Topic: Miracle! (Read 5446 times)

rareairpug · « **on:** December 21, 2006, 11:09:48 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061220/sc_nm/britain_dragons_dc

Well? It goes against all our experience and the expectations of the natural order. It must be a miracle, right?

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 23, 2006, 12:12:37 PM »

It would be a miracle if one forgot how common it was back in the days of the Roman Empire. At that time, it wasn't unheard of for powerful people to have been the result of divine fatherhood and virgin birth. Why, even before Jesus, there was Caesar Augustus himself. Of course, in Caesar's case, they just made the story up.

Dicoll · « **Reply #2 on:** December 23, 2006, 12:24:34 PM »

Quote from: rareairpug on December 21, 2006, 11:09:48 PM

It goes against all our experience and the expectations of the natural order. It must be a miracle, right?

It sounds as if the lizard cloned herself. The ultimate form of incest.

rareairpug · « **Reply #3 on:** December 25, 2006, 12:13:51 AM »

Quote

It would be a miracle if one forgot how common it was back in the days of the Roman Empire. At that time, it wasn't unheard of for powerful people to have been the result of divine fatherhood and virgin birth. Why, even before Jesus, there was Caesar Augustus himself. Of course, in Caesar's case, they just made the story up.

But there is actual evidence here. This isn't a made up story. Or do you distrust this account?

Copernicus · « **Reply #4 on:** December 25, 2006, 12:00:50 PM »

Quote from: rareairpug on December 25, 2006, 12:13:51 AM

Quote
It would be a miracle if one forgot how common it was back in the days of the Roman Empire. At that time, it wasn't unheard of for powerful people to have been the result of divine fatherhood and virgin birth. Why, even before Jesus, there was Caesar Augustus himself. Of course, in Caesar's case, they just made the story up.

But there is actual evidence here. This isn't a made up story. Or do you distrust this account?

Which account? That Octavian was the product of a virgin birth? Frankly, I consider the evidence for it weak, but there were many gullible Romans who apparently believed the accounts.

rareairpug · « **Reply #5 on:** December 25, 2006, 01:46:11 PM »

Don't be coy... There was physical examination of the lizard in question. I don't know of any such study of Octavian's mother. Tell me, why isn't this a miracle?

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2006, 05:32:46 PM »

Quote from: rareairpug on December 25, 2006, 01:46:11 PM

Don't be coy... There was physical examination of the lizard in question. I don't know of any such study of Octavian's mother. Tell me, why isn't this a miracle?

If it were a miracle, it would be inexplicable by natural laws. However, this is only the first observation of parthenogenesis in this particular lizard. The phenomenon is well-known, and it has been observed in other species of lizard. The genetics are such that all the offspring are male. In this way, a single female lizard can populate an area by mating with its offspring. I doubt that Apollo had this in mind when he mated with Augustus Caesar's mom.

Sorry for the coyness, but I just couldn't resist.

rareairpug · « **Reply #7 on:** December 26, 2006, 12:18:53 AM »

Quote

If it were a miracle, it would be inexplicable by natural laws.

Well, it was.......but wait for it....

Quote

However, this is only the first observation of parthenogenesis in this particular lizard

....and there it is! So, once something happens, it can't actually be a miracle anymore. And you wonder why you can't seem to find any evidence for miracles.....

Merry Christmas, my friend.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 26, 2006, 02:55:41 AM »

Quote from: rareairpug on December 26, 2006, 12:18:53 AM

....and there it is! So, once something happens, it can't actually be a miracle anymore. And you wonder why you can't seem to find any evidence for miracles.....

Merry Christmas, my friend.

There are more likely scenarios for Mary's pregnancy than parthenogenesis or impregnation by a divinity.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too. I'll be on my way to India in a few hours. I may get a chance to drop back in after I arrive.

rareairpug · « **Reply #9 on:** December 26, 2006, 10:39:30 PM »

But I didn't ask about Mary....I'm talking about the lizard...

There will always be more likely scenarios for unexplained events as long as naturalists can claim that once something happens---it must be natural.

Safe travels!

rareairpug · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2007, 10:34:24 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_sc/britain_virgin_birth

It has actually come to pass now. No one should have any excuse for not believing in God now that a MIRACLE has taken place...

Deep Thought · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2007, 10:07:49 AM »

*shakes head in exasperation and places his late Christmas card on the table*

rareairpug · « **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2007, 03:51:26 PM »

Hey DT--

Hopefully you're reading through my sarcasm and seeing the point of my bringing this story to our attention. I'm not sure I would consider the virgin birth of a lizard reason to believe in a god, but the point of the thread was to ascertain whether the definition of "miracle" given by certain personalities on this forum would be consistently applied or not. So far, it doesn't look like it.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:39:24 AM »

Quote from: rareairpug on January 25, 2007, 03:51:26 PM

Hey DT--

Hopefully you're reading through my sarcasm and seeing the point of my bringing this story to our attention. I'm not sure I would consider the virgin birth of a lizard reason to believe in a god, but the point of the thread was to ascertain whether the definition of "miracle" given by certain personalities on this forum would be consistently applied or not. So far, it doesn't look like it.

I'm not quite following you, I'm afraid. How does the lizard example do this?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:22:21 PM »

DT, Rare is going after the contention by some atheists on this board that our daily experiences that gel to form general rules (we call them the 'laws of nature') definitively exhaust reality. So, here, Rare, says, is an event that mysteriously manages to defy those laws- observed right before our eyes- so now, will the atheists admit to the existence of the supernatural? Shouldn't this be a miracle by their estimation?

This is all probably beyond what Rare was getting at but this raises other corrollaries that fit within Rare's points that provides all sorts of fodder for a feller like me.

We know that the atheist's expectations about evidence of the supernatural are completely malleable so that no matter what evidence is produced, since they already know the supernatural doesn't exist, the evidence cannot support the supernatural.

Take the example of this parthenogenesis among lizards as an example... as parthenogenesis is observed more and more, it no longer belongs in the category of singularities awaiting naturalistic explanations, but rather becomes part of the 'general rules.' Parthenogenesis among humans may yet be observed, and can we expect at that time that something like the alleged virgin birth of Jesus will no longer be mocked and derided the way witnessed on this thread? After all, repeated observations of parthenogenesis would show that it WAS possible, right? Of course not.

At the very moment when the 'miracle' becomes palatable to the atheist it no longer is able to serve as evidence for the supernatural, either. If they ever find a way to raise a person from the dead they'll still poo-poo the resurrection!

This is why I make such a fuss about epistemology on these boards. For God to do something that distinguishes him as God and so be known as God is not as simple as one might think.

rareairpug · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:31:10 PM »

DT-

A miracle is supposedly some deviation from the natural order; something that goes against the natural laws as we know them to operate. This lizard is an example of such an occurence. We would expect reproduction only to occur as the result of the female lizard being impregnated by a male lizard. But when I presented this idea, no one would accept it as a miracle. Why not? Cop's response was: "If it were a miracle, it would be inexplicable by natural laws. However, this is only the first observation of parthenogenesis in this particular lizard."

Of course, this makes one wonder. If everything that is observed is classified as natural, how could one ever classify something as supernatural? It appears the modus operandi of the anti-miracle crowd is to claim that once something happens, it must therefore be natural. Of course, this would mean that miracles cannot possibly exist in their worldview. That is the inconsistency I was attempting to point out.

Copernicus · « **Reply #16 on:** January 27, 2007, 11:40:14 AM »

Quote from: rareairpug on January 26, 2007, 10:31:10 PM

A miracle is supposedly some deviation from the natural order; something that goes against the natural laws as we know them to operate. This lizard is an example of such an occurence. We would expect reproduction only to occur as the result of the female lizard being impregnated by a male lizard. But when I presented this idea, no one would accept it as a miracle. Why not? Cop's response was: "If it were a miracle, it would be inexplicable by natural laws. However, this is only the first observation of parthenogenesis in this particular lizard."

You seem to have missed my point, Rare. There is no natural mystery here. Lizards are prone to parthenogenesis, and it is not all that surprising that this particular species follows the pattern. A miracle is something that runs counter to natural laws, and this is simply not that type of phenomenon.

It seems to me that you have confused science with religion here. Both religion and science attempt to address surprising or unusual phenomena. Religion proceeds from the assumption that events can and do happen that contravene physical laws. Those are miracles. Science proceeds from the assumption that all observed physical events can be explained by natural physical laws, and it seeks the best description of those laws. Scientifically inexplicable phenomena only invite scientists to reformulate physical laws. They do not necessarily lead one to believe that the whole enterprise must be abandoned on the grounds that some mystery happens not to be momentarily explicable by existing theories. (The parthenogenesis case, however, is by no means scientifically inexplicable under existing theories.)

Quote

Of course, this makes one wonder. If everything that is observed is classified as natural, how could one ever classify something as supernatural? It appears the modus operandi of the anti-miracle crowd is to claim that once something happens, it must therefore be natural. Of course, this would mean that miracles cannot possibly exist in their worldview. That is the inconsistency I was attempting to point out.

It is never possible to know in an absolute sense whether a given observation is compatible or incompatible with natural physical laws, but it is certainly possible to recognize phenomena that are so bizarre as to be unlikely candidates for natural explanation. In theory, God could cancel out the laws of momentum--literally stop the world in its tracks without causing widespread havoc. He could perform an endless set of acts that most reasonable scientists would perceive as bona fide miracles. That we don't ever observe such events in a manner that allows us to verify their occurrence is reason to believe that the scientific approach is superior to the religious approach. It has a much better track record at explaining the nature of unusual or unexpected events. Centuries ago, it was normal for humans to attribute weather phenomena, earthquakes, meteor strikes, tsunamis, and a host of other phenomena as miraculous interventions by gods. Nowadays, only the most ignorant among us clings to such an interpretation. We've come not to expect miracles, because scientific materialism has done a much better job than religion of explaining such things.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #17 on:** January 27, 2007, 02:17:10 PM »

Weeeeeeeelllllllll....

....

....

Lizard Debate:

Copernicus: 1 - rareairpug: 0

Sorry, Rare. ^_^'

rareairpug · « **Reply #18 on:** January 27, 2007, 07:00:40 PM »

Quote

It seems to me that you have confused science with religion here. Both religion and science attempt to address surprising or unusual phenomena. Religion proceeds from the assumption that events can and do happen that contravene physical laws. Those are miracles. Science proceeds from the assumption that all observed physical events can be explained by natural physical laws, and it seeks the best description of those laws. Scientifically inexplicable phenomena only invite scientists to reformulate physical laws. They do not necessarily lead one to believe that the whole enterprise must be abandoned on the grounds that some mystery happens not to be momentarily explicable by existing theories. (The parthenogenesis case, however, is by no means scientifically inexplicable under existing theories.)

I underlined the part I thought was relevant. Just reinforces what I've been saying: There is no way anyone with Cop's viewpoint will ever concede a miracle has occurred. When naturalists can't explain something they just change the rules of the game.

Quote

It is never possible to know in an absolute sense whether a given observation is compatible or incompatible with natural physical laws, but it is certainly possible to recognize phenomena that are so bizarre as to be unlikely candidates for natural explanation. In theory, God could cancel out the laws of momentum--literally stop the world in its tracks without causing widespread havoc. He could perform an endless set of acts that most reasonable scientists would perceive as bona fide miracles.

Absurd. When something bizarre happens, you can "reformulate physical laws" as you mentioned above, or simply claim that since it has occurred it must be natural. If your assumption is that all events are best explained by natural laws, then how exactly could you come to a conclusion that an event was NOT best explained by natural laws? In other words, is there any way to PROVE that something is not explainable naturally? Is your hypothesis falsifiable?

Quote

That we don't ever observe such events in a manner that allows us to verify their occurrence is reason to believe that the scientific approach is superior to the religious approach. It has a much better track record at explaining the nature of unusual or unexpected events.

So when we assume that all events are best explained by natural laws, we come to the conclusion that all events are best explained by natural laws. I'm shocked.

Quote

Centuries ago, it was normal for humans to attribute weather phenomena, earthquakes, meteor strikes, tsunamis, and a host of other phenomena as miraculous interventions by gods. Nowadays, only the most ignorant among us clings to such an interpretation. We've come not to expect miracles, because scientific materialism has done a much better job than religion of explaining such things.

You've come not to expect miracles because your starting assumption is that they do not occur. No big surprise there.

Copernicus · « **Reply #19 on:** January 27, 2007, 10:57:04 PM »

Quote from: rareairpug on January 27, 2007, 07:00:40 PM

Absurd. When something bizarre happens, you can "reformulate physical laws" as you mentioned above, or simply claim that since it has occurred it must be natural. If your assumption is that all events are best explained by natural laws, then how exactly could you come to a conclusion that an event was NOT best explained by natural laws? In other words, is there any way to PROVE that something is not explainable naturally? Is your hypothesis falsifiable?

I tried to answer you honestly, but you have consistently refused to accept any answer that violates your preconceptions about skeptics. In your eyes, we are inherently stubborn and recalcitrant people who would reject any real miracles out of hand. And so you think that this justifies your god's failure to even attempt to impress skeptics with a few genuine miracles. (A non-existent god, of course, would also fail to try to impress us.

) Apparently, even an omnipotent god can do nothing to cure us of our mental blindness.

But the fact remains that the Bible and other works of mythology report many miracles that would impress skeptics as violations of natural law--resurrections of the dead, angels in the sky, people turned into pillars of salt, people having missing body parts instantly reattached, etc. If you think that such phenomena would be taken as scientifically explicable by most skeptics, you are dreaming. All that we observe--including parthenogenic lizards--is explicable by natural laws. There is no need to classify any observable phenomena as remotely like the kind of miracles found in the Bible, although you were all to quick too do so in the OP with a rather mundane example of parthenogenesis in a lizard species.

Quote

So when we assume that all events are best explained by natural laws, we come to the conclusion that all events are best explained by natural laws. I'm shocked.

I am not shocked that you can produce no events that are best explained otherwise. Give us some real candidates for miracles. Like those reported in your Bible. I can certainly produce lots of falsely reported miracles, and I see no difference between such reports and reports of Christian miracles. The fact is that it is you who clings stubbornly to a preconception--the preconception that miracles do happen, even if you can't produce any real evidence that they happen. Nobody is ever going to prove that miracles never happen, so you think that this licenses an unsupported belief. I disagree. Miracles are possible, but experience suggests that they are highly unlikely. Science has a convincing track record of discovering real explanations, and religion has an abysmal one of discovering genuine miracles.

Quote

You've come not to expect miracles because your starting assumption is that they do not occur. No big surprise there.

Your criticism cuts both ways. You've come to accept that miracles happen because of your starting assumption that reports of miracles in your holy literature were true. You have no reasonable evidence to support that assumption.

Author Topic: Miracle! (Read 5446 times)