How to prove the supernatural?

[Michaelangelo]

As Ridgerunner said above, there is no way to pretreat the image / keep the bees out of a certain portion without sickening the bees. But to someone unwilling to believe in miracles, they will always just say “The Monks must have some secret formula; it can’t just be a miracle, right?”

Why would the bees necessarily get sick from something? They come into contact with tons of different substances everyday without getting sick. There are things we avoid because they are unpleasant to us in various ways without having to make us sick. Like an itchy sweater. There is obviously something on the pictures, namely paint, which is various inorganic metallic compounds if the classic pigments are used. Different pigments contain different metals. So certain parts of a picture may contain something the bees dislike and avoid.

Looking at the pictures the bees sometimes avoids the whole body while other times construct the cells clearly on the body. Why would it not be ok to nest on the body in some instances while in others it is not a problem? Without analyzing the pictures it is impossible to say anything about if there is something on them. One can only speculate.

I asked Ridgerunner if he has a hive above and would be willing to stick similar images in his hives.

One would have to use pictures made the same way with the same pigment. Essentially reproduce as many details as possible from what the monks did. Otherwise one can’t claim to have reproduced the same event. There is a section about methodology in every single article claiming any scientific result about anything.

The candle is beeswax. Perhaps it’s the flame that’s not ordinary (but you’re not inclined to consider that!)

You assume it is just beeswax. Without an analysis you do not know it is. I make no such assumptions.

There are several times when she keeps it under the same spot for several seconds, and no smoke or blackening. 1:25 - 1:29 is an example on the lower left arm. A white sweater should at least blacken if not entirely catch.

Smoke or blackening is dependant on what is burning. There are plenty of substances giving no smoke or soot. Depending on what material is in her sweater and how it is knitted it might not be any, or very little, loose threads making it a non-fluffy construction and thus not that easy to to ignite. I have done the same thing on several occasions with cold flames. Another trick is to keep a pool of fire in the hand.

 

[ReaderT]

I make no such assumptions.

I think your replies do have assumptions - the main one being that the monk lied because these miracles could never happen as described. But maybe they did. There is nothing to say God didn’t will it thus, except the inclination not to believe. I guess I can’t change that, and therefore it’s useless for me to keep posting.

 

[Michaelangelo]

All of your replies contain assumptions - the biggest one being that the monk lied because these miracles could never happen as described. But maybe they did. There is nothing to say God didn’t will it thus, except your inclination, which is not to believe. I guess I can’t change that, and therefore it’s useless for me to keep talking.

I admit English is not my first language so I miss many nuances and meanings in this language, but I do know what an assumption is and I know when I make assumptions. You are obvisouly not familiar with the scientific method and how falsification is used. There are less indications that god did this than there are indications of the opposite. A willingness to believe may make someone miss details someone less willing to believe will catch.

A honest scepticism can never be wrong.

 

[White_Tree]

As Ridgerunner said above, there is no way to pretreat the image / keep the bees out of a certain portion without sickening the bees. But to someone unwilling to believe in miracles, they will always just say “The Monks must have some secret formula; it can’t just be a miracle, right?”

I think you misinterpret me. I am not unwilling to believe in miracles. I have personally experienced more than my fair share of the supernatural, and am absolutely confident that it is real.

But I also think it’s important to understand the foundations and methodology of rigorous scientific thinking, and apply that thinking where it is warranted.

Much of the confusion (and nowadays, needless sickness and death) that abounds in our world today is due to people who are unable or unwilling to understand how science actually works, and so, incapable of recognizing the real thing, they get deceived by false claims of scientific fact.

The existence of the supernatural does not have to be at odds with the proper application of the scientific method and the conclusions we can draw from it, but there are too many people who create a false dichotomy between these two and thereby do a disservice to religion by getting it entangled with pseudoscience and broken thinking. (I am not saying you do. I am speaking generally.)

As for the bees, I simply don’t know whether it’s a miracle or not. I don’t believe it, but I also don’t disbelieve it. I don’t know enough to judge. I was merely suggesting, if someone wanted to test this in a scientific way, how would they do it?

@Abrosz’s original post asked about “hard proof.” Science cannot provide that. Its methodology is incapable of being applied for that purpose. All it can do is disprove certain potential explanations, or find evidence consistent with, or suggestive of, a certain conclusion, and even then, only to a given degree of certainty. And once it has disproved the alternatives, the conclusion would be, “The true explanation must be something other than the ones we have disproved.” Maybe that true explanation is miraculous, and maybe it is not. But science cannot answer either way.

That is why the Shroud of Turin is not “proof” of the miraculous (from a scientific point of view). Is it miraculous? I don’t know. Personally, I think it probably is. But even if, as @mr_silly pointed out, it is “the most scientifically investigated supernatural phenomena in the world,” that does not prove it is supernatural, because the scientific method cannot prove that. It is not within the scope of what can be accomplished by science.

When I say all that, I do not mean to imply that we should accept all conclusions made by scientists at face value, because there is a lot that masquerades as “science” (including conclusions drawn by professional and well-respected scientists) which is, in fact, merely dogma or philosophy. But we should at least understand how science works, and know what we can learn from a rigorous application of that methodology, where it is appropriate.

 

[Pattylt]

the identity of the corpse is thereby proven as is a miracle.

Even if I accepted the miraculous explanation of the shroud, it still doesn’t prove its Jesus’. We have no idea what he looked like.

And, many Christians don’t accept it either. Does that mean they aren’t Christian? Does that mean they don’t believe in miracles? Are they less faithful? I’m still not sure why it’s so important to some small segment of Christians. Yours is a religion based on faith to begin with. Isn’t it important to just have faith?

 

[MPat]

Loss of face just means embarrassment, does it not?

Not entirely (as far, as I know), but that is close enough.

It would seem rather obvious which of you two is the most prideful and foolish…and it isn’t PattyIt.

And…?

At least PattyIt is willing to accept that there are things that would cause her to admit that she was wrong, and that’s a very humble and honest admission, one that I doubt that you’re capable of emulating.

I’m willing to bet that there’s absolutely nothing that anyone can possibly conceive of, that would cause you to disavow your belief in God. Now you might consider this to be a sign of your unshakeable faith, but some people might say that it’s actually a sign of your own stubborn pride.

So, you say that as harsh criticism, but with understanding that I will take it as a praise that is far too generous.

Isn’t that something that needs an explanation? Now, it looks like you can mostly explain why I would take that as a praise by saying that I am foolish, stubborn etc.

So, that leaves your side. So, can you explain why, in your opinion, being “willing to accept that there are things that would cause [one] to admit that [one] was wrong” is “humble and honest”, something good?

Also, I see that you did not cite the end of that exchange. Follow it to the end (this post, for now), if only for entertainment value of seeing someone you have judged to be foolish argue.

Foolish or not, I was going somewhere with that line of questioning. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out, where?

 

[Abrosz]

I’m sorry I’m not following you here. Your saying you want the Bible to have supernatural text?

No, I do not WANT anything. Some other poster asked if I want God to jump through hoops to prove himself to ME. What a joke. I merely presented a state of affairs, which cannot be explained “away” by even the most “hard-hearted” (what a ridiculous expression) skeptic, which cannot be faked, which cannot be misunderstood, which does not need “experts” or laboratories, which is visible by the naked eye by everyone who is willing to look at the night sky.

None of your suggested possibilities qualifies. They are all anecdotes - even if they happened.

 

[Michaelangelo]

The final and most dramatic proof that the Image in the Shroud is miraculous is, ironically, that the Shroud’s linen has much more carbon fourteen than would be expected of material that is 2000 years old.
Every “contamination” and “reweaving” theory has been disproved. The only possible way for this C-14 enhancement to have happened is through a neutron radiation event. The signature of the Shroud’s C-14 evidence is that of a neutron flux that originated from the corpse it enveloped when it vanished into another dimension.

the identity of the corpse is thereby proven as is a miracle.

If your proposed neutron flux event happened while the corpse was wrapped in the shroud then the nuclei of all the other atoms were also exposed to this neutron flux. Thus an equal increase of other radioactive nucleotides would be expected. Have such a increase been observed? I suspect the shroud is made of linnen so beside carbon there is oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorous and sulfur in it to start with. Then there should be a bunch of metals too, such calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, iron, copper, zinc.

 

[Servant31]

What about for example Fatima? The sun did some miraculous things in the sky…? Many people were there to see it.

The idea of being a skeptic isn’t inherently bad imho.

But your looking for scientific proof. But you can’t disregard some evidences as only anecdotal. EVERYTHING in science is anecdotal until it is quantified into a formalized study. Eyewitness testimony is regularly used in daily life. If we only believe in things which are considered scientifically “proven” we couldn’t live life. We have maybe three things which rise to such a level.

If I study something, then I have to devise an experiment. Devise a way of testing a hypothesis. There is always a person making a measurement somewhere in the mix. An eyewitness is always in experiment. Every experiment involves an observation from an observer.

And even amongst scientists there are those who see the same data set and disagree about the results or implications. People say they are completely unbiased…that’s basically impossible. That’s like saying you have no life experiences. The scientific community has also been wrong before.

But let’s take a view from quantum mechanics… If your not familiar with it I would recommend looking at the Schrodingers Cat interpretation. The observer has an influence on the experiment. So even in science the there must be recognition of the observational impact. And being completely bias free isn’t often possible.

I’m definitely not against science, however it is a tool not the only firm of truth. Best regards mate, Happy Sunday

 

[White_Tree]

Foolish or not, I was going somewhere with that line of questioning. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out, where?

I am a huge fan of the Socratic method, and I use it all the time when dialoguing in person, in order to help people discover ideas that they would not believe if I had just told them outright, but which they can be made to realize for themselves through the appropriate line of questioning.

However, I’ve found that it’s absolutely useless on these forums (and in digital communications in general), because 1) people will simply ignore your questions rather than actively engage with them, and 2) proper application of the method often involves reading a lot of nonverbal cues from the participants, which is absolutely impossible to do on the Internet.

So if you had a point you wanted to make, you should just make it.

It’s a shame the Socratic method is ineffective on the Internet. Maybe that’s one of the reasons why the world is getting dumber. Without that tool, there are a lot of things that cannot be effectively taught. But it is what it is, and we have to work with the tools we have available.

By the way, with your questions in particular, I had a hard time determining whether they were actually intended to be answered, or if they were just rhetorical.

 

[Servant31]

Clapping…

 

[Servant31]

I’d like to think prayer really works. They tried doing a legitimate study but it failed miserably. Every prayer healer has been shown to be a fake. The “healings” are temporary and merely placebo effect.

Could you link this study?

The other thing with prayer. It’s not like a vending machine…insert ten Hail Marys and return a new liver. It just doesn’t work like that. I recognize the challenges for a nonbeliever… however I look at the effects of prayer very broadly in my life. But I have to admit to instances where I git an answer that was pretty hard to refute as just a random happenstance.

 

[Pattylt]

Efficacy of prayer - Wikipedia

This is an interesting scientific look into the problems with studying prayer.

Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials - PMC

 

[VeryBlessed]

I’ll share one. Early in our marriage, I received a job offer from far out of state. We had prayed so much for God’s direction asking which choice was his will, to stay home or move. We had no sense at all of God directing us either one way or the other despite praying about it often. I accepted the position without any sense from God that it was right. Disappointed, sad and afraid we’d made the wrong choice, that same evening we went to a prayer gathering led by a man I knew but hadn’t seen in a very long time. Near the end of the meeting, he called us up one by one to pray for us. In the middle of praying for us, he suddenly looked up at both us and said, “the Lord wants you to know that you’ve made the right decision.” He had no idea about the change we were contemplating. Then the tears came!

Virtually all of us started this walk with very weak faith, tentatively, not at all sure he was really there. If everyone got certain proof before they took that first step of faith, then it wouldn’t be faith, it would just be simple common sense.

 

[Servant31]

Thanks I’ll take a look

 

[Michaelangelo]

What about for example Fatima? The sun did some miraculous things in the sky…? Many people were there to see it.

And a whole lot of people who were there did not see a thing. Which is also reported by several people investigated this event. Since the sun did not actually make this jitterbug in space, which otherwise would have been seen by all people having daylight and a clear sky and would have had a dramatic effect on the orbit of at least mercury, it was an optical illusion of some sort. I have an instinctual problem calling an illusion a miracle because that would make the originator of the miracle an illusionist.

But your looking for scientific proof. But you can’t disregard some evidences as only anecdotal. EVERYTHING in science is anecdotal until it is quantified into a formalized study. Eyewitness testimony is regularly used in daily life. If we only believe in things which are considered scientifically “proven” we couldn’t live life. We have maybe three things which rise to such a level.

Science does not deal with proving things. Eyewitness testimony is not held in such high regard when information from behavioral sciences is taken into account.

If I study something, then I have to devise an experiment. Devise a way of testing a hypothesis. There is always a person making a measurement somewhere in the mix. An eyewitness is always in experiment. Every experiment involves an observation from an observer.

Not at all. I could easily set up a adaptive system for organic synthesis which changes the parameters for the next experiment according to the result of each synthesis and then leave the lab for a week or two and let it run 30 or 40 experiments. There has been interaction with the experiments by the system but where has the observation taken place?

The scientific community has also been wrong before.

Is that a problem?

But let’s take a view from quantum mechanics… If your not familiar with it I would recommend looking at the Schrodingers Cat interpretation. The observer has an influence on the experiment. So even in science the there must be recognition of the observational impact. And being completely bias free isn’t often possible.

An interaction with a quantum system has an effect on that system. But this has nothing to do with any observation involving consciousness and bias of said consciousness.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I asked Ridgerunner if he has a hive above and would be willing to stick similar images in his hives.

I don’t anymore, but I have in the past. One of the odd things about these pictures is that the bees started to comb across the pictures, but then quit. Some of these combs appear to be in regular “frames” with sheets of beeswax across them. Lots of those wax sheets are printed with cell shapes to keep them regular. Those are pretty common. But if there is a defect or something in the sheet, they’ll just comb across it anyway. These combs are fairly new. The bees have only just begun the comb building process in most of them. In only one are there caps on some of the cells. These appear to be “honey” combs, not used for brood. It’s a good thing, too, because a lot of the cells are distorted. If the queen lays an egg in a distorted cell it will probably hatch a drone instead of a worker.

You could probably get the same effect if you let the hive comb a bit, then cut out a piece and attached the picture from behind, then let them comb some more. But if a person did that, all the beekeepers would know it, and there would probably be more cross-combing than these photos show. The reason beekeepers put in frames that have pre-printed cell shapes on them is to prevent cross-combing.

 

[Servant31]

Since the sun did not actually make this jitterbug in space, which otherwise would have been seen by all people having daylight and a clear sky and would have had a dramatic effect on the orbit of at least mercury, it was an optical illusion of some sort. I have an instinctual problem calling an illusion a miracle because that would make the originator of the miracle an illusionist.

How do you know this? Some say “I saw it” and report clothes instantly drying, being able to look at the sun without hurting their eyes, and non natural occurrences. Others say “I didn’t see anything”. You conclude it was an optical illusion. I don’t know myself, however I think it was likely a miracle with that many people and witnesses, including some miles away.

You drew conclusions also based on secondary effects. Saying that the gravitational shift “Would have had a dramatic effect on the orbit of mercury at least”. If God was capable of creating a miracle such as the sun moving in the sky could he not do so without gravitational effects. Further were a lack of gravitational effects observed at the time of the event? Were astronomers observing mercury and have instruments accurate enough to measure any gravitational shifts?

This is the challenge with a completely skeptic mindset. If something miraculous does occur those who don’t believe have chosen not to prebiasing the experiment. If there are scientifically inconsistent points, in this case no observed gravitational shift, then it can’t be a miracle because it isn’t consistent with scientific understanding. In a complete skeptics eyes …If it’s a miracle it can’t be a miracle… That doesn’t represent an openness to observational truth either, just as a believer who believes everything just because it was stated.

 

[Servant31]

There has been interaction with the experiments by the system but where has the observation taken place?

Observation takes place by the experimenter by reading the results. And bias is always present potentially in any experiment by interpreting them.

 

[ReaderT]

This is the challenge with a completely skeptic mindset. If something miraculous does occur those who don’t believe have chosen not to prebiasing the experiment. If there are scientifically inconsistent points, in this case no observed gravitational shift, then it can’t be a miracle because it isn’t consistent with scientific understanding. In a complete skeptics eyes …If it’s a miracle it can’t be a miracle…

Yes. It’s totally futile.
This sort of answers @Abrosz’s question: there is no way to prove a miracle beyond the doubts of those who’d never believe in the first place. No matter the quality of scientific investigation, they will never conclude that it is a miracle. They will keep finding new rational “solutions” ad infinitum.

And for what it’s worth, miracles don’t need to be repeatable. Maybe God wanted to encourage one bee-keeper at one time. Lack of repetition doesn’t make something non-miraculous.