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]

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.

Hi Ytrewq, thanks for reconsidering my original post. I'd still say that you're making a somewhat arbitrary distinction of the 'supernatural' there. Firstly, I'd say that knowledge is gained by observations - it's made more reliable by the ability to repeat or test them. So we rightly acknowledge some considerable degree of uncertainty regarding untested observations; I nominated a rather high 90% probability of lies/delusion in my discussion with Justin. With that said, removing the 'supernatural' distinction what are you saying here?

"Any way I look at this, it still seems to me that your argument assumes that the probability that any given claim of an event is significantly greater than zero, or otherwise your reasoning fails in any practical way."

What would that even mean, that the probability of any claimed event being true is significantly greater than zero? What could we justifiably have said about the probability of a feather falling as fast as a lead ball a few centuries ago? We might have said that the probability was zero - but that is only because we wouldn't have known how the trick is done. Well, there's a lot of conceivable things - such as the divine interaction which many 'supernatural' claimants allege - for which we wouldn't know how the trick is done. We can justifiably question the credibility of the observation claims themselves, but we can't justifiably doubt it from both ends and say that the event itself is virtually impossible.

Testing and finding 'supernatural' claims false is a legitimate point to raise, but as I originally commented to Justin the same reasoning which makes it unlikely for all the claims to be false also makes it unlikely for them all to be true. And I think we'd both agree that dishonest, inaccurate, misunderstood or wholly delusional reports of very remarkable occurrances are considerably more likely than honest/accurate reports. Finding many such claims to be false is precisely what we'd expect.

But it's also worth noting that some (many?) such claims have been tested and not found to be false. That is, there's a difference between finding something false, and merely finding it unpersuasive or inconclusive. As my old discussion with Furrowed Brow showed, there is no possible example which couldn't be dismissed as wild-eyed billionaire conspiracy theories; there is probably no absolutely conclusive proof of such things (or anything for that matter, as climate change-denying conspiracy theories show). I think that in all cases of 'supernatural' reports I've encountered there probably is enough wiggle room that disbelieving them is not as unreasonable as that, but it's certainly not the case that all 'supernatural' reports I've seen have been debunked.

A notable example is the case of Pam Reynalds, who underwent a surgical procedure in which her heartbeat and brainfunction was ceased, her body drained of all blood and lowered to 10 degrees (or something like that) for almost an hour from memory. But when she was revived, she reported a so-called 'near death experience' which extended apparently continuously from before her brain function was stopped until the moment she was revived. Obviously the procedure itself was all medically documented, and some reported details of her near-death/out-of-body experience such as the doctor's and nurse's comments she'd heard are extremely unlikely of someone with her ears blocked and under surgical anaethesia. Worth looking up if you're curious, there's a Wikipedia entry and plenty of discussion on infidels.org and other forums (including this one - a thread about near death experiences, from memory).

Like I say, in cases such as that I'd agree that sceptics can find enough wiggle room that remaining dubious is not particularly unreasonable. But they certainly haven't been debunked or shown to be false. So long and short, even if there were not any single example of an experience or reported observation which seriously challenges a naturalistic worldview, I still think it would be contrary to reason and mathematics to presume that they are all probably false.

[Danmark]

....
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.

I disagree with this analysis. 1st, 'joy' and the hope the universe suggests it and 'purpose' in the universe is a subjective element that is improperly injected into an unbiased and honest search for truth. Just because I like or want to find joy or purpose in the universe does not justify my honest, scientific aim to discover either in a search for truth.

2d, non theists should NOT be either for nor against [and I believe they are divided on the idea of] the 'Big Bang.' The theory of the 'Big Bang' as the origin of the universe has been both endorsed and opposed by Christians. In fact, it was largely opposed by the Christian community until it was drummed into their heads that it could be seen as consistent with creationism.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... -gods-word

So the idea that theists make more objective scientists is laughable, particularly when we look at the history of science and the church's historical opposition to science. If the Christian church had had its way, members would still be excommunicated [along with Galileo, for having the temerity to suggest that the Earth moves, and is not the center of the universe.

What the modern church has done is to grudgingly agree [when pressed to the wall with out alternative] to some of the facts of science, then they attempt to claim them as their own.

This process is transparently dishonest when viewed thru the lens of history.

[Danmark]

Re: 'NDE's I remain highly skeptical. We tend to underestimate the power and depth of the mind.

Some sleep researchers, such as Timothy J. Green, Lynne Levitan and Stephen LaBerge, have noted that NDE experiences are similar to many reported of lucid dreaming, wherein the individual realizes he is in a dream. Often these states are so realistic as to be barely distinguishable from reality.
In a study of fourteen lucid dreamers performed in 1991, people who perform wake-initiated lucid dreams (WILD) reported experiences consistent with aspects of out-of-body experiences such as floating above their beds and the feeling of leaving their bodies.[72] Due to the phenomenological overlap between lucid dreams, near-death experiences, and out-of-body experiences, researchers say they believe a protocol could be developed to induce a lucid dream similar to a near-death experience in the laboratory.[73]
Other similarities include seeing oneself from the outside (an out of body experience), floating or flying, heightened awareness, and feelings of joy or peace. Some researchers believe this is caused when the mind is deprived of the majority of its senses and relies on the expectational processing. In this regard one experiences what one would expect to happen in their current circumstance. This could explain experiences caused by mental trauma such as a near miss accident in which the mind may close itself off at least partially to the senses and ones caused by physical trauma in which again the mind closes itself off to the world.
_Wikipedia

One of the facts that undermines the folklore about NDE's is that many of the so called 'near death experiences' had little if nothing to do with the patient being dead. In fact, the very name, 'near death' indicates they did not die, thus there is not even the potential for a supernatural explanation. 'NDE's' come from the archaic notion of death occurring when the heart stops beating, instead of from a more accurate definition of 'death' as the state where there is no measurable brain activity.

[Mithrae]

One of the facts that undermines the folklore about NDE's is that many of the so called 'near death experiences' had little if nothing to do with the patient being dead. In fact, the very name, 'near death' indicates they did not die, thus there is not even the potential for a supernatural explanation. 'NDE's' come from the archaic notion of death occurring when the heart stops beating, instead of from a more accurate definition of 'death' as the state where there is no measurable brain activity.

Yes, I found that interesting in my brief readings on the subject too. Another interesting point is possible similarities with effects of extensive meditation - heightened awareness, feelings of joy or peace and perhaps visual imagery - as well as (didn't know this before) that lucid dreaming bit. But some reported NDEs, such as Pam Reynald's case, do have that possibility of having occurred during a period of no brain activity, so I'm not sure I'd write them off entirely.

Why the similarities, in that case? Going out on a limb of wild speculation, if there were in fact genuine no-brain-activity NDEs to imply that our 'physical' body/brain are not all there is to us, then perhaps the examples of meditation, imagined NDEs where life isn't actually threatened, lucid dreaming and so on could be phenomenologically similar simply because they involve a certain degree of detachment or disassociation from the body and its physicality? And isn't that quite a long sentence?

[Danmark]

One of the facts that undermines the folklore about NDE's is that many of the so called 'near death experiences' had little if nothing to do with the patient being dead. In fact, the very name, 'near death' indicates they did not die, thus there is not even the potential for a supernatural explanation. 'NDE's' come from the archaic notion of death occurring when the heart stops beating, instead of from a more accurate definition of 'death' as the state where there is no measurable brain activity.

Yes, I found that interesting in my brief readings on the subject too. Another interesting point is possible similarities with effects of extensive meditation - heightened awareness, feelings of joy or peace and perhaps visual imagery - as well as (didn't know this before) that lucid dreaming bit. But some reported NDEs, such as Pam Reynald's case, do have that possibility of having occurred during a period of no brain activity, so I'm not sure I'd write them off entirely.

Why the similarities, in that case? Going out on a limb of wild speculation, if there were in fact genuine no-brain-activity NDEs to imply that our 'physical' body/brain are not all there is to us, then perhaps the examples of meditation, imagined NDEs where life isn't actually threatened, lucid dreaming and so on could be phenomenologically similar simply because they involve a certain degree of detachment or disassociation from the body and its physicality? And isn't that quite a long sentence?

There appears to be considerable doubt, or at least debate on whether she was actually flatlined or had zero brain activity at all or for very long. [Not really sure because I got bored before I finished reading] http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... &post=#386

In the passages I read re: her description [self report] I saw nothing remarkable; that is, I didn't notice her describe anything that could not easily have come from memory or logical conclusions based on general knowledge of surgical techniques.

As for the similarity of self reports of NDE's one of the explanations is that all normal brains are structured the same way. Despite our many subtle differences that can loom large, we are virtually identical in terms of basic anatomical structures and physiology.
* * *
Skeptic Woerlee says there's nothing remarkable — and certainly nothing spiritual — about these findings.

"The brain function of many of these people who have undergone a near-death experience is altered," Woerlee says. "That's correct. It is altered. Extreme oxygen starvation does change brain function — because it causes brain damage to the larger cells in the brain."

It's brain chemistry, he says, not a trip to heaven.

In other words, Woerlee and Beauregard looked at the same images and came to opposite conclusions.

I found that dichotomy everywhere as I interviewed experts about the emerging science of spirituality. It's kind of like a Rorschach test: Some researchers look at the data and say spiritual experience is only an electrical storm in the temporal lobe, or a brain gasping for oxygen — all fully explainable by science. Others say our brains are reflecting an encounter with the divine.

And almost invariably, where a scientist stands on that issue has little to do with the clinical findings of any study. It has almost everything to do with the scientist's personal beliefs.
from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104397005

[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?

Did I miss anything here?

As far as modern, very-well-established science is concerned, conception and birth requires a human female egg fertilized by male human sperm. It really is that simple.

On the question of Mary's conception and birth, Christians have to make up their mind as to whether they reject science, or they don't. If you accept science, then you also must accept that the biblical account of Mary's conception is clearly wrong, either because of a mistranslation/embellishment, or because it was not intended to be taken literally, or because (as in my case) I don't believe in any 'personal' God.

I'm not saying anything radical here. The bible is replete with stories that we know today cannot be literally true, and a high proportion of Christians (for example) accept this and modify their faith accordingly.

[Nickman]

If the supernatural were to reach its hand into our world it would pull it out dripping with physics. There would be something left behind to indicate that the normal order was altered temporarily and it might even affect us permenantly.