Atheism and Faith

[Biochemist]

...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]

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]

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Biochemist]

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

This is not a debate about interpretation. This is first year calculus. There are many shapes (an infinite number of families, actually) that have finite volume and infinite surface area.

[Biochemist]

...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....

Well, at the risk of being labeled a Bible-thumper, Romans 1 mentions that the evidence of God is "clearly seen" in His handiwork. I happen to agree with that.

 

You see cause-and-effect in petunias, and I see creation. I am not ignorant of the biochemistry. I just have a different view of the set of facts.

[Buffy]

True. And I was doing it intentionally to bait folks (gotcha).

You were completely transparent Bio! No gotcha awarded!

But my point really is that VERY few folks are convinced by evidence.

Which is an interesting issue isn't it? In marketing "we don't influence people's opinions, we justify the decisions they've already made." But I'll still argue that *enough* evidence--and God's done a *lousy* job so far in providing it--will make someone's head explode if inflicted on the proper quantity of denial. Happened to Cotton Mather, so I know its so. :dog:

Probably applies to women too.

No way! :cat:

We don't understand 1% of how petunias work.

That's a matter of interpretation! I carefully worded the "how"s and "why"s above to catch this gotcha, but more importantly you have to drill down to find the "we don't know how this works". We have our questions about the details of the building blocks, certainly, but we have defined the building blocks and they always seem to work the same way, so unless you're insisting on the "everything is a miracle" argument, then Petunias work the same way everytime, we understand lots about manipulating them, and they're really not miraculous in and of themselves: details of cellular mechanisms are still fuzzy, but then, its the cellular processes of life that are miraculous, not the Petunias or the millipedes. Even then, the part that is "not understood" is monotonically decreasing over time--albeit in a fractal manner!

 

The point is--and I think B's on the same track--if you want to have a real miracle, it had better start violating physical laws. Otherwise it is indistinguishable from random processes. :)

 

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic, :naughty:

Buffy

[Buffy]

I just have a different view of the set of facts.

Tee hee! I know! And views are evidentiarially indistinguishable!

 

No one has a franchise on the truth, not even you Senator, :naughty:

Buffy

[ughaibu]

Biochemist: You have again given no evidence beyond your personal belief that the Bible is a literal record of true events, and that is not evidence. Post 45 provides no challenge to the passage of mine that you quoted.

[Biochemist]

You were completely transparent Bio! No gotcha awarded!

Damn. I was so hoping to get another G point.

...I'll still argue that *enough* evidence--and God's done a *lousy* job so far in providing it--will make someone's head explode if inflicted on the proper quantity of denial.

This is an interesting point. My thesis here is that it doesn't matter. In between the jests here, I have suggested:

 

1) most folks don't respond to evidence, and don't even pretend to (a fact which appears to be objectively and observably true), but also

2) most folks that contend that they respond to evidence don't respond either.

 

My suggestion is that the Big Guy is aware of this situation and responds accordingly.

...unless you're insisting on the "everything is a miracle" argument, then Petunias work the same way everytime, we understand lots about manipulating them, and they're really not miraculous in and of themselves

I am suggesting that the definition of miracle is not useful in a science discussion. As B has said, we have to break a natural law to be a miracle. Since that is technically impossible, then there are (by definition) no miracles. I regard extraordinary complexity as a miracle. Complexity does not abbrogate natural law (at least we could never prove that it does) but the depth of the mystery is magnificent.

 

Not to pick on you (OK, I do look forward to it) but I think that anyone who thinks we "understand" how any life form "works" is delusional. The fact that we can reproduce petunias is no more sophisticated than finding out how to make babies. We are an incidental (although pretty enthusiastic) participant in the process, but we are certainly not in control of it.

the part that is "not understood" is monotonically decreasing over time--albeit in a fractal manner!

I am glad you added the fractal point. The questions get harder, and the complexity (using "complexity" in the techincal "complexity theory" sense) gets higher and higher.

...if you want to have a real miracle, it had better start violating physical laws.

and I contend this is technically impossible, since any "violation" immediately becomes part of physical law.

[Biochemist]

Biochemist: You have again given no evidence beyond your personal belief that the Bible is a literal record of true events, and that is not evidence. Post 45 provides no challenge to the passage of mine that you quoted.

Ug- I don't think I was trying to give evidence of anything. I don't know what you are trying to assert.

 

And I don't recall offering that the Bible is a literal record of true events.

[InfiniteNow]

You're clutching at straws here, Bio.

 

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

I'm riding the fence here, watching the game from the bleachers and enjoying the back and forth, but...

 

What about our own birth? Compliant with nature (what's more natural, eh?), yet can only happen once.