If a friend came to me and said that he had seen a vision of a glowing ethereal ‘flying spaghetti monster’, that spoke to him, and told him that (for an example), (s)he could save the world by doing X, or whatever compelling statement this vision might make. And this friend came to me convinced of the validity of this vision, my first thought would be that (s)he, is in need of emergency psychiatric help, or has been drinking/smoking/ingesting something that may have caused a hallucination.
If you substitute ‘the Virgin Mary’ for the ‘flying Spaghetti Monster’, why are people so much more willing to believe in this hallucination? My other question is: if you do truly believe in the existence of heaven and hell, with all of the accompanying creatures, since we have no idea what Mary or Jesus looked like, other than anthropologically(paintings don’t count). How do you know it is not the ‘devil’ masquerading as ‘Mary’ to entice you to commit an act contrary to what ‘God’ wants you to do.According to the Bible, he is certainly capable of this deception.
How so? Does one not have the option of taking the contrary when I ask “Agree?”?
Yes, naturalism does not include miracles. They are not natural phenomena and we can not now say anything about them scientifically.
Why are miracles not natural phenomena?
I didn’t say a miracle could not be a natural phenomena, that seems to be both our points.
I added some bold emphasis to one of the things you previously stated.
I have trouble reconciling that with your statement just above. I’m disinclined to answer further until we get past this failure to communicate. From where I sit, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I look forward to the explanation.
If you explain what contradiction you see, then maybe I can help you out.
Random and causeless generation of quantum particles. I thought I’d been over this already. Perhaps you should define the way you’re using “miracles.”
This isn’t evidence for miracles. It’s a (purported) explanation of them.
As an explanation it is vacuous, for it results only in the useless prediction that particles will occur randomly (aka cannot be predicted). Predicting the specific randomness would be useful (except it is apparently contradictory, as something random is unpredictable by definition in terms of natural laws).
It’s also disingenuous, since you clearly don’t believe that these (purported) miracles were random events. You believe they were created by God.
It’s not disingenuous, because my argumentation doesn’t depend on what I believe about it. But suggesting that it’s disingenuous because of what I believe about it is a good candidate for disingenuousness, ironically enough.
Another thing that’s getting lost in this discussion is the distinction between deterministic and probabilistic causation. Deterministic causation is only a limiting case of the probabilistic sort; it happens when the probability of the effect succeeding the cause is 100%. We know from quantum mechanical experimentation that all micro-causation is probabilistic in nature. So too is much daily macroscopic causation: smoking does not cause lung cancer with 100% efficiency. Nor do gunshot wounds cause death with 100% efficiency. These are all statistical correlations between cause and effect. However underlying each of these macro-correlations there are often much stronger correlations (correlations with higher probability) at the chemical and biological, or even the physical level. The point is that at the quantum level, there is nothing more to be said about the causal linkage above and beyond the statistical correlation.
How does the bulk of the paragraph supposedly support your assertion that the point is that there is nothing more to be said about the causal linkage above and beyond the statistical correlation (whatever statistical correlation you’re suggesting between “causeless” and “random")?
In other words, what is the supposed import of the point that is allegedly lost in this discussion?
But this does not imply that everything is random, nor that events are “causeless”.
Nobody’s saying that “everything” is random. I’m saying that when a naturalist accepts events as “causeless” (such as random and causeless quantum particle formation) it means that the naturalist is accepting causeless events as part of his worldview--a worldview that sets as its predicate the discovery of causes, at least historically speaking.
If I were faithlessgod ...
It simply means that causes are not 100% determinative.
Excellent. That’s a premise of libertarian free will. You’d have trouble agreeing with me on that if you insisted on absolute causal determinism.
We can make very strong generalizations ...
Yes we could, but it wouldn’t be plain that any of what you wrote in that paragraph is relevant to what I’m saying.
This is why although a naturalistic worldview could potentially coexist with the existence of a (purported) miracle, it would have to say that the probability of its occurring was vanishingly small.
Everyday life is made up of occurrences with vanishingly small probabilities.
E.g., any macroscopic event that was caused by some quantum fluctuation (like my chair turning into a turnip, or water into wine, etc.) has a probability so low as to never occur in many, many iterations of our entire universe.
Well, if there are an infinite number of universes, such as some sicientists suggest, then we should expect universes where the exceedingly unlikely occurs frequently, no? Or is that reasoning only allowed when it comes to explaining away the prodigious improbability of life as we know it?
So evidence of a miracle would either be evidence that our basic understanding of physical causation was wrong, or evidence that there were highly intelligent beings around who could create unexpected effects through technological or other means. E.g., AC Clarke’s Third Law, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” But this evidence would have to be very strong.
So why wouldn’t a causeless event provide sufficient evidence of that all by itself?
Another good quote here: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
At any rate, the question remains, as Jaik asked,
So what evidence exists for miracles? Besides a book saying they happened?
If a friend came to me and said that he had seen a vision of a glowing ethereal ‘flying spaghetti monster’, that spoke to him, and told him that (for an example), (s)he could save the world by doing X, or whatever compelling statement this vision might make. And this friend came to me convinced of the validity of this vision, my first thought would be that (s)he, is in need of emergency psychiatric help, or has been drinking/smoking/ingesting something that may have caused a hallucination.
If you substitute ‘the Virgin Mary’ for the ‘flying Spaghetti Monster’, why are people so much more willing to believe in this hallucination?
Probably because the latter is still marginally more common than the former.
But the real question is why you took my question about whether the event itself would be a miracle, natural, or both and transformed it into an issue of epistemology.
My other question is: if you do truly believe in the existence of heaven and hell, with all of the accompanying creatures, since we have no idea what Mary or Jesus looked like, other than anthropologically(paintings don’t count). How do you know it is not the ‘devil’ masquerading as ‘Mary’ to entice you to commit an act contrary to what ‘God’ wants you to do.According to the Bible, he is certainly capable of this deception.
I thought I had already mentioned that I have not encountered any Jesus apparitions. Mary either, just in case you’re curious (I’m not a Roman Catholic, which I believe I’ve also already mentioned). There is no absolute method of knowing, just as you can’t entirely know that you exist as you perceive yourself. You might be Satan disguised as Mary appearing to Doug all the while thinking you’re asking me questions.
What’s funny about what Bryan just did is that if he bothered to take what I was telling him along with the post he has now ignored, he would see why there is no contradiction.
Take the first sentences: “Yes, naturalism does not include miracles. They are not natural phenomena and we can not now say anything about them scientifically.”
Then the next: “I didn’t say a miracle could not be a natural phenomena, that seems to be both our points.”
The question would still stand; “what miracle”, what miracle can we observe, so far not a single one has been offered. Should naturalism just part company with science because Bryan feels it is a must to fit with his understanding.
As pointed out again in my post:
What miracle? We don’t have any miracle to compare to quantum theory, that’s what I am telling you. It is you that is making the connection. How do you know if a miracle occurred the cause would not become evident. Accepting the unpredictability, or randomness, does not say this will always be the case. It does not mean we just stop looking, or to evaluate the evidence of a possible cause. Edit: Again, I’ll ask, what if quantum theory turns out to be wrong, or in need of reformulation. With your foreknowledge of the nature of miracles how would we then know a miracle to be naturalistic, since we don’t have a miracle to express your definition to be correct, we are then stuck to say your understanding of miracles is without foundation. The quantum theory is foundational by the expressed understanding of what we know now through current observational abilities.
We can accept the phenomena as unpredictable and random and readily accept that is the nature of the agent. This does not mean that is the end point, it is an acceptance of our observational powers as of now. This has nothing to do with miracles because we have no miracles to compare this state of knowing with.
Are you saying you know how quantum theory is understood now will always be the case?
You gave an example of planes popping into existence out of nowhere, and now a story about Mary as if a naturalist needs to explain these things. Naturalism does not need to accommodate your understanding that have as their foundation planes popping into existence and gods, angels, and Mary. I think I already said I agree with you on the fundamental ideal. Quantum theory and what we observe that allows us to understand does not fall out of naturalism and is not a scientific theory that allows for miracles, which have not been observed. Beside that, you seem to know the nature of miracles already by using this scientific theory as the basis for your belief, this is shifting the burden even before you have given us anything to observe. You’re equating the nature of miracles with quantum theory based on the idea of randomness (causelessness!?) and unpredictability, even without given us a miracle where we see if there is indeed a cause, and a predictable nature.
What is uncanny is you are using a scientific theory where you place (causeless!?) randomness as the threshold (even as I tell it’s what is known now and what we do not know now) for accepting miracles, when part of the randomness is not having foreknowledge, but you seem to hold this foreknowledge of the nature of miracles (What if Mary told me how she did it, and it fell into another example of completely naturalistic and non-random). Edit: Is this where you say it was not predicted and random to me. Again, I have no foreknowledge of what will happen to me today in complete. But, this does not tell me cause is not knowable, even though I can accept the unpredictability.
Nothing I have said is out of line with what he now finds to be a contradiction. Where is the miracle that we can observe and so science may have something to say about it, and how does this exclude the possibility that a miracle could be a natural phenomena.
What’s funny about what Bryan just did is that if he bothered to take what I was telling him along with the post he has now ignored, he would see why there is no contradiction.
Take the first sentences: “Yes, naturalism does not include miracles. They are not natural phenomena and we can not now say anything about them scientifically.”
Then the next: “I didn’t say a miracle could not be a natural phenomena, that seems to be both our points.”
The question would still stand; “what miracle”, what miracle can we observe, so far not a single one has been offered. Should naturalism just part company with science because Bryan feels it is a must to fit with his understanding.
Science is not philosophical naturalism, unless you’re eager to provide ammunition to the Discovery Institute. Therefore naturalism has no duty to follow science. And when science examines an issue that contradicts the traditional understanding of naturalism (such as causeless events that are in principle impossible to understand in terms of natural laws), naturalism cannot just “go along” with science without redefining itself (and leaving behind the old naturalism.
As pointed out again in my post:
What miracle? We don’t have any miracle to compare to quantum theory, that’s what I am telling you. It is you that is making the connection. How do you know if a miracle occurred the cause would not become evident. Accepting the unpredictability, or randomness, does not say this will always be the case. It does not mean we just stop looking, or to evaluate the evidence of a possible cause. Edit: Again, I’ll ask, what if quantum theory turns out to be wrong, or in need of reformulation. With your foreknowledge of the nature of miracles how would we then know a miracle to be naturalistic, since we don’t have a miracle to express your definition to be correct, we are then stuck to say your understanding of miracles is without foundation. The quantum theory is foundational by the expressed understanding of what we know now through current observational abilities.
We can accept the phenomena as unpredictable and random and readily accept that is the nature of the agent. This does not mean that is the end point, it is an acceptance of our observational powers as of now. This has nothing to do with miracles because we have no miracles to compare this state of knowing with.
Are you saying you know how quantum theory is understood now will always be the case?
You gave an example of planes popping into existence out of nowhere, and now a story about Mary as if a naturalist needs to explain these things. Naturalism does not need to accommodate your understanding that have as their foundation planes popping into existence and gods, angels, and Mary. I think I already said I agree with you on the fundamental ideal. Quantum theory and what we observe that allows us to understand does not fall out of naturalism and is not a scientific theory that allows for miracles, which have not been observed. Beside that, you seem to know the nature of miracles already by using this scientific theory as the basis for your belief, this is shifting the burden even before you have given us anything to observe. You’re equating the nature of miracles with quantum theory based on the idea of randomness (causelessness!?) and unpredictability, even without given us a miracle where we see if there is indeed a cause, and a predictable nature.
What is uncanny is you are using a scientific theory where you place (causeless!?) randomness as the threshold (even as I tell it’s what is known now and what we do not know now) for accepting miracles, when part of the randomness is not having foreknowledge, but you seem to hold this foreknowledge of the nature of miracles (What if Mary told me how she did it, and it fell into another example of completely naturalistic and non-random). Edit: Is this where you say it was not predicted and random to me. Again, I have no foreknowledge of what will happen to me today in complete. But, this does not tell me cause is not knowable, even though I can accept the unpredictability.
Nothing I have said is out of line with what he now finds to be a contradiction. Where is the miracle that we can observe and so science may have something to say about it, and how does this exclude the possibility that a miracle could be a natural phenomena.
Fixed formatting.
What you wrote remains in line with the apparent contradiction because it is contradictory on its face.
I provided the example of random quantum particle formation--and that was accepted for now, yet an excuse is also made that maybe there’s a law in there somewhere to make it lawful and natural.
I provided the thought-experiment involving the plane, and jholt apparently objects that I don’t make the plane appear for him in reality to make the thought-experiment relevant.
And this part is simply yammering, from what I can tell.
Work the thought experiment or explain why you cannot.
If “random and causeless generation of quantum particles” is enough of an evidence to explain the miracles in the Bible, couldn’t the same also prove the miracle in Collodi’s book?
Predicting the specific randomness would be useful (except it is apparently contradictory, as something random is unpredictable by definition in terms of natural laws).
Not if the natural laws are statistical in nature, which in fact they are. We can predict to a high degree of certainty the half-life of uranium, as in my prior example. This is an example of a natural law that is statistical in nature.
You appear to be defining a miracle as something that occurs which is causally unexplained. This is a bad definition because then virtual particle creations become miraculous events. Virtual particle creation happens in accord with causal laws (again, statistical ones). These laws tell us on average the density of these particles per unit space and time, which particles are involved, how long they last, etc. A better definition of a miracle is something that occurs which is contrary to known causal laws. Now, since we have already said that causal laws are not determinative, we aren’t going to say that a miracle is something that occurs with a literally 0% chance, as would be the case if the causal laws were perfectly determinative. We’re going to say that a miracle is some event which is statistically extremely unlikely given the statistical laws, as in the prior cases I mentioned of my chair turning into a turnip or water into wine.
Bryan - 01 May 2008 12:55 PM
I’m saying that when a naturalist accepts events as “causeless” (such as random and causeless quantum particle formation) it means that the naturalist is accepting causeless events as part of his worldview--a worldview that sets as its predicate the discovery of causes, at least historically speaking.
The naturalist (or more accurately, the scientist) sets as his task the discovery of the causal mechanisms behind the phenomena. But that only goes so far as he can find them. The naturalist accepts the results of science. It is no assumption of naturalism that everything must have an explanation or a cause. If the universe had a beginning in time, then there may have been a first event, and that first event may have been uncaused and perhaps unexplained. I am not claiming that this is a correct description of the universe, just that it’s no part of the naturalist worldview to reject it a priori.
Bryan - 01 May 2008 12:55 PM
It simply means that causes are not 100% determinative.
Excellent. That’s a premise of libertarian free will. You’d have trouble agreeing with me on that if you insisted on absolute causal determinism.
Yes, and what’s not determinative is random. So that gets twitches and jerks for behavior, not actions. There’s no room for libertarian free will here (which is itself an incoherent idea, but that’s perhaps OT in this thread, we’ve beaten it to death elsewhere).
Bryan - 01 May 2008 12:55 PM
Well, if there are an infinite number of universes, such as some sicientists suggest, then we should expect universes where the exceedingly unlikely occurs frequently, no?
Statistically, we should expect that there are vanishingly few of them. You are confusing logical possibility with statistical likelihood, and these are two concepts that need to be kept separate. It is logically possible that there are worlds where statistically unlikely events occur often. But that alone is no argument that the actual world is one of the statistically unlikely worlds.
At any rate, since we’ve argued that the creation of virtual particles is not itself miraculous, the question remains, as Jaik asked,
So what evidence exists for miracles? Besides a book saying they happened?
Clearly, the context here involves miracles which have religious importance.
We can accept the phenomena as unpredictable and random and readily accept that is the nature of the agent. This does not mean that is the end point, it is an acceptance of our observational powers as of now. This has nothing to do with miracles because we have no miracles to compare this state of knowing with.
What you wrote remains in line with the apparent contradiction because it is contradictory on its face.
I provided the example of random quantum particle formation--and that was accepted for now, yet an excuse is also made that maybe there’s a law in there somewhere to make it lawful and natural.
Explain the above. Are you assuming that I am arguing that in order for quantum theory to remain natural, I must hold that it’s randomness may not always be the case? I am showing what we know now, and what we know now may need to change. We can not do this with miracles because we do not know the nature of miracles at any level. Unless of course you can provide an example of a miracle. The quantum theory is foundational, the definition that you provide for a miracle is not.
Do you think the example you give for quantum theory allows for the “example of random quantum particle formation” to be classified as a miracle under your definition. Is what we know, using your example, of quantum particle formation a miracle.
Science is not philosophical naturalism, unless you’re eager to provide ammunition to the Discovery Institute. Therefore naturalism has no duty to follow science. And when science examines an issue that contradicts the traditional understanding of naturalism (such as causeless events that are in principle impossible to understand in terms of natural laws), naturalism cannot just “go along” with science without redefining itself (and leaving behind the old naturalism.
If naturalism wishes to be foundational, yes it follows from the science. The examples you have given thus far, not one miracle to observe, does in fact fit with Intelligent Design.
What is uncanny is you are using a scientific theory where you place (causeless!?) randomness as the threshold (even as I tell it’s what is known now and what we do not know now) for accepting miracles, when part of the randomness is not having foreknowledge, but you seem to hold this foreknowledge of the nature of miracles (What if Mary told me how she did it, and it fell into another example of completely naturalistic and non-random). Edit: Is this where you say it was not predicted and random to me. Again, I have no foreknowledge of what will happen to me today in complete. But, this does not tell me cause is not knowable, even though I can accept the unpredictability.
And this part is simply yammering, from what I can tell.
You are using foreknowledge of the nature of miracles to draw a corollary with quantum theory. The idea of using quantum theory to justify this corollary is the randomness, but yet you have not shown why this would be the case. You have simply assumed the nature of a miracle to be random, but without a single observable example. The thought experiment is void because you have not shown that your definition of miracle is correct and it does not count for the possibility that quantum theory may be wrong or in need of reformulation. You obviously don’t see this as a problem.
Work the thought experiment or explain why you cannot.
Nothing you have provided tells me that the examples may be explainable by not succumbing to your definition of a miracle. The plane example does not follow from quantum theory, it is only from your imagination. Why do you think now that naturalism has anything to say about your imagination of planes popping into existence out of nowhere.
Reading the back and forth between Doug and Bryan, I was reminded of Victor Stenger’s interview with Tom Flynn. Though, I will not say that Bryan is arguing every point that Victor discusses in totality, it is still interesting and educational.
