Do miracles obey the laws of physics ?

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

The external wold is real

What is reality?

This is not reality...

[slycordinator]

Rathma, an explanation doesn't need an explanation to be a good explanation.

Not only that, but there isn't a need for every explanation itself to have an explanation.

[Ħ]

snip

sup William Lane Craig

Yeah, Omega, that was pretty much verbatim from a youtube video of WLC. Not that it matters, because it's the information that's presented that's important, not who is presenting it.

[Rathma]

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.

Then I'd propose that it's really arbitrary exactly at which point we decide something is a good explanation. In every era people think they have good explanations. It's probably only in recent years that people have started to think of some things as actually lacking good explanations.

[Omega]

snip

sup William Lane Craig

Yeah, Omega, that was pretty much verbatim from a youtube video of WLC. Not that it matters, because it's the information that's presented that's important, not who is presenting it.

Yea, our Philosophy professor seared those words into our minds. Not coincidentally, he too is an admirer of WLC and while WLC states the limitations of science quite elegantly, this is something you typically learn in a beginning level philosophy class.

[Scheavo]

snip

sup William Lane Craig

Yeah, Omega, that was pretty much verbatim from a youtube video of WLC. Not that it matters, because it's the information that's presented that's important, not who is presenting it.

Yea, our Philosophy professor seared those words into our minds. Not coincidentally, he too is an admirer of WLC and while WLC states the limitations of science quite elegantly, this is something you typically learn in a beginning level philosophy class.

Skepticism is also taught pretty heavily in philosophy.

[Omega]

Absolutely

[Super Dude]

Absolutely

No, because skepticism precludes the acceptance of absolutes.

This is fun.

Also:

The external wold is real

What is reality?

This is not reality...

Is this just fantasy?

[The Dark Master]

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality......






 

[Implode]

From DT to Queen. Okay.

[Omega]

From DT to Queen. Okay.

Open your eyes

[Implode]

From DT to Queen. Okay.

Open your eyes

And turn off your mind.

[Super Dude]

Tune in, tune out, and drop out.

[El Barto]

OP:  watch Inherit the Wind.  Not only do they discuss this very problem, but it's a great movie with a great cast.  Gene Kelly as the fake H.L. Mencken was one of my all-time favorite movie characters.

One of the arguments made was something about Joshua stopping the sun (presumably to give him more daylight for slaughtering naughty people).  You get a neat trickle-down effect there, where even if it were possible to stop the Earth's rotation, the result would be cataclysmic due to all of the other laws of nature.   

[Omega]

In response to the original post, I'd say that if you believe in an omnipotent God who created the universe and its very laws, there should be no reason why he couldn't bend or ignore the laws He created in the first place.

[Beowulf]

I think, therefore I am wrong (according to my wife).
I just shouldn't think.

[Rathma]

You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to be the one telling your wife that. Silly.

[Omega]

And here I thought it involved saying something about a kitchen...

[Scheavo]

Absolutely

Well, you don't seem to have taken the lessons about skepticism nearly as seriously as you did lessons about absolutes and Truths.

[Omega]

Absolutely

Well, you don't seem to have taken the lessons about skepticism nearly as seriously as you did lessons about absolutes and Truths.

Absolutely

[Beowulf]

You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to be the one telling your wife that. Silly.

YOU haven't met my wife.    



I joke.  She's not like that at all. 
I hope she doesn't see this.
PLEASE, for God's sakes, DON'T tell her what I said!!!

[Scheavo]

Absolutely

Well, you don't seem to have taken the lessons about skepticism nearly as seriously as you did lessons about absolutes and Truths.

Absolutely

So how do you logically justify ignoring half of the philosophical tradition, including the accredited Western founder, Socrates?

[Omega]

Who ever said I ignore any philosophical tradition?

[Scheavo]

Not learning from an opposing philosophical traditions viewpoint is tantamount to ignoring that tradition, if you ask me. It ignores one the most basic principles of critical thinking, which is giving the other person the benefit of the doubt.

There's also the lessons to be learned from science, and the scientific method. Science, and the scientific tradition, are inherently skeptical (even if not every scientist is). I'd say you'd have to be ignoring this philosophical tradition (the scientific method) in order to claim absolutes.

[Omega]

Not learning from an opposing philosophical traditions viewpoint is tantamount to ignoring that tradition, if you ask me. It ignores one the most basic principles of critical thinking, which is giving the other person the benefit of the doubt.

There's also the lessons to be learned from science, and the scientific method. Science, and the scientific tradition, are inherently skeptical (even if not every scientist is). I'd say you'd have to be ignoring this philosophical tradition (the scientific method) in order to claim absolutes.

And who ever said I'm not learning from opposing philosophical traditions?

I think you're taking what I originally posted too far. I pointed out the limitations of science and the folly of believing it to be the only rational method of acquiring knowledge. No need no stake me on a pitchfork for it. And, if it wasn't obvious enough, when I responded "Absolutely" to your question, I wasn't being entirely serious.

[Super Dude]

Not to butt in or anything, but is not one of science's strong points the fact that, if it does explain a phenomenon correctly, it will allow the practitioner to reproduce those results independently? I mean, how can one cause a phenomenon to occur by one's own devices but with a valid understanding of how said phenomenon works?

[Scheavo]

Not learning from an opposing philosophical traditions viewpoint is tantamount to ignoring that tradition, if you ask me. It ignores one the most basic principles of critical thinking, which is giving the other person the benefit of the doubt.

There's also the lessons to be learned from science, and the scientific method. Science, and the scientific tradition, are inherently skeptical (even if not every scientist is). I'd say you'd have to be ignoring this philosophical tradition (the scientific method) in order to claim absolutes.

And who ever said I'm not learning from opposing philosophical traditions?

Because you keep claiming absolutes, and arguing for a specific Truth. I feel I should put it better, becuase I'm sure you're learning from opposing philosophical traditions, but you aren't searching for how they are True, but responding to them from your own position . Objections are often "non-serious," meaning you're not delving into the logic nor reasons behind the objections.

[Omega]

I'm not sure how this conversation started and am not sure where it is going.

[Dr. DTVT]

They obey the laws of physics.  No unexplained events happened on Feb. 22, 1980, the only miracle recorded on video.

Of course I really subscribe to the idea that miracles aren't real, they are either something that we don't have the scientific knowledge to explain, or they are a gross misrepresentation of the facts, with the latter scenario being more common as our knowledge base expands and people willing to go to greater lengths for their 15 minutes of fame.