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.

[ytrewq]

Mithrae,

You previously said that you had good reason to believe that 'supernatural' events that were in clear contradiction with well established science were 'probably possible'.

Evidence offered was that a good friend of yours sincerely believes that a Buddhist monk has telepathic powers, plus another friend believes in ghosts. However, you are ‘not interested in discussing specifics of your friends' experiences, and 2nd-hand anecdotal evidence has quite limited value in any case’, which I agree with, so this IMHO does not amount to evidence that would entitle you to think that 'supernatural events' were 'probably possible'.

However, I recall that you also made an interesting statement to the effect that, while one claim didn't provide any useful evidence, if you had a significant number of apparently credible claims, then the probability that one of them was correct became significatly higher, and presumably it was largely on this basis that you conclude supernatural events are 'probably possible'.

At first glance that reasoning seems appealing, yet on further thought I believe it is actually flawed.

Firstly, let's look at an example where your reasoning is valid and correct. Imagine the chance of winning a particular lottery that was drawn every week was 1%. That means that if you entered that lottery a very large number of times (on different weeks) then on average you would win 1% of the time. You cannot technically guarantee to ever win at all, but, as you enter a greater number of times, so too does the probability increase that you will win, up to the point where if you entered 1000 times, then winning would be almost inevitable. (Actually 99.99957%)

This is essentially the same as your argument:
If there exist a large number of supernatural claims, then the probability that one of them will be correct is greater than the chance that any individual claim is correct.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is simply wrong, for it assumes in advance that a supernatural event is possible in the first place. How so? Well, for this type of statistical argument (in blue) to be valid, the probability of any given claim being true cannot be zero, for if it was, then there can exist an infinite number of claims, yet the probability of one of them being true is still zero. The argument simply fails if the probability of the individual events is zero, but you cannot know if that may true, because that is what you are setting out to show in the first place. Your argument is a subtle misuse of statistics.

The (valid) lottery example that I gave is fundamentally different, because the lottery mechanism guarantees that the probability of a win is NOT zero. In this case, you do not have to assume your result.

The only way around this, is to actually TEST a significant number of claims, which perhaps should come as no surprise. If you insist on bringing (correct) statistics into this, then the probability of any given claim being true, is by definition equal to the number of claims that are found to be true, divided by the total number of claims tested.

As matters stand, a very great number of claims have been tested (and I can point you to some interesting references for this), and so far none have been found to be true. Therefore, at this stage, the best experimental evidence that we have is that the probability that any given claim will be true is zero. However, as discussed, this is precisely the unfortunate case for which your statistical reasoning breaks down.

Bummer. You get nothing for nothing. The only way to come up with a valid estimate of how many (if any) of the supernatural claims are true, is to get out there and actually test a large number of them. This has been done, and so far none have been found.

[TheTruth101]

The prophecy is not vague at all. It gives direct numbers as to the prophecy being met. Even a name (bush) as well as "two" jets and etc.

In all, the point of this post is about again, for the most part, how a single human being can have "visions" or "pictures" when that very human being have not seen a single object visually her entire life. (she was blind from birth).

Within science and Atheists on this forum, "dreams" as an example are said to be caused by memory recollection or muscle memory. In all, its speaking of "memory" being the very foundation of dreams that we have and etc.

But, as clearly seen here, the prophetess takes in accounts of defining shapes and names of the shapes when she has never seen anything her entire life. In this case, science falls flat here for the "conclusion" saying that dreams are done by our "brains".

I quoted a verse saying that Jesus comes as a lightning (electrons) and when we dream (have pictures when we dream) our electrons are doing the work.

The biblical scriptures state that dreams are being brought on by God, and in this case, this is the logical sense all viewers of this thread should take into account of being "logic", since science itself and it conclusion as to dreams have been exploited 100% here by a prophetess of God.

So this raises the question, and in accordance to science putting "dreams" as to memory and solely the brain, If one does NOT have memory of the visual, where is she getting the pictires from? The logical conclusion would be of another being, or God, hence she was identified as a prophetess.

[ytrewq]

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?

There is a huge difference.

Consider this example:

A detective is trying to figure out who committed a puzzling murder.

Atheist detective:
I haven't a clue what is going on here or who did this. Let's try to find out.

Theist detective:
Well Dianaiad did it, but I haven't a clue how. Let's try to find out.

Hmmm. Enough said? Big, big difference. You cannot just plug in any cause that suits you. No. No. No.

[TheTruth101]

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?

There is a huge difference.

Consider this example:

A detective is trying to figure out who committed a puzzling murder.

Atheist detective:
I haven't a clue what is going on here or who did this. Let's try to find out.

Theist detective:
Well Dianaiad did it, but I haven't a clue how. Let's try to find out.

Hmmm. Enough said? Big, big difference. You cannot just plug in any cause that suits you. No. No. No.

But ofcourse this is a flase dichotomy to begin with.

First, the premises are of an "invisible" being who, we cannot "persucute".

A better example would be,


Atheist Detective:

I haven't got a clue whats going on here, but lets find out. It indeed is a mystery.


Theist detective:

Well I think God just worked in mysterious ways. I haven't a clue how. Let's try to find out.


Conclusion:

It's a mystery for both parties.

[ytrewq]

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?

There is a huge difference.

Consider this example:

A detective is trying to figure out who committed a puzzling murder.

Atheist detective:
I haven't a clue what is going on here or who did this. Let's try to find out.

Theist detective:
Well Dianaiad did it, but I haven't a clue how. Let's try to find out.

Hmmm. Enough said? Big, big difference. You cannot just plug in any cause that suits you. No. No. No.

But ofcourse this is a flase dichotomy to begin with.

First, the premises are of an "invisible" being who, we cannot "persucute".

A better example would be,


Atheist Detective:

I haven't got a clue whats going on here, but lets find out. It indeed is a mystery.


Theist detective:

Well I think God just worked in mysterious ways. I haven't a clue how. Let's try to find out.

Conclusion:

It's a mystery for both parties.

That doesn't cut it, Truth.

Your conclusion that there is no difference in the two statements is nonsense. The atheist draws no conclusion at all, except for the passing comment that he does not as yet know the answer.

However, the theist has very clearly stated that (his) God is implicated in the murder, for why else mention God at all, and has illogically done so without justification.

It doesn't matter how you cut it, there is obviously a very real difference between just saying 'I don't know' how an event occured, and making an unjustified assertion that some particular entity or person was responsible or implicated.

I hope you are never a detective or part of a jury.

[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?

There is a huge difference.

Consider this example:

A detective is trying to figure out who committed a puzzling murder.

Atheist detective:
I haven't a clue what is going on here or who did this. Let's try to find out.

Theist detective:
Well Dianaiad did it, but I haven't a clue how. Let's try to find out.

Hmmm. Enough said? Big, big difference. You cannot just plug in any cause that suits you. No. No. No.

Ah. I see the problem.

No. Either God 'did it,' that is, designed the natural laws that run the universe, or He did not. Whether there is a God or not, If He did not design the laws, then we are left with precisely the same situation the guy who doesn't think there is one TO design those laws is.

If there is one, and He DID design everything...what changes about the laws? Does gravity work any differently as the result of design than it would from shear chance? Does your tomato plant grow differently?

If so, how? What is it that would be different?

You present two scenarios; the first detective says "I don't have a clue what's going on here or who did this." Well, if he is looking at a murder, he knows that SOMEONE did it.

You liken the theist to the detective who says he knows who did it, and all he needs to now is figure out how. Why?

So that he can prove or disprove in a court that whoever committed the murder actually committed that murder, right? It's going backwards; inductive, rather than deductive.

The problem is, Whether you say "I don't know why this happened, let's see how it works" and "God is why this happened (God did it), let's see how this works, is the same statement as far as science is concerned, since SCIENCE is about the how and what, NOT the 'why' or 'who.'

The theist scientist isn't going to perform his experiments any differently from the atheist one, and the atheist who looks down his nose at the theist because he believes that the universe has a cause (God) is being very, very unscientific.

And more than a little bit bigoted, discriminatory and down right irrational.

[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?

There is a huge difference.

Consider this example:

A detective is trying to figure out who committed a puzzling murder.

Atheist detective:
I haven't a clue what is going on here or who did this. Let's try to find out.

Theist detective:
Well Dianaiad did it, but I haven't a clue how. Let's try to find out.

Hmmm. Enough said? Big, big difference. You cannot just plug in any cause that suits you. No. No. No.

Ah. I see the problem.

No. Either God 'did it,' that is, designed the natural laws that run the universe, or He did not. Whether there is a God or not, If He did not design the laws, then we are left with precisely the same situation the guy who doesn't think there is one TO design those laws is.

If there is one, and He DID design everything...what changes about the laws? Does gravity work any differently as the result of design than it would from shear chance? Does your tomato plant grow differently?

If so, how? What is it that would be different?

You present two scenarios; the first detective says "I don't have a clue what's going on here or who did this." Well, if he is looking at a murder, he knows that SOMEONE did it.

You liken the theist to the detective who says he knows who did it, and all he needs to now is figure out how. Why?

So that he can prove or disprove in a court that whoever committed the murder actually committed that murder, right? It's going backwards; inductive, rather than deductive.

The problem is, Whether you say "I don't know why this happened, let's see how it works" and "God is why this happened (God did it), let's see how this works, is the same statement as far as science is concerned, since SCIENCE is about the how and what, NOT the 'why' or 'who.'

The theist scientist isn't going to perform his experiments any differently from the atheist one, and the atheist who looks down his nose at the theist because he believes that the universe has a cause (God) is being very, very unscientific.

And more than a little bit bigoted, discriminatory and down right irrational.

Dianaiad,

How can this be said more simply... You are PRESUPPOSING a deity to exist in the first place, then formulating your "scientific" explanation ad hoc. This is not science! This is not the realm of science. This is the realm of make believe and superstition.

"REAL" science does not presuppose any cause - It formulates hypothesis based off observational evidence, and then tests them, then publishes the results so that other real scientists can replicate it - or falsify it.

Because GOD (or whatever supernatural being/ cause you wish to insert) is not falsifiable - God cannot be part of the scientific method.

To dismiss something for its absurdity is not to thumb ones nose at it - it is to realize that we can only work with what we can see and measure, and those that try to jump into the fray to insert that the unquantifiable and impalpable should be equally yoked with the measurable and the palpable have no basis in reality for doing so.

[dianaiad]

How can this be said more simply... You are PRESUPPOSING a deity to exist in the first place, then formulating your "scientific" explanation ad hoc. This is not science! This is not the realm of science. This is the realm of make believe and superstition.

That would be true IF I said "God did it, now let's go prove THAT God did it."

Both positions, put as simply as possible...are EXACTLY THE SAME when it comes to the science involved.

YOU are presupposing that there IS no God, and that things just 'are,' and then looking to see how things work. That's EXACTLY the same sort of supposition that you are accusing the theist scientist of.

A theist scientist says 'things are and God made them" and looking to see how things work.

They use the same methods. They are looking for the same things. The come up with the same theories.....because whether one believes that God did it, or that He did not, EVERYTHING WORKS THE SAME.

you can't prove that god exists empirically, and presupposing that god exists does not impact empirical evidence for how things work.

Science does not become 'ad hoc' simply because the scientist...who does everything the same way his atheist lab partner does...believes that the 'why' of things is...God.

"Why" is not 'how.'

Why is that so difficult an idea?

Are you honestly telling me that no theist has any business in science?

[TheJoshAbideth]

How can this be said more simply... You are PRESUPPOSING a deity to exist in the first place, then formulating your "scientific" explanation ad hoc. This is not science! This is not the realm of science. This is the realm of make believe and superstition.

That would be true IF I said "God did it, now let's go prove THAT God did it."

Both positions, put as simply as possible...are EXACTLY THE SAME when it comes to the science involved.

YOU are presupposing that there IS no God, and that things just 'are,' and then looking to see how things work. That's EXACTLY the same sort of supposition that you are accusing the theist scientist of.

A theist scientist says 'things are and God made them" and looking to see how things work.

They use the same methods. They are looking for the same things. The come up with the same theories.....because whether one believes that God did it, or that He did not, EVERYTHING WORKS THE SAME.

you can't prove that god exists empirically, and presupposing that god exists does not impact empirical evidence for how things work.

Science does not become 'ad hoc' simply because the scientist...who does everything the same way his atheist lab partner does...believes that the 'why' of things is...God.

"Why" is not 'how.'

Why is that so difficult an idea?

Are you honestly telling me that no theist has any business in science?

Ok.

I will grant that if a scientist wants to assume that "God" was the why - but they can present quantifiable and tangible evidence to support their hypothesis of the natural cause so that it can be replicated or falsified by anyone - not just those that share their presuppositions, then yes - they absolutely have a place in the realm of science.

And you are wrong when you say "why" is not the realm of the scientific method - of course it is. Its the foundation of it. Its what spurs us to make observations to the cause of the thing we are asking why of?

Why are African–Americans more affected by sickle cell anemia than their Caucasian counter parts?

Why is the sky blue?

Why don't things fall up?

Furthermore, I do not presuppose That God does not exist. I am fully open to the possibility that he does. There just is not as of yet sufficient evidence to prove that he does exist. Possibility though is different than probability. And probability can be measured - while possibility cannot.

[dianaiad]

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'?

where does it say anywhere that there was a 'virgin conception?"

"Virgin,' in the modern English term, means 'hymen intacta' or "woman who has never had sex with a man."

Calling something a 'virgin conception' is like calling something a "wet vacuum." You can at least use an adjective that makes sense...or a noun that does.

The claim is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. You don't get to define how God got her pregnant...only how He DIDN'T.