H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Please warn us next time.
I almost choked on my afternoon drink!
- Status
I almost choked on my afternoon drink!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Not any of those supposed “unexplainable events” were ever seriously taken to be proofs for God, except in the eyes of atheists anxious to characterize belief as unreasonable.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is one such “unexplainable event” in the real sense in which honest believers have based their beliefs on it. As far as I know, science has not proven the Jesus did not rise from the dead. Some scientists have denied it, to be sure, but science hasn’t “disproved” it in any real sense. Likewise science has not disproved God.
Since miracles are supernatural events and science ONLY deals with natural events - and can explain those only to an extent that comes smack against a wall of ignorance, it is premature to claim the “gap” has come anywhere near being fully plastered over. Although, “plastering over” the gap is what some, present company excepted, of course, are very anxious to do, overlooking the gaps that still exist in their accounting.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Speaking of caricatures, the above would be a perfect example. Thanks for “filling the gap” with some cheap plaster, Bradski. :tiphat:
To be logically consistent there are no expectations to be had from a “non” position.
I hope God does bless you full on, no matter what your preconceived notions!
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
I am really sorry to point this out but you made a huge blunder here. How can one **prove **the “nonexistence” of something? Or how can one prove that an alleged event did NOT happen??
Again, not true or, at the very least seriously imprecise. You and all your cohorts assert that the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and now you say that miracles are supernatural events. If that would be true, then these alleged “miracles” could not be even observed. The “miracles” are supposed to be natural events, and they are supposed be beyond natural explanation.
This is the cheapest shot on the block. If you cannot refute it, declare it to be a “caricature” and sweep it under the rug. His post was sarcastic, for sure, but it cuts to jugular of the problem. Both you and Moritz keep asserting that one should stop to search for natural explanation and declare a miracle at some point of time. Bradski merely put this into the proper focus and showed how unreasonable this approach is. When do you stop searching?
================================================================
Dear MPat, if you read this, I would like you to make a comment. I am trying very hard to stay dispassionate and polite, but it is getting harder and harder. But I will not give up, at least for a while.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Oh, sure. I just don’t think it is an absolute way of looking at things. If the supernatural is, well, supernatural, there is no reason to believe the supernatural need be mechanistic or doing things in anything like a repeating, scientifically observable way. Supernatural interactions with the natural could very well be (and in fact have been) one-off events. The annunciation and birth of Jesus, for example.
Which leads to a whole new issue for you, but we have company at the moment, so have to go.
Can’t edit either, so forgive mistakes.
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
There can be no God hypothesis. Please don’t make me feel resentful.While I don’t quite agree on the ID issue, you do raise very good points. The God hypothesis should then also qualify as science, especially since the concept of God in classical theism indeed is one of “elegance and internal consistency”, unlike the folk concept of the white-bearded Big Man in the Sky.
M
MPat
Guest
Oh. Um, sure. And, lest I forget, merry Christmas to all of you!
But, to the best of my knowledge, it is not that claim specifically that is being tested in those cases.
Nice to hear that!I am a very “kind” opponent when I am treated decently. It is one of my basic principles (which you wanted to discuss) that one should never start a fight. I always wait for the other party to land the “first punch” (literal or allegorical). And even then I wait to see if it was a misunderstanding on my part. But when the hostile posts become too frequent, then I will reply in kind. Especially if I keep explaining something and the other party does not understand, but keeps on repeating the same error. And before anyone asks, I will NOT go back and dig out the relevant posts. I offer a better approach. Start treating me decently, and I will be nice. Or, let me offer the olive branch. I will not belittle people any more. When I cannot stand the nonsense any more, I will withdraw… just like I withdrew from the “morality” derailment of this thread. Of course Al Moritz immediately accused me of being “scared” - as if he had access to my internal processes. In the case of such treatment all bets are off.
After all it is Christmas, and kindness should be the “norm”. (Why can’t it be the norm on all the other days of the year?
Best wishes! Not just to you personally but to all of you.
Well, the scientists do end with claim that they have found no other explanation. Then it’s the Church that checks the miraculous explanation.
Actually, there are several problems with that.
First, let’s imagine that we did such an experiment and we got an answer that there is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05, or, if you wish, p < 0.000000005). Then what? Would you be persuaded? I wouldn’t expect that. You think that prior probability of miraculous explanation is zero, while probability of non-miraculous explanation is one. When you apply Bayes’ theorem, that one gets multiplied by the p (probability that the experiment would go this way when the miraculous explanation is wrong), then divided by that same p - and you would end up with those same prior probabilities. There is a comic about something similar - see explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1132:_Frequentists_vs._Bayesians (that also includes a more detailed explanation). So, why should anyone waste effort to achieve so little?
Second, the problem is that the experiment is going to be very costly, as the effect to be detected is not going to be huge.
Third, well, there are some ethical (and not just ethical) problems with such experiments when they are used to test persons… No, it is not only true when we are dealing with “a petty crook, who cooks the books to escape detection”. It is true for others. For just imagine: wouldn’t it have been foolish and insulting if someone had responded with a try to “test”, let’s say, your statement about trying to be polite by a similar “double-blind experiment”…? And wouldn’t that also change the results of the “experiment”, to make it useless…?
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Of course you are correct. I am merely pointing out that the alleged “miraculous” claims **could **be used in a statistical analysis. And in those instances when they were used, the result was always negative.
So the scientists admit ignorance. I wonder on what grounds do they exclude a “spontaneous” remission (in the case of cancer)? What method is used to determine that the scientists exhausted all the possibilities? Scientists never claim omniscience, they can only declare that so far the search was unsuccessful. From that I see no “road” to the “miracle”. The only intellectually honest result is to declare: “we don’t know”. Bradski created an excellent response here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12601415&postcount=576, which shows how inappropriate it is to declare that we are “done” with testing.
It would raise a “flag”, that there is something to be investigated. And the more experiments we perform, which bring back a positive result, the more convinced we might become. This is exactly what is happening in the scientific process. The hypothesis gains credibility with each successful experiment. But the exact opposite is happening. The more experiment you perform, the number of negative outcomes is growing without any positive results. From this fact the conclusion should be drawn that there is no reason to assume that null-hypothesis is true.
But what happens in reality? The apologists declare that “God is not a vending machine”, and is not subject to testing. Of course they are wrong. The null-hypothesis is not about God, it is about the claims about God - which are more than proper to submit to “testing”. Moreover, if you go to the “Prayer intentions” sub-forum, you will see hundreds and thousands of supplicative prayers - which means that the supplicants see God as a “vending machine”. And you should remember that other “excuse” is that God will “twist” the results to avoid detection.
Ever since when was the quest for “Truth ™” to be decided on mere utilitarian (financial) grounds? Such an experiment might convince one atheist to convert, and thus gain “salvation”. Is that result not worth the expenditure? What value is placed on one saved “soul”? Besides, such experiments are routinely performed in the pharmaceutical industry (and the expenses are huge), but they are “worth” doing to make sure that the new drug performs as it should.
There is nothing wrong with that. People are subject to psychological testing in job interviews. First of all, if I would be notified that I am being tested, then the experiment would not be double blind any more. Second, it is a well known procedure that people try to “show off” when they know that they are being tested. In psychological tests there are all sorts of “hidden” questions, which are designed to detect if the tested person tries to “cheat”. But there is no ethical problem with trying to filter out biased responses.
If an apologist says that God will “skew” the results of an experiment just to avoid detection, it is insulting. It insinuates that God has something to hide, or does not wish to be “unmasked”. Of course, if one looks at the state of affairs in the world, then God’s attempt to avoid detection is pretty wise.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your failure to reply is further evidence for the truth of Christianity. Thank you!
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
That of course is a caricature of what I actually said, see post # 570.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
This “caricature” thing got on your collective mind. A caricature is not a distortion, it emphasizes the relevant features of someone or something to make it more readily recognizable. Just like Branski’s little summary of how ridiculous it is “declare” a miracle at some arbitrary point of time.
During a beatification or canonization process the “miracle” is declared if some person “prayed” to the target, and then there was a change in the condition. A typical fallacy of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
While this can be useful, sometimes it does create a distortion along the way.
M
MPat
Guest
To say that we have “spontaneous remission” is to say that we have no idea what we are talking about. It is not an explanation. There is nothing to “rule out”.
I don’t know. They wait until they can’t think of anything else to check?
And they do so.
Naturally, because you think that miracles are impossible.
Wait! How? Remember: you start with a prior probability of zero (you didn’t challenge that). That’s the point: no amount of evidence can change it.
And that makes this demand for evidence look strange: we already know that no amount of evidence will change anything, you also know that. So, why demand it?
That doesn’t look right. Null hypothesis is assumed to be true “by default”, one is looking for statistically significant evidence to reject it. And wouldn’t that null hypothesis be the one claiming non-miraculous explanations?
Also, lack of statistical significance simply means that we have found no reason to reject the null hypothesis. It does not mean that the alternative hypothesis is false. It might be that we simply need a larger sample size.
So, could you, please, explain, how do you understand the statement “God is not a vending machine.”? What, in your opinion, is meant to be behind that metaphor?
Exactly! So, what could we conclude for the case in which that “you” just happened to be omniscient…?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This is a very interesting appeal to MPat, but it, too, serves to undermine your entire position.
Let me try to break it down a bit further.
We should begin by pointing out the distinction between oberver, knower and agent. What you are trying to insist is that “observer” is the only possible role that human beings can play. Certainly, that role has been facilitated and enhanced by the scientific method such that we have come to believe that our observations accurately depict - to a more or less complete extent - the way the physical world functions. The accuracy of that depiction lends itself to an assumption that our observations allow us something approaching “knowledge” or certainty regarding the workings of the physical world.
The problem, however, is that all the data that comes from the physical world tells us absolutely NOTHING regarding what our agency should look like with respect to our being or living in that world.
As philosophers have long pointed out, the is-ought distinction remains intact. Knowing everything there is to know about the physical world tells us absolutely nothing about the way we OUGHT to act nor about the way the physical world, itself, ought to be.
You advocate leaving the ought question up to the individual as an entirely subjective one. But is that allowance true, workable or even coherent?
Knowing everything there is to know about the physical world tells us nothing about what it means to be an agent in that world. Playing the role of observer, even perfectly, does not fulfill in us the complete qualifications or “job description” for what it means to be an agent in the world or as “human,” properly speaking.
Knowing everything about objective things, what they are and how they function tells us NOTHING about what we are, as agents, and what we are to do day by day, minute by minute, second by second.
Here, I am not talking about physiology or biochemistry, but subjectivity itself. What am I? What ought I to do at this moment as an agent in the world?
Descartes’ cogito, accepted as given, tells me that I am, but does not tell me what I am nor what I am to do.
Likewise, taking on and completing fully the role of observer gets me absolutely nowhere with respect to the questions of, “What am I?” and “What am I to do?” precisely because focusing on the role of observer to the exclusion of answering those questions deflects attention away from them in the same way that an attention deficit makes it difficult or impossible to focus on any key issue to its complete resolution.
What is gravity? What is a quark? How does light travel? Etc., Etc. May be important questions, but how would I know that they are important to me until the question of: “Who or what am I?” gets fully and completely resolved. From there, the subordinate question of "What do I do, now? Can be addressed.
What you seem to be doing is using the “observer” mode to completely ignore and gloss over the knower and agent modes, precisely because your view of the observer mode entails that nothing can be known about agency qua agency but, rather, you insist that all of our resources should be dedicated to collecting evidence about the physical world with no attention whatsoever left to understanding what it means to be agents with a distinctively acausal relationship to the world.
You insist that physical evidence MUST be the foundation for all of our knowledge, yet you belie that very claim by impugning my motives regarding how I responded to Bradski. By what physical evidence can you say what I did was “bad” or “wrong?” Such a claim is equivalent to saying it was wrong of that tree to lose its leaves in the fall.
Yet, by pointing out the “badness” of my reply to Bradski you, thereby, have to admit that the role of agent has its own characteristic reality and qualities and that agency can be objectively assessed on its own qualitative merits - not simply by the observable character of physical reality.
You thereby admit the existence of an objective reality that supervenes on observable, physical reality - the existence of a reality “superior” to the merely observable one. Hence “supernatural” in its very essence.
Appealing to MPat to agree with you regarding your disgust at my reply to Bradski means that you believe agency is important and that whatever moves agents towards certain behaviours can be assessed on its own merits - not with any reference to physical causality or the way the observable world alone functions causally, but, rather, with reference to subjective agency as its own “supernatural” reality beyond the scope of the scientific method and methodological materialism.
The extent to which others will be convinced and offended by my “cheap” trick is the extent to which they must accept the transcendent nature of agency. A strict materialist simply cannot be offended at all or, at least, only to the extent that they might be offended by trees losing leaves. Your offense registers on the “offense” scale only to the extent that you accept the reality of agency as a transcendent and supernatural reality all its own.
Ergo, you have just undermined your own position by expressing tangible offense and insisting others must share that offense.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The above also puts into question the inconsistency of
- Your claimed “hiatus” from this thread on the pretext that it went “moral” rather than scientific, as if “moral” is an altogether inconsequential category of reality compared to “observable” AND
- The moral offense you register at the “unfair” or petulant comments of other posters as if those are sufficient to put you off this thread, entirely.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The reason Branski’s [sic] post was without doubt a caricature is because he deliberately disregarded in his depiction the fact that claims regarding miraculous healings take many years (not just a week or two with a Friday deadline) and that the deliberations of up to 250 different medical professionals (not merely 2) are required to resolve in the mind of Church officials the question of whether the healing qualifies to be called a miracle.
If you don’t see that as a caricature of reality, there is not much left to discuss since you clearly do not understand that a caricature is a deliberate distortion of reality to highlight a point.
I am sure Branski [sic] recognizes his post as a caricature, which was precisely his intent - to create a bit of atheist Christmas cheer under the influence of “blue skies and champagne cocktails.”
Alcohol does have a way of distorting reality in the minds of those under its influence - which goes a long way towards explaining Branski’s [sic] post.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Yeah, it was actually pretty funny, I enjoyed it.I am sure Branski [sic] recognizes his post as a caricature, which was precisely his intent - to create a bit of atheist Christmas cheer under the influence of “blue skies and champagne cocktails.”
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Of course that is not an explanation. It is the admission of ignorance. There are cancer cases when the tumor vanishes, and the doctors have no explanation for it. But none of them has the audacity to claim that a “miracle” happened.
Yes. And that does not mean that there is nothing else to check, only that they ran out of ideas. Which is neither here nor there.
Sure… but that does not mean that I claim omniscience. If there is compelling evidence, I am willing to reconsider.
Sorry, that is something YOU said, not I. I can think of many possible scenarios and experiments which would provide compelling evidence that you are right and I am wrong.
Of course all of them would be “testing God”, which is not permissible.Actually, the purpose of the tests is to see what does the evidence show. Let the chips fall where they may. If they support the hypothesis, our confidence will grow. If they don’t support it, the hypothesis must be discarded or modified. To be even more precise, even one negative result will disqualify the hypothesis.
I consider it a “cop-out”. One asks for a “favor” from God, and if it so happens that favor seems to get granted, then the supplicant will praise God for it. If the favor is not granted (which is 99.9999…% of the time), then the supplicant will say: “it was against God’s will”. That is why the supplicative prayers are supposed to include the phrase: “if it be thy will” - to give an “excuse” to God to hide above the clouds. But the “Prayer intentions” sub-forum shows that God IS being treated like a “vending machine”.
I have no idea what you mean here. I simply pointed out that there is no ethical problem with checking out the trustworthiness of a “witness”.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
That is only a **quantitative **difference, not a **qualitative **one. As I said to Al, the caricature is designed to **enhance **the problems and inconsistencies of a given stance.
Sorry, you totally misunderstood my “appeal”. It was only about the tone of my posts, not the substance of them. She (I make an unwarranted assumption here based upon the style of “her” posts - if I am wrong, please correct me) chided me for the tone of some of my posts, and I promised that I will try to do better. That is all.
Also I would like to see a reply to my response about the impossibility of “proving a negative”. You said:
Are you going to maintain that it is possible to “prove” that an event did NOT happen? Of that an entity does NOT exist? Last time I checked one can only prove a negative in a formal, axiomatic system.
- Status