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.

[Mithrae]

Mithrae, . . . .

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.

That's a point which I explicitly mentioned from the beginning in post 40:

• 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.

I wonder, is there some possibility that someone might kill and eat their own mother? Is there some possibility for an atom to be split? Is there some possibility for molecules to exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle? Is there some possibility for time, space and mass to vary under different circumstances?

Is there some possibility of travelling faster than light, or going back in time, or forming matter from energy?

Is there some possibility that our current scientific knowledge is wrong?

I think the mistake you're making is in saying that my argument "assumes in advance that a supernatural event is possible in the first place." It does not. It simply does not assume that 'supernatural' means anything real - it does not assume that our current scientific knowledge is absolute. Unless you assert that there is no possibility that our current scientific knowledge is wrong or inadequate, obviously we must presume that there is some possibility that it is wrong or inadequate.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

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.

You are asking the wrong 'why?"

Or perhaps I am.

Perhaps the question is not 'why?' but "what is the purpose?"

Why is the sky blue?

Because the molecules of the atmosphere scatter light in such a way that our eyes pick up a preponderance of a certain wavelength, and English speakers have decided to label that wavelength 'blue.'

What is the purpose behind the sky being blue? IS there one? Would that purpose change the 'why?"

Would ascribing the purpose to God change the wavelength of the light? Would assuming that there is no purpose change it?

this is where religion and science part ways....and absolutely should part ways. There is no empirical way to find the purpose for an event, because purpose presupposes some intent.

How can we know, through experiment, whether the reason your wife gets up before you do and makes the coffee is because she loves you...or because she just wants you out of the house faster? Maybe both reasons? The event stays the same, either way; you get coffee earlier than you might want it.

Whether God made the sky blue or whether it just...is blue, It's still blue. The mechanics of the color remain the same, and are the purview of science. The purpose of it's 'blue"ness cannot be ascertained through science, and is the purview of philosophy and religious thought.

Science should get over itself. It cannot, and it was never MEANT to, deal with God and the reasons He has for doing things (or even whether He exists). It IS meant to examine the what, and the processes.

Religion was never meant to figure out the processes.

But you go ahead. When you can get science to figure out the PURPOSE....or even if there IS one....then you can tell theists that they can't think "God did this" AND be as effective a scientist as any atheist ever born.

And you should be rather grateful that theist scientists have existed and still do.

We'd still be digging ants out of trees with sticks without 'em.

[TheJoshAbideth]

<snip to here>

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.

You are asking the wrong 'why?"

Or perhaps I am.

Perhaps the question is not 'why?' but "what is the purpose?"

Why is the sky blue?

Because the molecules of the atmosphere scatter light in such a way that our eyes pick up a preponderance of a certain wavelength, and English speakers have decided to label that wavelength 'blue.'

What is the purpose behind the sky being blue? IS there one? Would that purpose change the 'why?"

Would ascribing the purpose to God change the wavelength of the light? Would assuming that there is no purpose change it?

this is where religion and science part ways....and absolutely should part ways. There is no empirical way to find the purpose for an event, because purpose presupposes some intent.

How can we know, through experiment, whether the reason your wife gets up before you do and makes the coffee is because she loves you...or because she just wants you out of the house faster? Maybe both reasons? The event stays the same, either way; you get coffee earlier than you might want it.

Whether God made the sky blue or whether it just...is blue, It's still blue. The mechanics of the color remain the same, and are the purview of science. The purpose of it's 'blue"ness cannot be ascertained through science, and is the purview of philosophy and religious thought.

Science should get over itself. It cannot, and it was never MEANT to, deal with God and the reasons He has for doing things (or even whether He exists). It IS meant to examine the what, and the processes.

Religion was never meant to figure out the processes.

But you go ahead. When you can get science to figure out the PURPOSE....or even if there IS one....then you can tell theists that they can't think "God did this" AND be as effective a scientist as any atheist ever born.

And you should be rather grateful that theist scientists have existed and still do.

We'd still be digging ants out of trees with sticks without 'em.

I have no problem with scientists who happen to be theists - as long as they provide falsifiable evidence to support their claims - and I am well aware that many of the great thinkers/ scientists happened to be theists - and I am greatful for their contributions.

I however have no reason to be grateful for theistic scientists.

Big difference there.

[TheJoshAbideth]

<snip to here>

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.

You are asking the wrong 'why?"

Or perhaps I am.

Perhaps the question is not 'why?' but "what is the purpose?"

Why is the sky blue?

Because the molecules of the atmosphere scatter light in such a way that our eyes pick up a preponderance of a certain wavelength, and English speakers have decided to label that wavelength 'blue.'

What is the purpose behind the sky being blue? IS there one? Would that purpose change the 'why?"

Would ascribing the purpose to God change the wavelength of the light? Would assuming that there is no purpose change it?

this is where religion and science part ways....and absolutely should part ways. There is no empirical way to find the purpose for an event, because purpose presupposes some intent.

How can we know, through experiment, whether the reason your wife gets up before you do and makes the coffee is because she loves you...or because she just wants you out of the house faster? Maybe both reasons? The event stays the same, either way; you get coffee earlier than you might want it.

Whether God made the sky blue or whether it just...is blue, It's still blue. The mechanics of the color remain the same, and are the purview of science. The purpose of it's 'blue"ness cannot be ascertained through science, and is the purview of philosophy and religious thought.

Science should get over itself. It cannot, and it was never MEANT to, deal with God and the reasons He has for doing things (or even whether He exists). It IS meant to examine the what, and the processes.

Religion was never meant to figure out the processes.

But you go ahead. When you can get science to figure out the PURPOSE....or even if there IS one....then you can tell theists that they can't think "God did this" AND be as effective a scientist as any atheist ever born.

And you should be rather grateful that theist scientists have existed and still do.

We'd still be digging ants out of trees with sticks without 'em.

Also, you are correct - your "why" is having to do with purpose, and I grant you that. But there should be a clear delineation between this "why" and "why" in an ontological sense.

[dianaiad]

I have no problem with scientists who happen to be theists - as long as they provide falsifiable evidence to support their claims - and I am well aware that many of the great thinkers/ scientists happened to be theists - and I am greatful for their contributions.

I however have no reason to be grateful for theistic scientists.

Big difference there.

A 'theistic scientist' IS a scientist who happens to be a theist.

A scientist is one who examines and describes processes. A scientist who says 'God did it' and quits there isn't a scientist at all.

In my opinion, theists make the best scientists; they combine joy in the purpose of the world with a whole-hearted curiosity about how the world works. Atheistic scientists can be so determined to DISprove any hint of a possible divine Hand in things that they will go out of their way to avoid any theory that could possibly support the idea.

Witness the opposition to the Big Bang theory...part of which was due to the fear that theists could use the idea to support a divine event of creation.

Now a theist wouldn't have a problem with it, either way.

[TheJoshAbideth]

I have no problem with scientists who happen to be theists - as long as they provide falsifiable evidence to support their claims - and I am well aware that many of the great thinkers/ scientists happened to be theists - and I am greatful for their contributions.

I however have no reason to be grateful for theistic scientists.

Big difference there.

A 'theistic scientist' IS a scientist who happens to be a theist.

A scientist is one who examines and describes processes. A scientist who says 'God did it' and quits there isn't a scientist at all.

In my opinion, theists make the best scientists; they combine joy in the purpose of the world with a whole-hearted curiosity about how the world works. Atheistic scientists can be so determined to DISprove any hint of a possible divine Hand in things that they will go out of their way to avoid any theory that could possibly support the idea.

Witness the opposition to the Big Bang theory...part of which was due to the fear that theists could use the idea to support a divine event of creation.

Now a theist wouldn't have a problem with it, either way.

"theistic scientist" is not a scientist to happens to be a theist. Because the placement of the word "theist" before "science" you have created a label that describes the methodology of that particular scientist - anyway, it sounds at least that we somewhat agree on this point... to go further would devolve into semantical argumentation.

In my opinion, theists make the best scientists; they combine joy in the purpose of the world with a whole-hearted curiosity about how the world works. Atheistic scientists can be so determined to DISprove any hint of a possible divine Hand in things that they will go out of their way to avoid any theory that could possibly support the idea.

I am happy for your opinion - but I completely disagree.

"theists make the best scientists; they combine joy in the purpose of the world with a whole-hearted curiosity about how the world works"

Spare us the platitudes. Please.

"Atheistic scientists can be so determined to DISprove any hint of a possible divine Hand in things that they will go out of their way to avoid any theory that could possibly support the idea."

I'm sure there are some who would like nothing more. I also know many scientists who don't give a rip about about disproving God, they only care about the things they can actually measure and observe - and they take great Joy (although a less deluded form of it) in attempting to explain the many mysteries of our natural world - and in fact there is a specific gravitas that I would say is unique to them, as they believe this is our one and only life - and that there are no answers beyond what we can discover within it.

[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'?

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.

Perhaps this very example illustrates that belief in the Christian God does indeed make a difference to how one does science, and what one believes.

You did not actually answer my paragraph in bold.

Biology and genetics are well developed sciences. We know how women get pregnant.

We know that to give birth, a woman must conceive some months beforehand, which means that her egg must be fertilized by male human sperm. Do you dispute this very well known and established scientific fact? If you dispute this, then you are vividly illustrating that theists (eg Christians) put their religious beliefs above scientific observation and knowledge.

If you believe in biology/science, and this is VERY well established science indeed, then you also must believe that for conception to have occurred, human male sperm must have physically entered Mary's body, and fertilized one of her eggs. Do you believe this? If you do not believe this, then you are vividly illustrating that theists (eg Christians) put their religious beliefs above scientific observation and knowledge.

How do you believe that male human sperm got into Mary's body? Pretty obviously, by having sex, which is in agreement with your observation that the the words 'virgin and 'conception' should not be used together.

Any competent scientist, who believes in the modern sciences of biology, genetics and reproduction, as based firmly on extraordinarily detailed observation and analysis of the real world, must conclude that the Biblical account of Mary's 'virgin birth' is wrong, with an extremely high level of confidence. If you agree with what I am saying then great, if not then please explain.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it to. You seem to be claiming that theists make great scientists, and that we should form our beliefs based on good science, which is in turn based on detailed observation, experiment, and formulation of stable 'Laws' based on our observations and experiment. You claim that this scientific method is the same for a theist or atheist, except, it seems, when the theist chooses to put his religious beliefs above well accepted and established scientific belief.

I ultimately have no objecion to theists who simply admit that their beliefs contradict well established science, but choose to believe them anyway. However, if you are really saying that the biblical 'virgin birth' does not contradict well established science, then you have got a lot of explaining to do.

PS. I apologize if I have misunderstood some of what you have said. I'm certainly listening.

[dianaiad]

Perhaps this very example illustrates that belief in the Christian God does indeed make a difference to how one does science, and what one believes.

Why should I argue with you when you make a claim regarding a belief neither I, nor any other Christian I know of, actually hold? Your bolded paragraph makes about as much sense as saying that a belief in the Christian God makes a difference in how one does science, because science has shown us the mechanism for why we see a banana as yellow.

You MIGHT want to pick a topic for which Christianity makes an actual CLAIM.

Oh, I know....here's a response that is just as valid as your claim:

Atheistic scientists can't do science properly because if you put apples in a paper bag with bananas, they will ripen faster.

Makes just as much sense.

You did not actually answer my paragraph in bold.

Yeah, I did. you just didn't like the answer.

[ytrewq]

Dianaiad wrote:

"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.

You have me tearing my hair out, because you have not answered any of the questions of my previous post, so it is difficult for me understand what you are saying.

(a) Let us try to agree with your use of the word 'virgin', meaning an intact hymen, and therefore meaning having had no sex with a man. Yes, that seems clear.

(b) Then you say that 'virgin conception' is impossible, which means that under your definition of virginity, conception is impossible. This presumably means that human male sperm cannot have entered the virgin woman's body (and fertilized her egg) by any means, consistent with an intact hymen. OK, so we agree that a virgin by your definition cannot conceive, thus your poking fun at the term 'virgin conception'.

(c) But then, and this is what puzzles me, you say that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. What?? If she was a virgin, then we agree she cannot have conceived, in which case there would be no embryonic development, and no birth of a child. Fairly obviously, a woman who has not conceived (had her egg fertilized by male human sperm) cannot give birth to a child.

So what gives? Your statements (a), (b) and (c) are inconsistent. Which one is wrong?

[ytrewq]

Mithrae, . . . .

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.

That's a point which I explicitly mentioned from the beginning in post 40:

• 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.

I wonder, is there some possibility that someone might kill and eat their own mother? Is there some possibility for an atom to be split? Is there some possibility for molecules to exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle? Is there some possibility for time, space and mass to vary under different circumstances?

Is there some possibility of travelling faster than light, or going back in time, or forming matter from energy?

Is there some possibility that our current scientific knowledge is wrong?

I think the mistake you're making is in saying that my argument "assumes in advance that a supernatural event is possible in the first place." It does not. It simply does not assume that 'supernatural' means anything real - it does not assume that our current scientific knowledge is absolute. Unless you assert that there is no possibility that our current scientific knowledge is wrong or inadequate, obviously we must presume that there is some possibility that it is wrong or inadequate.

I went and re-read your post #40, just to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Look, I see what you are saying, yet remain unconvinced. If you can actually SHOW that the probability of any typical given event is significantly greater than zero (and it has to be significantly >0, not just >0), then your argument is valid, but you cannot, without actually testing a large number of claims, and finding at least one that is true. As I said, this is fundamentally different to my lottery ticket example, and there is no way around it.

Any way I look at this, it still seems to me that your argument assumes that the probability that any given claim of a supernatural event is significantly greater than zero, or otherwise your reasoning fails in any practical way. Just saying that the individual claims are 'not impossible' doesn't cut it.

It could even be argued that increasing the number of claims that have been tested and found false, actually decreases the chance that subsequent claims that are tested are true. Knowledge can only be gained by testing claims, not by presenting them.