also inspiring.

What I had in mind when I kicked off this thread was the following question:

Given that I believe in miracles, can I still do science?
In other words, if I believe that miracles contravene the "uniformity" of nature, what does that belief entail about my approach to science? Is this uniformity merely a fiction? Is there no true cause and effect? If miracles are essentially serendipitous, how can they be anticipated? Risk factors in probabilistic sytems can be evaluated statistically. But how can an "act of god" be prevented. Do we need a project theologian to work alongside our project engineer?

 

elphidium said: Given that I believe in miracles, can I still do science?
Of course, nature comes up with miraculous evolutionary abilities all the time. Just don't make miracles into a intentional interference by a supernatural entity or process. Life and consciousness are miracles of nature, not of some undefined theistic causality.

Scientist have no objection to the term miraculous, as long as you keep it in the natural domain.

if I believe that miracles contravene the “uniformity” of nature, what does that belief entail about my approach to science?
What it means is that science has always been wrong. Wrong because it has always been incomplete. Science is discovery. When we conclude we have discovered everything, we will need to do no more science; we will think we know everything.

Unfortunately there are many who believe that science must exclude the unexpected. This means that they must reject any hypothesis that challenges the current accepted understanding.

Many who espouse keeping an open mind don’t.

Many who espouse keeping an open mind don’t.
I don't think this applies to real scientists. Let's not confuse them with science hobbyists out to show how much they know of this and that science. They are similar to disgruntled ringside boxing fans who believe they could have fought better than the fallen champion.

The layman’s idea of science and nature is simple and kid-like. This is why he can spend his life debating controversies unrelated to real life.

ibil said; Many who espouse keeping an open mind don’t.
That is completely backward thinking. Science always keeps an open mind to allow for new and/or refined descriptions of natural phenomena.

It is theism which has a completely closed and immutable perspective of the universe. Moreover it is completely void of any supporting evidence of supernatural interference. Gods only exist because people believe they do, not because there is a spiritual domain occupied by spiritual entities which somehow are able to manipulate universal physical laws? No one can provide an example of a divine intercession of anything.

The bible (the descriptive document of the spirit world) has not been changed or updated for 2500 years, in spite of the tacit concession of Darwinian evolution… So, who has the closed mind?

Be honest and open-minded with yourself and your beliefs. It is one of the positive messages contained in scripture. “Be true to thine self”

Many who espouse keeping an open mind don’t.
That post explains a lot about you Bob. It's completely wrong about how scientists or what science's goal is. Almost no one thinks we have or we live know everything. And can you exclude the unexpected, when the unexpected happens? What you want to do is include something that never happened.
Hans and Herman in one person.
Many of us are. To greater extends than other. Although the ease with which you fall into PRAISE THE LORD, makes it questionable at which end of that spectrum you belong to.

Oh and this struggle within most of us, is why Hermann Hesse remains loved and important, despite the sniffs of derision and dismissal from the Ayn Randian, my gluttony is everything, types.

@sree, I don’t think this applies to real scientists.

The layman’s idea of science and nature is simple and kid-like. This is why he can spend his life debating controversies unrelated to real life.


Okay sree, you’re on. please describe what science is?

Don’t suppose you recall how I’ve tried to describe science?

What it means is that science has always been wrong. Wrong because it has always been incomplete.
Our current state of science is incomplete. What's more, we may never actually reach a point where it will be complete. Nevertheless, this does not entail that what science we do is "wrong." There is good reason to believe that our current science is an adequate approximation of what a future, more complete science will look like.

Since the time of Galileo, science’s explanatory and predictive power has grown exponentially. Over the last six centuries, the fundamentals of science have been repeatedly affirmed rather than refuted. Given this prior probability of success, the likelihood that our future science will radically disagree with our current science is astonishingly low.

Many theists dream that the overthrown of our current science is imminent. They hold on to the hope that there is some
unknown factor “out there” which will undo our basic understanding of the world and reinstate a god friendly universe.
They claim that it is “open minded” to believe so, but they are wrong. They are being irrational.

@citizenschallengev3 - The magic of innocence is absolutely awesome in an infant – but for christ sake we all grow up, or we lay in a bed and are called vegetables.

@sree - I never liked going to school. Education deforms the mind turning it into a tool, a coarse implement be it a ploughshare or a violin. I would rather lay in bed, at least past noon, than toil for my daily bread.

@citizenschallengev3 - Okay so sree loves ignorance. Why should I be surprised? Lordie knows he embraces it enough.

@sree - I said “innocence”. Don’t equate that with ignorance which is a state of those who do not know, crave to know but will never be able to know. What they have is knowledge, something made out of nothing, make beliefs about everything. Innocence is a state of non-defilement when the mind is true.

@citizenschallengev3 - none of this is funny, when I think of the speed at which we are destroying ourselves on every level – and sree is the poster child for the thinking that has brought us all to this point.

@sree - No, not me but the likes of you, those who know, that have been bringing about destruction. It is you who have the knowledge that enables you to do this and do that until this God-given paradise is all messed up. Don’t blame the innocent – the squirrel, the bird, and me.

============================================================================

I never liked going to school.
Well you know, I didn't like school either, I wasn't a great student, had curious strengths and some glaring weaknesses - but to me it seems silly to simply blame the school, without also looking at myself and the attitudes I possessed. It's a dance, we interact, we are an active part of our fate.

Putting all the blame on the school, gives you a free pass and lends to this odd sense of unearned superiority you possess.

"I would rather lay in bed, at least past noon, than toil for my daily bread."
Poetry, but rather disconnected - although if mixing dough and cleaning out the ovens is all you're capable of, so be it. Especially if that's all you aspire to. It's all good.

but . . .

Don’t equate that with ignorance which is a state of those who do not know, crave to know but will never be able to know.
Why not? Poetry aside, innocence certainly does connote a certain ignorance.

Oh and don’t you know that in this real physical world if ‘innocence’ is not being protected by parents or others (with an informed developed mind), innocence get’s demolished in our harsh world full of predators and parasites.

Innocence is a state of non-defilement when the mind is true.
Oh lordie, lordie you are a card. When the mind is "true"? What the fart is that supposed to even mean. What pray tell is a true mind? An undeveloped mind. What in god's name makes that "true"???

Back to the real world, the innocence of young teenage girl is a beauty and wonder to behold, but that same innocence in a twenties or thirties is a scary thing.

No, not me but the likes of you, those who know, that have been bringing about destruction. It is you who have the knowledge that enables you to do this and do that until this God-given paradise is all messed up.
Well you got me there, don't you? But, but, guns don't kill people, someone's finger pulling the trigger kills people.

 

In my vision of a sane world, it’s not the curiosity, honing one’s observation skills, and sating that thirst for better understanding, that’s the bad element.

It’s the elevating one’s EGO to God Status, that’s were all our really bad problems started. You know, despotic leaders calling themselves ‘god ordained’ when not actual “god,” that creating monstrous realities for most the people, while pursuing short term glory for themselves.

In fact, it’s sree’s easy embrace and glorification of Willful Ignorance, (multiplied by millions of intellectually morally lazy Americans, it has lead to a democracy sans the informed engaged electorate needed for a democracy to survive.) that creates the conditions for run amok self-destructive bullies to take over, dominate, party and destroy. Just as we are witnessing on the news nightly.

 

 

 

@elphidium55

 

The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44

The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov

 

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern “knowledge” is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. “If I am the wisest man,” said Socrates, “it is because I alone know that I know nothing.” the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.” …

@elphidium55 Many theists dream that the overthrown of our current science is imminent.

They hold on to the hope that there is some unknown factor “out there” which will undo our basic understanding of the world and reinstate a god friendly universe.

They claim that it is “open minded” to believe so, but they are wrong. They are being irrational.


That’s really nicely stated, thank you.

This is what makes CFI special.

@citizenschallengev3

Okay sree, you’re on. please describe what science is?
Science, to me, is the best guess about what we are, what things are, and what our existence is all about. And if we should differ, I would say, your guess is as good as mine.

And what do you say?

@citizenschallengev3

Well you know, I didn’t like school either, I wasn’t a great student, had curious strengths and some glaring weaknesses – but to me it seems silly to simply blame the school, without also looking at myself and the attitudes I possessed. It’s a dance, we interact, we are an active part of our fate.
I didn’t blame school for what it was. It was just not for me. I didn’t like going to school, getting herded in along with a bunch of kids and had things shoved down my throat. I have always been a loner and preferred to choose what I want to learn. Institutionalized education is awful. It’s for baking gingerbread boys to live in institutions called societies. I am the few who jumped out of the oven half cooked. I am speaking metaphorically. Folks, generally, are fully cooked and they hate the way I think.
Over the last six centuries, the fundamentals of science have been repeatedly affirmed rather than refuted.
I was intrigued by a statement in one of the videos posted somewhere on CFI that the energy of EMR (light waves) is consumed as the wave progresses away from the source and this causes the observed redshift. This contradicts the consensus that the speed of light is constant. The question I ask is how would it appear any differently under either assumption. I refer to the constant speed of light as an assumption because I believe we have no way of measuring the transmission of light over distances sufficient to measure the redshift.

Wavelength shift does not affect speed.

The short answer: No, the frequency of a light wave does not affect its speed. ... Once such a wave is generated, the wave will continue to propagate its electric and magnetic field disturbance through space on its own, at a particular speed.
Benjamin Luna, B.S. Physics, Mathematics, Tennessee Technological University (2020) Answered Mar 1, 2017 The short answer: No, the frequency of a light wave does not affect its speed.

Classically speaking, light is an electromagnetic wave that propagates in space. Fundamentally, it is a “disturbance” that self-replicates in a sense. Here’s what I mean:



 

Once such a wave is generated, the wave will continue to propagate its electric and magnetic field disturbance through space on its own, at a particular speed.
Disturbance is another word for work. The above statement describes perpetual motion and thus violates the laws of thermodynamics.

The thought expressed in the video I referenced was that if we assume that light slows down over long distances (because the energy is consumed) then the expanding universe hypothesis may be wrong. That hypothesis is entirely dependent on the assumption that the speed of light is constant even over great distances.

Perpetual motion is about particles in an atmosphere. Light has wave and particle properties.

No, the frequency of a light wave does not affect its speed.
But a change in the speed of a light wave would affect its frequency.
Perpetual motion is about particles in an atmosphere.
Perpetual motion is about entropy.

Its also the basis for the fact of a lack of a free lunch. The first law of thermodynamics: we never get something for nothing. The second law of thermodynamics: we never break even.