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.

[TheTruth101]

I think the OP has a set of beliefs that cannot be changed through the debate being done here Dianiad. I think therein lies the problem. He simply posted a thread with a made up mind before doing so, which alot of members do on this forum actually

I think Truth101 has a set of beliefs that cannot be changed through the debate being done here ... I think therein lies the problem. He simply posts threads with a made up mind before doing so, which alot of members do on this forum actually

Sorry mate, I just couldn't resist.

It's usually the ones that do NOT participate in debates that goes to sleep at night with an altered perception or a convinced view. Go figure..

I agree, and that is why I am not fussed about whether the person I am directly debating agrees with me, though finding common ground is always good. As you say, it is the silent majority that actually matter .... and the 'swingers' are likely to be swayed by politeness, tolerance, and a sound argument based on evidence rather than emotion and blind faith.

I got another one for you and it should atleast give you an interest as to a supernatural existing.

This is Prophetess Lady Vanga who predicted the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as others that came true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4x5toZMPY/T ... /vanga.jpg


This is one of her predictions of the 9/11.

September 11
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."


"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.

Lady vanga was blind all her life. Some of the debates that I have held with other Atheists in the past was of how EYES (meaning memory recollection) was the only source to dreams. Now, this prophetess here clearly can SEE (through her prohecy stating "objects" wolves and towers etc.) when she was blind ALL OF HER LIFE.


how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God. (like what I've been sayiing from day 1 on this forum, that dreams come from God)

[TheJoshAbideth]

I got another one for you and it should atleast give you an interest as to a supernatural existing.

This is Prophetess Lady Vanga who predicted the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as others that came true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4x5toZMPY/T ... /vanga.jpg


This is one of her predictions of the 9/11.

September 11
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."


"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.

Lady vanga was blind all her life. Some of the debates that I have held with other Atheists in the past was of how EYES (meaning memory recollection) was the only source to dreams. Now, this prophetess here clearly can SEE (through her prohecy stating "objects" wolves and towers etc.) when she was blind ALL OF HER LIFE.


how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God. (like what I've been sayiing from day 1 on this forum, that dreams come from God)

"how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God."


This is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. Even if I were to concede that your example as being valid (which I don't) All it means is that science as of yet has no explanation for it - not that it can't ever have an explanation for it. Further more, you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you.

[TheTruth101]

I got another one for you and it should atleast give you an interest as to a supernatural existing.

This is Prophetess Lady Vanga who predicted the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as others that came true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4x5toZMPY/T ... /vanga.jpg


This is one of her predictions of the 9/11.

September 11
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."


"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.

Lady vanga was blind all her life. Some of the debates that I have held with other Atheists in the past was of how EYES (meaning memory recollection) was the only source to dreams. Now, this prophetess here clearly can SEE (through her prohecy stating "objects" wolves and towers etc.) when she was blind ALL OF HER LIFE.


how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God. (like what I've been sayiing from day 1 on this forum, that dreams come from God)

"how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God."


This is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. Even if I were to concede that your example as being valid (which I don't) All it means is that science as of yet has no explanation for it - not that it can't ever have an explanation for it. Further more, you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you.

Copy and pasted from another thread. Same answer.

I don't think your getting the picture. This post isn't about her prophecy for the most part.

It's about her being able to have "pictures" being blind her whole entire life.

It meaning, this calls for the scripture,


"Like a lightning from East to West, so will be the Son of Man".

Lightning = electrons

When we sleep and dream = electrons are stimulating our brain.


Therefore, God = giving us dreams.

TO add, all prophecy = were done in dreams

[ytrewq]

Dianaiad wrote:

Ok, problem: and here is where that epitome of miracles, the virgin birth, comes in. "Science has observed" that it is perfectly possible for a virgin to give birth. It's actually fairly easy, compared to some other things we do. Shoot, nowadays a virgin can give birth to the child of a man she's never known--she could also give birth to a child that is not genetically hers, either.

But for close onto 2000 years, non-believers were convinced that Mary's experience had to be false BECAUSE a virgin birth was scientifically impossible. Well, guess what; it's not. True, the fact that it is not only possible, but even rather 'ho hum' as scientific things go, does not prove that Mary did it, or that Jesus was the Christ. But if her story is not true, it's not because it's scientifically impossible.

Ytrewq wrote:

You stated that virgins can give birth without breaking of scientific principles, presumably meaning not contrary to the well established bilogical fact that human conception requires males sperm to fertilize the female egg.

I agreed that this could indeed happen by artificial insemination (or IVF), both of which result in a 'virgin birth' (no sexual intercourse), but without contradicting the science of Biology.

However, a belief (for example) that the female human egg could be fertilized without male human sperm, and without any means of physically introducing the said sperm to the egg, clearly contradicts very well established and understood biological/scientific knowledge, and we should therefore doubt that it is possible.

Lets'g get to specifics. Do you agree with my previous statement in bold? If not, then what is your interpretation/explanation of Mary's claimed 'virgin conception'?

[dianaiad]

I got another one for you and it should atleast give you an interest as to a supernatural existing.

This is Prophetess Lady Vanga who predicted the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as others that came true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4x5toZMPY/T ... /vanga.jpg


This is one of her predictions of the 9/11.

September 11
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."


"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.

Lady vanga was blind all her life. Some of the debates that I have held with other Atheists in the past was of how EYES (meaning memory recollection) was the only source to dreams. Now, this prophetess here clearly can SEE (through her prohecy stating "objects" wolves and towers etc.) when she was blind ALL OF HER LIFE.


how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God. (like what I've been sayiing from day 1 on this forum, that dreams come from God)

"how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God."


This is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. Even if I were to concede that your example as being valid (which I don't) All it means is that science as of yet has no explanation for it - not that it can't ever have an explanation for it. Further more, you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you.

Of course you can. I do.

But then you have to ask...but how did He DO that?

.....and you are right back where you started.

[TheJoshAbideth]

I got another one for you and it should atleast give you an interest as to a supernatural existing.

This is Prophetess Lady Vanga who predicted the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as others that came true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4x5toZMPY/T ... /vanga.jpg


This is one of her predictions of the 9/11.

September 11
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."


"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.

Lady vanga was blind all her life. Some of the debates that I have held with other Atheists in the past was of how EYES (meaning memory recollection) was the only source to dreams. Now, this prophetess here clearly can SEE (through her prohecy stating "objects" wolves and towers etc.) when she was blind ALL OF HER LIFE.


how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God. (like what I've been sayiing from day 1 on this forum, that dreams come from God)

"how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God."


This is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. Even if I were to concede that your example as being valid (which I don't) All it means is that science as of yet has no explanation for it - not that it can't ever have an explanation for it. Further more, you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you.

Of course you can. I do.

But then you have to ask...but how did He DO that?

.....and you are right back where you started.

Let me re-state it this way:

Furthermore you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you, and have your argument taken seriously within the realm of rational discussion.

[dianaiad]

I got another one for you and it should atleast give you an interest as to a supernatural existing.

This is Prophetess Lady Vanga who predicted the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as others that came true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4x5toZMPY/T ... /vanga.jpg


This is one of her predictions of the 9/11.

September 11
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."


"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.

Lady vanga was blind all her life. Some of the debates that I have held with other Atheists in the past was of how EYES (meaning memory recollection) was the only source to dreams. Now, this prophetess here clearly can SEE (through her prohecy stating "objects" wolves and towers etc.) when she was blind ALL OF HER LIFE.


how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God. (like what I've been sayiing from day 1 on this forum, that dreams come from God)

"how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God."


This is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. Even if I were to concede that your example as being valid (which I don't) All it means is that science as of yet has no explanation for it - not that it can't ever have an explanation for it. Further more, you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you.

Of course you can. I do.

But then you have to ask...but how did He DO that?

.....and you are right back where you started.

Let me re-state it this way:

Furthermore you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you, and have your argument taken seriously within the realm of rational discussion.

Here's a question for you.

What's the difference between an atheist scientist running into something he can't explain and saying 'I haven't clue how this works, let's find out" and atheist scientist saying "Well, God did it, but I don't know how, let's find out?"

I mean, really?

[TheJoshAbideth]

I got another one for you and it should atleast give you an interest as to a supernatural existing.

This is Prophetess Lady Vanga who predicted the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as others that came true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4x5toZMPY/T ... /vanga.jpg


This is one of her predictions of the 9/11.

September 11
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."


"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.

Lady vanga was blind all her life. Some of the debates that I have held with other Atheists in the past was of how EYES (meaning memory recollection) was the only source to dreams. Now, this prophetess here clearly can SEE (through her prohecy stating "objects" wolves and towers etc.) when she was blind ALL OF HER LIFE.


how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God. (like what I've been sayiing from day 1 on this forum, that dreams come from God)

"how do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God."


This is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. Even if I were to concede that your example as being valid (which I don't) All it means is that science as of yet has no explanation for it - not that it can't ever have an explanation for it. Further more, you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you.

Of course you can. I do.

But then you have to ask...but how did He DO that?

.....and you are right back where you started.

Let me re-state it this way:

Furthermore you can't just plug in "God" as a de facto explanation anytime something doesn't seem to make sense to you, and have your argument taken seriously within the realm of rational discussion.

Here's a question for you.

What's the difference between an atheist scientist running into something he can't explain and saying 'I haven't clue how this works, let's find out" and atheist scientist saying "Well, God did it, but I don't know how, let's find out?"

I mean, really?

In the former statement no cause is being pre-supposed, in the latter a positive assertion is being made. Seems like two pretty distinct ways of thinking to me.

[dianaiad]

Here's a question for you.

What's the difference between an atheist scientist running into something he can't explain and saying 'I haven't clue how this works, let's find out" and atheist scientist saying "Well, God did it, but I don't know how, let's find out?"

I mean, really?

In the former statement no cause is being pre-supposed, in the latter a positive assertion is being made. Seems like two pretty distinct ways of thinking to me.

What positive assertion?

Consider; in the atheist statement of "I haven't a clue how this works..." the underlying assumption is...something works. Something is going on. "Let's find out.." means...we can figure it out. Let's try.

In the theist statement, the underlying assumption is that something is happening. Something works. In the theist's case, He figures that God is the 'something,' or CAUSED the something, whereas the atheist simply ignores that part. After that, however, the procedures and assumptions are precisely the same, aren't they?

As in: I don't have a clue how this works, let's find out.'


I don't see a difference between the two as far as the scientific method is concerned, do you?

[TheJoshAbideth]

Here's a question for you.

What's the difference between an atheist scientist running into something he can't explain and saying 'I haven't clue how this works, let's find out" and atheist scientist saying "Well, God did it, but I don't know how, let's find out?"

I mean, really?

In the former statement no cause is being pre-supposed, in the latter a positive assertion is being made. Seems like two pretty distinct ways of thinking to me.

What positive assertion?

Consider; in the atheist statement of "I haven't a clue how this works..." the underlying assumption is...something works. Something is going on. "Let's find out.." means...we can figure it out. Let's try.

In the theist statement, the underlying assumption is that something is happening. Something works. In the theist's case, He figures that God is the 'something,' or CAUSED the something, whereas the atheist simply ignores that part. After that, however, the procedures and assumptions are precisely the same, aren't they?

As in: I don't have a clue how this works, let's find out.'


I don't see a difference between the two as far as the scientific method is concerned, do you?

It's quite simple. The thing that happened does not have to be assumed to have happened, because it did.
There is no presupposition to the cause. The scientific method does not apply to the statement "something is" it applies it to "what is that thing" or "why is that thing" and no, just because you say "let try and figure it out" does not necessarily infer that we can figure it out - given limits to our knowledge at the time. Take the big bang singularity for instance... Scientists do not just assume that the Multi-Verse theory is the answer to this question - they merely take it as a possibility and they keep searching.

In contrast the Theistic claim you put forward presupposes God to be the answer effectively negating any other possibility from the outset with prejudice - this is in contradiction to the scientific method.