Can the Laws of Nature be temporarily altered or suspended

[ytrewq]

Modern science is based on the assumption that the so-called Laws of Nature are fixed, and that temporary and/or localized variations or suspensions do not occur.

A supernatural event may be defined as one that could only occur if the Laws of Nature were temporarily altered or suspended, so the question being asked is essentially the same as whether supernatural events can occur.

Here are some examples of supernatural events under this definition.

(a) You are holding a heavy (10kg) stone. Suddenly you feel the stone become lighter, then weightless, then it starts pulling upwards. In surprise, you let go, and the stone falls upwards, away from the earth rather than towards it, and accelerates upwards into the sky and out of sight. In scientific terms, the Law of Gravitational Attraction has been temporarily altered (reversed) for this stone. Is this possible?

(b) A massive (3000kg, or 3 ton) tree branch has fallen on your child. Although the main weight has been taken on the ground, your child is nonetheless pinned between the branch and the ground, and screaming out that they cannot breath. You attempt to lift the branch, but it weighs 3000kg, so you cannot lift it, but of course you try anyway. Only a supernatural event can help you and save the life of your child. The Law of Gravity could be temporarily altered, so just for a few seconds, the branch weighed only 50kg. Is this possible? Alternatively, you could temporarily acquire superhuman strength, and for a few seconds be able to lift the 3000kg, which would normally snap your tendons or bones. Is this possible?

(c) Your mobile phone stops working, but there is nothing whatsoever physically wrong with it. Instead, one of the Laws of Physics that make computers work become temporarily altered or suspended such that your computer stops working. Is this possible?

All of the $100 notes in your wallet sponaneously change into $10 notes, or your gold ingot spontaneously changes into a steel ingot, etc. Is this possible?

In my opinion, the answer to all these questions must surely be NO. As far as science is concerend the answer most certainly is NO, for all of the scientific knowledge gained over the past 200 years depends on fundamental Laws of nature being stable and reproducible, at different times and in different locations. It would be either a brave or foolish person that would dismiss the past 200 years of scientific knowledge with a wave of the hand.

However, regardless of what science says, through human experience, the very society in which we live has de-facto already answered answered NO to questions of this type. For example, our legal system will not (and could not possibly) allow or dispute evidence on the basis of a supernatural event having occured. Society would simply disintegrate into chaos if we had to seriously entertain the possibility of all potential supernatural events. Futhermore, almost every modern machine from cars to phones to computers simply could not work unless the underlying physical Laws were totally rock solid and reliable. Imagine taking your brand new malfunctioning computer back to the store, only to be told 'I'm terribly sorry sir, but there is nothing physically wrong with your computer. Unfortunately for you, the Laws of Nature upon which it relies for it's operation are unstable. Although unusual, this can happen.' Of course, nobody believes this. Do you?

There is, of course, a temptation to make 'exceptions' for the suspension or alteration of the Laws of Nature, when doing so makes possible an event that you wish to believe is possible. This is really just hypocrisy and wishful thinking. If your pet beliefs are entitled to such an exception, then of course so are mine, and so are everone else's, including the pet beliefs of every crackpot under the sun. Logical debate ceases altogether. Unless we can find evidence to the contrary, and none has ever been found, then (perhaps unfortunately) we need to accept that the Laws of Nature cannot be suspended or altered just because we would like it to be so, and get on with life.

[GADARENE]

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

Even the languages of angels.

Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

[TheTruth101]

@Joey, SailingCyclops

She spoke 6 different languages she never knew or learned during her "possesion".

Possessed] We are the ones who dwell within.
[in Hebrew language] I am the one who dwelt within CAIN!
[in Latin language] I am the one who dwelt within NERO!
[in Greek language] I once dwelt within JUDAS!
[in German Language] I was with Legion
[In Assyrian Neo-Aramaic language] I am Belial
[possessed/English] and I am Lucifer, The devil in the flesh

Where does this come from? Where is the original transcripts with the translations? You made this up right?

Also, other testimonies here.
http://www.funtrivia.com/en/Movies/Exor ... 17585.html

No evidence supporting anything you claim is here! Fun Trivia? Really? Show us some real evidence, not another nonsense link please.

http://historicmysteries.com/the-distur ... se-michel/

http://moviesbasedontruestoriesdatabase ... story.html

No evidence here either. More movie advertising, and "mysteries" sites? Movies are not evidence. mysteries are not evidence. Especially movies "loosely based" on some historical event. If this is the best you can do, you FAIL!!

Please provide some evidence that this poor sick girl was speaking anything except incoherent nonsense. Please provide evidence that her illness was caused by demons. Evidence, not movie reviews

mystery sites, fun trivia, or any other such non evidentiary nonsense.

What's evidence for you? 100% scientific peer reviewed journals?

The evidence is right in front of your face (original YouTube video) where she speaks "tongues" of
different languages and you dismiss it.

[TheTruth101]

From Post 28:

@Joey, SailingCyclops

She spoke 6 different languages she never knew or learned during her "possesion".

I declare your statement an insufficient response to my previous challenge...

She is speaking Aramaic and Latin.
...

I will now ask, for the second time...

Please point out the particular parts where she speaks Aramaic, and those other particular parts where she speaks the other'n. And what she says when she does one or the other'n.

2nd challenge.

Just declaring this lady spoke more languages than those you mentioned previously ought'n get you off the hook for saying she spoke the languages you previously declared she spoke.

I'll send the third challenge to the mods in the hope they give a dang.

Refer to the post where I quoted she spoke 6 languages.

One says "Latin", the other "Assyrian Aramaic".

[SailingCyclops]

The evidence is right in front of your face (original YouTube video) where she speaks "tongues" of
different languages and you dismiss it.

Yo dude!!! Are you fluent in those "tongues"?? I am getting very tired of your nonsense.

One more time. TRANSLATE HER WORDS FROM VARIOUS "TONGUES" to ENGLISH (not your native language I strongly suspect). You would have us believe that because you say she is speaking Aramaic, Latin, Greek..... that she actually is? We are not complete gullible idiots! Where is the EVIDENCE? The PROOF? The TRANSLATION? WHERE? If you can't provide it you FAIL! Move on to something else, nobody is going to believe your word, given your total inability to provide anything except your own explanation, Youtube videos and Hollywood movies. YOU are NOT a LINGUIST are you?? You know what linguist means right? If not look it up before you reply with further idiotic nonsense.

[TheTruth101]

The evidence is right in front of your face (original YouTube video) where she speaks "tongues" of
different languages and you dismiss it.

Yo dude!!! Are you fluent in those "tongues"?? I am getting very tired of your nonsense.

One more time. TRANSLATE HER WORDS FROM VARIOUS "TONGUES" to ENGLISH (not your native language I strongly suspect). You would have us believe that because you say she is speaking Aramaic, Latin, Greek..... that she actually is? We are not complete gullible idiots! Where is the EVIDENCE? The PROOF? The TRANSLATION? WHERE? If you can't provide it you FAIL! Move on to something else, nobody is going to believe your word, given your total inability to provide anything except your own explanation, Youtube videos and Hollywood movies. YOU are NOT a LINGUIST are you?? You know what linguist means right? If not look it up before you reply with further idiotic nonsense.

I just gave you the translation of the 6 languages she spoke in "English" in a quote. You know what it means when I use a "quote" function? It means its not coming from me but from a source.

It's THERE, translated for you.

All I see is denial.

[SailingCyclops]

I just gave you the translation of the 6 languages she spoke in "English" in a quote. You know what it means when I use a "quote" function? It means its not coming from me but from a source.

It's THERE, translated for you.

All I see is denial.

TRANSLATED BY WHO??????? What's the original text? Does it indeed translate to what your unsourced quote claims? Was it one linguist who was an expert in all the languages? Or was there several? Who were they? What were their credentials? I want to see the original, and I want to have an independent translator translate it. You can't even tell us the source of the translation. That's NOT EVIDENCE!!! That's idiotic NONSENSE!!!

[TheTruth101]

I just gave you the translation of the 6 languages she spoke in "English" in a quote. You know what it means when I use a "quote" function? It means its not coming from me but from a source.

It's THERE, translated for you.

All I see is denial.

TRANSLATED BY WHO??????? What's the original text? Does it indeed translate to what your unsourced quote claims? Was it one linguist who was an expert in all the languages? Or was there several? Who were they? What were their credentials? I want to see the original, and I want to have an independent translator translate it. You can't even tell us the source of the translation. That's NOT EVIDENCE!!! That's idiotic NONSENSE!!!

Hey SailingCyclops, try Rosetta Stone.

[YahDough]

TheTruth101 wrote:

I just gave you the translation of the 6 languages she spoke in "English" in a quote. You know what it means when I use a "quote" function? It means its not coming from me but from a source.

It's THERE, translated for you.

All I see is denial.

------------------------------------------------------------------

YES!

In the end, that is all a non-believer will have for an argument.

"Denial, or disbelief of the facts"

[SailingCyclops]

Hey SailingCyclops, try Rosetta Stone.

This your answer? Rosetta Stone? Rosetta Stone does not have a module for ancient Aramaic. Want to try another nonsense reply? Be serious this time if you can, instead of spewing out total nonsense. What is the source of the translation you posted? What does the original actually say? Who made the translation you posted? What's their credentials? Surely you must have an answer to these basic, baby questions. If you don't, your quote-translation is not worth anything, and is as ridiculous as the babbling of this poor insane woman's words.

This woman who was murdered by those attempting to cast out non-existent demons. By those who were convicted of manslaughter. By those who starved her to death by their insane exorcism rituals. Were these the people who translated her utterances?

[Mithrae]

I was hoping for some replies and comments and ideas on this topic, especially from some of the more thoughtful theists that I know are out there.

For any theist with an open, questioning mind, I fail to see how they could NOT be interested in the questions raised here.

How DOES a theist, and especially a Christian, address this very obvious problem of apparently being required to believe in some supernatural events, while not believing in others that we know perfectly well cannot be true. Where do you draw the line, and how do you decide where such a line is to be drawn. Or is there no line at all, and do you answer YES to the possibility of absolutely anything, no matter how ridiculous or contrary to very well established science and experience. Surely not? Is it possible to arrive home one day, after leaving that morning, and find your house is no longer there, replaced by another? The questions raised here don't go away just because some theists prefer to ignore them.

Should the Bible be completely re-interpreted in the light of modern knowledge to remove the literal interpretation of all supernatural events, a process which has in very large part happened already?

While I wasn't a theist when I started it, these were essentially the questions I asked in my 2011 thread How unlikely is the supernatural. My views have not changed much since then. In particular:

• Mithrae wrote:

  Well the reason for favouring time travel over the “supernatural� is that current advanced science regarding quantum physics and relativity may be wrong and things like time travel or faster and light travel may – though very unlikely turn out to be possible. For the supernatural claim to be true our very basic science has to be badly and widely wrong on a day to day level, stuff like Newtonian mechanics and F = Mass x acceleration. There is just less chance of this. Moreover for the supernatural claim to be true far more mundane answers have to be false. And wild eyed billionaire conspiracies are still more plausible than inventing whole new side of nature. Then there is the point that the bad billionaire is a proposition that stands a chance of being tested and falsified. It is wacky but it still potentially testable.

  Actually I'd say that if, in the absense of any better natural explanation, we were resorting to invoking billionaire conspiracies to account for a hypothesised 'supernatural' event, we've already burned the bridge of testability in a worse way than traditional religious claims. A Christian apologist might claim as evidence that "four independent gospels, two of which were written by eyewitnesses, all confirm that Jesus walked on water." This is falsifiable to the extent that we can show that at least three of those gospels do share a dependency on each other and at least one of the eyewitness claims is false, and further falsifiable in showing that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. With relevant information, few but the most determined conservative apologists will claim that there is strong evidence for Jesus walking on water. Our hypothetical billionaire conspiracy theory likewise has no good evidence, and worse is simply an ad-libbed response; it's proposed precisely because there's no evidence on the matter.
  
  As far as supernatural claims/events requiring the suspension of established scientific laws, that's only the case if you're including theories about how an event happened alongside your question of whether it happened. It would be akin to disbelieving someone's claim that a feather fell as fast as a lead ball on the basis of our certainty that lead balls fall faster. Once we know the how - that rates of fall are affected by air resistance, and the feather and ball were in a vacuum - we might be more inclined to believe what someone claims they saw. If someone did that little magic trick a few centuries ago, it seems to me that your position would have us believing that it was a lead feather or that our friend was deluded. My position is that if we have reasonable evidence for something - in this case, if our friend is an observant, level-headed and honest person - we should consider it possible (perhaps even probable, depending on the strength of evidence) that the something did happen, even if we don't know how.
  
  If some of the heat from a layer of water just beneath Lake Galilee's surface were transferred deeper in the lake (maintaining the law of conservation of energy) a sheet of ice would form on which Jesus could walk (or more likely slide ). How could the heat transfer be effected without violating established scientific laws? Not a clue off the top of my head, but I imagine there could be quite a few ways (an alien ship in orbit being one random example), just as there are other ways we could speculate how Jesus might have walked on water.
  
  This example obviously has very weak evidence that the event did occur at all. But my point is that while I can somewhat understand Notachance's initial position of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt,' your position of trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth etc. and preference even for far-fetched conspiracy theories seems fundamentally flawed. As far as I'm concerned the first question is what happened. If on further consideration the 'what' seems beyond or contrary to our best current knowledge, we should rightly expect higher standards of evidence before accepting it as plausible (and much higher still before considering it fact). How it might have happened is almost always the subject of speculation, then theories and often still isn't agreed-upon as fact even in scientific enquiries.

In a recent discussion with Justin108 I pointed out that if the probability of X in a given scenario is not 0, increasing the number of scenarios in question increases the probability that X is the case in at least one of them. So if there is some possibility that any particular reported observation of a 'supernatural' event were true (ie, it is not a deception, delusion, or easily explained 'naturally'), the more such reports we might consider the more likely it becomes that at least one of them is true.

Your OP implies that they must all be false (lies, delusion, or explainable naturally). Obviously this would depend a great deal on how many not-naturally-explainable reports of directly-observed 'supernatural' events we could gather, and our guess as to the lies/delusion probability would necessarily be quite arbitrary. But by my very rough (and of course somewhat arbitrary) estimates, unless we invoke some metaphysical principle from the 'laws of science,' once we get above twenty or so not-obviously-unreliable reports it starts becoming significantly more likely that at least one is true, than that they are all false.

If that reasoning is sound (and if we can in fact gather 20-odd not-obviously-unreliable reports of directly observed events which can't be readily explained 'naturally'), I'd say we have a fairly good basis for supposing that the 'supernatural' can occur. Or more correctly, that the 'laws of nature' are not proscriptive principles, merely descriptions of how the world usually works. (I commented a bit on this in my reply to you in my own thread.)

The hardest bit would be trying to work out which few among them were likely to be the true ones, and what if anything we might infer from them