Do miracles obey the laws of physics ?

[Chino]

I had a random thought whilst on the toilet this morning. Do miracles need to follow the laws of physics? For example, the fish and bread being turned into many. Did the matter that was needed to create the extra food just appear, or did atoms vanish from other substances in order for them to be created?

[Rathma]

better obey Lawson

[kári]

Lawson physics are the worst of all physics.

[GuineaPig]

Miracles don't happen.

[Rathma]

Miracles don't happen.

How do you explain magnets then?

[yeshaberto]

that is a good question, chino.

you have blown my mind 

[SeRoX]

Before answering this question, we must give an answer about existence of miracles. To me, they don't happen. I can't accept anything that can't be explained by science. I know it's personal belief so people believe whatever they want.

[Rathma]

I can't accept anything that can't be explained by science.

Science doesn't "explain" anything. It only provides useful concepts and whatnot to better predict and manipulate our environment.

[Ħ]

Maybe, maybe not. For example, evolution playing out the way it did in the lifespan of the universe is astronomically improbable, but still possible under nature's laws. But the splitting of the sea, though, doesn't work through nature's laws alone. So it depends.

[Scheavo]

I can't accept anything that can't be explained by science.

Science doesn't "explain" anything. It only provides useful concepts and whatnot to better predict and manipulate our environment.

I think I get what your point is, and on some level I agree with it, but this is just wrong as well. Science is extremely helpful in explaining things. Comets and asteroids used to be given supernatural origins. Science and astronomy explained where they come from, and did away with the mystery.

[SeRoX]

I can't accept anything that can't be explained by science.

Science doesn't "explain" anything.

 

[Rathma]

I can't accept anything that can't be explained by science.

Science doesn't "explain" anything. It only provides useful concepts and whatnot to better predict and manipulate our environment.

I think I get what your point is, and on some level I agree with it, but this is just wrong as well. Science is extremely helpful in explaining things. Comets and asteroids used to be given supernatural origins. Science and astronomy explained where they come from, and did away with the mystery.

My point is that when something is "explained", all that is going on is that a subject believes that it has mentally conquered a mystery. An explanation always demands further explanation, and the point that we decide that we have enough explanations to claim victory seems pretty arbitrary to me. It's not that science is helpful in explaining, it's that its explanations are helpful.

[Ħ]

Rathma, an explanation doesn't need an explanation to be a good explanation. There no good explanation of gravity  that I know of, but gravity itself is a good explanation for why objects behave the way they do.

[Scheavo]

I can't accept anything that can't be explained by science.

Science doesn't "explain" anything. It only provides useful concepts and whatnot to better predict and manipulate our environment.

I think I get what your point is, and on some level I agree with it, but this is just wrong as well. Science is extremely helpful in explaining things. Comets and asteroids used to be given supernatural origins. Science and astronomy explained where they come from, and did away with the mystery.

My point is that when something is "explained", all that is going on is that a subject believes that it has mentally conquered a mystery. An explanation always demands further explanation, and the point that we decide that we have enough explanations to claim victory seems pretty arbitrary to me. It's not that science is helpful in explaining, it's that its explanations are helpful.

Then explain to me why I'm typing this on a computer screen, over the internet, and talking to someone who, I can only imagine, is some sort of monkey/primate. Science may not given final answers, but it does giving worldly power to manipulate, and do things not otherwise possible.

And I still agree with your overall point. Science is one way we have conquered and controlled part of the world. It is not an explanation that fully satisfies our human desire for an explanation, as it simply passes the ball along.

[Rathma]

Science may not given final answers

That is all I am saying bro. Anyways, the reason I pointed it out was because SeRoX said he won't accept anything that can't be explained by science, which is silly. We don't know the mechanism of gravity but we still accept it. Perhaps he meant to say he only tolerates explanations provided in scientific lingo, which is fine by me.

[SeRoX]

Perhaps he meant to say he only tolerates explanations provided in scientific lingo, which is fine by me.

Yes. Science may not give you a exact explanation or result but may give you and reasonable and acceptable ways to describe about what they are. So I call "this" as a scientific explanation.

[Ħ]

Perhaps he meant to say he only tolerates explanations provided in scientific lingo, which is fine by me.

Yes. Science may not give you a exact explanation or result but may give you and reasonable and acceptable ways to describe about what they are. So I call "this" as a scientific explanation.

So what you meant is "I can't accept anything that hasn't been explained by reason."

[SeRoX]

Perhaps he meant to say he only tolerates explanations provided in scientific lingo, which is fine by me.

Yes. Science may not give you a exact explanation or result but may give you and reasonable and acceptable ways to describe about what they are. So I call "this" as a scientific explanation.

So what you meant is "I can't accept anything that hasn't been explained by reason."

Yeah, you can tell that. Scientific reasons, of course.

[rumborak]

My experience so far has been that the "miraculousness" of the event is more a function of the observer.

rumborak

[Omega]

I can't accept anything that can't be explained by science.

Are you kidding? There's a good number of things that cannot be scientifically proven or explained:

1.) Logical and Mathematical truths. Science pre-supposes logic and math. To try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

2.) Metaphysical, Ontological and Epistemological truths (eg The external wold is real, the external world is intelligible, there exist minds other than my own, the past was not created 5 minutes ago with an illusion of age, we can trust our own senses to provide accurate information of the external world, I am not a brain in a vat being shocked with electrodes to induce this reality, etc)

3.) Ethical beliefs and statements of value; Science cannot tell you whether genocide is evil and charity good or that one is morally superior to the other.

4.) Aesthetic judgments. The beautiful, like the good or evil, cannot be scientifically proven.

and

5.) Science itself; science cannot be justified by the scientific method. To do so would be arguing in a circle. Science is also permeated with countless unprovable assumptions (gravity, special relativity, constants, etc).

[SeRoX]

I can't accept anything that can't be explained by science.

Are you kidding? There's a good number of things that cannot be scientifically proven or explained:

1.) Logical and Mathematical truths. Science pre-supposes logical and math. To try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

2.) Metaphysical, Ontological and Epistemological truths (eg The external wold is real, the external world is intelligible, there exist minds other than my own, the past was not created 5 minutes ago with an illusion of age, we can trust our own senses to provide accurate information of the external world, I am not a brain in a vat being shocked with electrodes to induce this reality, etc)

3.) Ethical beliefs and statements of value; Science cannot tell you whether genocide is evil and charity good or that one is morally superior to the other.

4.) Aesthetic judgments. The beautiful, like the good or evil, cannot be scientifically proven.

and

5.) Science itself; science cannot be justified by the scientific method. To do so would be arguing in a circle. Science is also permeated with countless unprovable assumptions (gravity, special relativity, constants, etc).

1- I also explained what I mean. Science may not give you the result but reasonable explanations.

2,3,4,: Like I stated: Personal beliefs and metaphysical things. I also have them on my own and they don't need to be proven by science.

5: The way you say is science itself, can't related it with my thought.

[Omega]

1- I also explained what I mean. Science may not give you the result but reasonable explanations.

2,3,4,: Like I stated: Personal beliefs and metaphysical things. I also have them on my own and they don't need to be proven by science.

5: The way you say is science itself, can't related it with my thought.

Sorry, but what?

[Rathma]

snip

sup William Lane Craig

[Adami]

Well it was fun while it lasted.

[Scheavo]

Omega, notice how your 2-4 have a variety of answers, and depends upon the person you're asking? I'd also point out that many of the "truths" you bring up in number 2 are assumptions as well, and not proven, or provable.

[SeRoX]

^That, obliviously.

[Omega]

Omega, notice how your 2-4 have a variety of answers, and depends upon the person you're asking? I'd also point out that many of the "truths" you bring up in number 2 are assumptions as well, and not proven, or provable.

Scheavo, you'd have to either have an incredible poker face or be willing to condemn your entire worldview if you are about to posit that you believe that the world is unintelligible, or that you are a brain in a vat being stimulated by electrodes to have some sort of reality induced upon you, etc.

[Adami]

Omega, notice how your 2-4 have a variety of answers, and depends upon the person you're asking? I'd also point out that many of the "truths" you bring up in number 2 are assumptions as well, and not proven, or provable.

Scheavo, you'd have to either have an incredible poker face or be willing to condemn your entire worldview if you are about to posit that you believe that the world is unintelligible, or that you are a brain in a vat being stimulated by electrodes to have some sort of reality induced upon you, etc.

Not saying that it is is the case, just that we can't know it's not.

[jsem]

The external wold is real

What is reality?

[Omega]

Omega, notice how your 2-4 have a variety of answers, and depends upon the person you're asking? I'd also point out that many of the "truths" you bring up in number 2 are assumptions as well, and not proven, or provable.

Scheavo, you'd have to either have an incredible poker face or be willing to condemn your entire worldview if you are about to posit that you believe that the world is unintelligible, or that you are a brain in a vat being stimulated by electrodes to have some sort of reality induced upon you, etc.

Not saying that it is is the case, just that we can't know it's not.

Of course. These are properly basic beliefs.

[Omega]

The external wold is real

What is reality?

I think that's something you should answer for yourself.

[Chino]

Omega, notice how your 2-4 have a variety of answers, and depends upon the person you're asking? I'd also point out that many of the "truths" you bring up in number 2 are assumptions as well, and not proven, or provable.

Scheavo, you'd have to either have an incredible poker face or be willing to condemn your entire worldview if you are about to posit that you believe that the world is unintelligible, or that you are a brain in a vat being stimulated by electrodes to have some sort of reality induced upon you, etc.

Not saying that it is is the case, just that we can't know it's not.

Fucking Descartes.

[Scheavo]

Omega, notice how your 2-4 have a variety of answers, and depends upon the person you're asking? I'd also point out that many of the "truths" you bring up in number 2 are assumptions as well, and not proven, or provable.

Scheavo, you'd have to either have an incredible poker face or be willing to condemn your entire worldview if you are about to posit that you believe that the world is unintelligible, or that you are a brain in a vat being stimulated by electrodes to have some sort of reality induced upon you, etc.

The world, as a whole, is unintelligible. Only parts of it are intelligible, and when you dig deeper, many of those collapse into intelligibility. Do I take assumptions and prejudices about the world around me? Never denied that, and I never denied that I disagree with all your basic assumptions. However, whereas you call them Truths, and thinks which can be known, I call them beliefs, assumptions, prejudices, and other things which are not the Truth, or known.

[Omega]

Ok... 

[The Dark Master]

On the OP:


Personally, I've always held the belief that any supernatural activity follows some sort of science, but it is a science either a) we do not yet have the ability to perceive and  understand, or, perhaps, b)it is a science that is simply beyond our ability, as mere mortals, to ever perceive and understand.  So if there are gods, angels, demons, fey, ghosts, spirits, magic and other things out there that defy physics as we currently understand them, it is not because they are beyond science per se, rather, it is simply because they are beyond our current limited understanding of science itself.