Miracles in current (and past) events

[achilles12604]

I ran across this article and I found it very interesting. Non-theists constantly claim that the lack of mysterious or miraculous events directly implies that miracles are a myth and that the supernatural therefore can not be proven and the bible's miraculous claims are bogus.

But then something like this happens

Brazilian woman survives after being shot in head 6 times
Posted 11/11/2006 11:57 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this



SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) — A Brazilian woman who was shot six times in the head after an altercation with her ex-husband was out of the hospital and talking to the media on Saturday.
"I know this was a miracle," 21-year-old housewife Patricia Goncalves Pereira told Globo TV. "Now I just want to extract the bullets and live my life."

Pereira was shot Friday in the small city of Monte Claros, about 560 miles north of Sao Paulo, after quarreling with her former husband, who was reportedly upset because she refused to get back together with him. She was also shot once in the hand.

Doctors could not explain why the .32-caliber bullets did not penetrate Pereira's skull and didn't even need to be extracted immediately.

"I can't explain how something like this happened," surgeon Adriano Teixeira said, adding that the bullets were lodged under the woman's scalp.

The ex-husband was still at large.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/20 ... lets_x.htm


Now I am not going to say that this was divine intervention and it proves that all miraculous claims are now proved true. However, I was thinking that even if this wasn't a "miracle" and it was in fact something that science will be able to explain later, even thought it can't right now, that this could easily have been attributed by those witnessing the event to be a miracle.

The woman surely does think this. So my question is this . . .

Since there obviously are examples of things that are so far outside the realm of "normal" physical, scientific and natural behavior still happening today, why couldn't these sorts of things have occurred and been recorded by Jesus followers?


After all there are many times where a doctor can not explain a sudden healing of a person. This article notates that a woman shot in the head POINT BLANK with a 32 cal handgun not only survived, but not ONE of the bullets even cracked her skull. According to the logic of HUME and those non-theists who claim that violations of natural law never happen, the newspaper is lying.

So which is it? Are violations of "normal" natural events possible (even if we can later explain them) or are all the doctors and the newspapers recording events like this just making it up?

[Confused]

Achilles quotes:

Like my paper bag analogy, science SHOULD be able to understand, recreate and examine the cause effect of this incident. They have measured the impact angles, the calibur of the round, the muzzle velocity, the thickness of the human skull. We have all that information so the doctors SHOULD NOT be in the dark. But they are.

Once again I am not trying to prove that this particular incident proves God. I am saying that if with all our wonderful science we still 2000 years later can not explain something as simple as basic physics, why is it so hard to accept that the accounts in the bible are at the very least plausible?

_________________

Science is always changing. Learning, adapting, etc.. Before Penicillin, we couldn't even understand or treat the most basic of infections. But that doenst' mean an answer wont be found. That also doesn't mean God isn't the answer. But to say that just because Science can't explain, one must consider the thought that God can is a fallacy of bifurcation. (false dichotomy). The explaination may be related to neither of these, but some third thing we haven't thought of yet. And then to say

Once again I am not trying to prove that this particular incident proves God. I am saying that if with all our wonderful science we still 2000 years later can not explain something as simple as basic physics, why is it so hard to accept that the accounts in the bible are at the very least plausible?

Is argumentum ad ignoratiam: just because science can't explain it we should consider religion as the explaination. In which case if A cant explain event B, then C should be considered just a viable an explaination (althouth C has nothing more than faith to back up it's assertion)

Once again, the body is constantly changing. I don't care how closely tissue is monitored, the immune system is monitored, etc...We can't keep up with it at all times. All it takes is the briefest moment for our bodies to gain the upper hand and the cascade effect will lead to healing, by science. Nothing else.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

This line of reasoning, while intelligent and needing of examination, has nothing to do with my original premise or question. Do I think God should directly intervene and solve all human problems? Maybe. Maybe not. I am certainly not all knowing so I am not going to say that all suffering should or should not be ended.

But again, this was not my question so please don't cloud my little pool with philosophy right now.

Exactly what is your philosophy?

First you state that this is, indeed, a miracle. But then you claim that the occurance of this miracle does not prove the existance of anything supernatural.

How is that possible? Miracles don't happen in nature; they negate the entire premise of causality. If they exist, then they must be caused by something supernatural (a god, presumably).

Given this, my former argumentation is perfectly viable. Why would any God make this simple miracle completely out of the blue? Why was this woman so important to merit a miracle, as opposed to the millions of other devout Christians who die horrible undeserved deaths?

The fact that these things happen today, shows that the non-theist claim that unexplainable things (miracles) never happen is flat wrong.

Confused previously suggested out a perfectly viable scenario of conditions in which it is possible that six bullets failed to penetrate the woman's skull. Instead of accepting this as a possibility, you invoke the supernatural?

Do you not see a historical pattern here? Let's go back to my previous example. Ancient civilizations regarded solar eclipses as miracles. They concluded this because there was no better explanation for the event. Now that we have more scientific knowledge, we know exactly what natural phenomena are at play in the event of a solar eclipse, and regard it as no more a miracle than the growing of grass.

In the near future, a doctor or analyst of this situation will no doubt find a perfectly viable explanation for this bullet phenomenon (as scientists always do, sooner or later).

Yet you still think it wise to invoke the supernatural?

There has never been any lasting evidence for miracles, and there never will be. Nature operates on a strict set of physical principles. Just because humans are not smart enough to figure out how it operates in certain situations does not mean that there is something "miraculous" at play.

[achilles12604]

This line of reasoning, while intelligent and needing of examination, has nothing to do with my original premise or question. Do I think God should directly intervene and solve all human problems? Maybe. Maybe not. I am certainly not all knowing so I am not going to say that all suffering should or should not be ended.

But again, this was not my question so please don't cloud my little pool with philosophy right now.

Exactly what is your philosophy?

First you state that this is, indeed, a miracle. But then you claim that the occurance of this miracle does not prove the existance of anything supernatural.

How is that possible? Miracles don't happen in nature; they negate the entire premise of causality. If they exist, then they must be caused by something supernatural (a god, presumably).

Given this, my former argumentation is perfectly viable. Why would any God make this simple miracle completely out of the blue? Why was this woman so important to merit a miracle, as opposed to the millions of other devout Christians who die horrible undeserved deaths?

The fact that these things happen today, shows that the non-theist claim that unexplainable things (miracles) never happen is flat wrong.

Confused previously suggested out a perfectly viable scenario of conditions in which it is possible that six bullets failed to penetrate the woman's skull. Instead of accepting this as a possibility, you invoke the supernatural?

Do you not see a historical pattern here? Let's go back to my previous example. Ancient civilizations regarded solar eclipses as miracles. They concluded this because there was no better explanation for the event. Now that we have more scientific knowledge, we know exactly what natural phenomena are at play in the event of a solar eclipse, and regard it as no more a miracle than the growing of grass.

In the near future, a doctor or analyst of this situation will no doubt find a perfectly viable explanation for this bullet phenomenon (as scientists always do, sooner or later).

Yet you still think it wise to invoke the supernatural?

There has never been any lasting evidence for miracles, and there never will be. Nature operates on a strict set of physical principles. Just because humans are not smart enough to figure out how it operates in certain situations does not mean that there is something "miraculous" at play.

Please read what I write before responding. You wrote

First you state that this is, indeed, a miracle.

Actually I wrote:

Now I am not going to say that this was divine intervention and it proves that all miraculous claims are now proved true.

and

1) I am not claiming that this woman's experience is divine in nature. It could be but I am in no position to say for sure.

and

2) I am not claiming that this one experience proves God and the supernatural.

Please try to read what I put forth instead of relying on a textbook strawman arguement. I am not saying this was a miracle. In fact I am not even debating if this was divine or not. I am using this as an example to show that the logic of Hume and all the non-theists who follow the same line of thinking is flawed.

Actually I was trying to make the focus of the question more towards the non-theist viewpoint offered by Hume.

The arguement offered by Hume (and several non-theists on this site) is that because we do not regularly see events like those recorded in the bible, that the miracles of Jesus are therefore made up.

Now that we have this little confusion cleared up let me continue.

All of this

First you state that this is, indeed, a miracle. But then you claim that the occurance of this miracle does not prove the existance of anything supernatural.

How is that possible? Miracles don't happen in nature; they negate the entire premise of causality. If they exist, then they must be caused by something supernatural (a god, presumably).

Given this, my former argumentation is perfectly viable. Why would any God make this simple miracle completely out of the blue? Why was this woman so important to merit a miracle, as opposed to the millions of other devout Christians who die horrible undeserved deaths?

Has nothing to do with my point. Your initial assumptions about what my point is, was incorrect. So really this line of thinking is not on point and so lets let it go since you are simply chasing your tail. I am on a totally different (yet somewhat related) topic.

ONCE AGAIN > > >

My point is that Hume's theory, which McCulloch was kind enough to present in full, is flawed from the very beginning. I showed how in post 8. Basically Hume's theory rests on the assumption that we do not see things occur which violate natural law. Yet there are many occurances per year that do violate what is understood. Furthermore, if you extend these events back to a time when science was non-existent, then the lack of understanding only increases exponentially.

With these facts, Hume's theory (which is totally accepted by individuals like Mack and Crossan) that these miracles were totally invented and never took place, is no longer the most likely option. The most likely option now is that these events did happen, but no one understood how.

This is my ultimate point.

Quote:
The fact that these things happen today, shows that the non-theist claim that unexplainable things (miracles) never happen is flat wrong.

Confused previously suggested out a perfectly viable scenario of conditions in which it is possible that six bullets failed to penetrate the woman's skull. Instead of accepting this as a possibility, you invoke the supernatural?

Actually I was glad she made this point. Once again you didn't read my response. Science has advanced to a point where we SHOULD (key word) know exactly what happened. The doctors examined the wounds. The examined the tradjectory and impacts of the bullets. Only AFTER examining all of these factors can current scientists say, "We have no idea how she survived."

You see science has the tools and ability to figure out the why behind this event. Only after science has come short (and shouldn't have) does this event begin to resemble other such occurances.

Here is yet another analogy. You have a calculator which is the most powerful machine in the world. It has never been wrong and it has been able to perform more and more functions as time goes on. It is learning and is now able to explain extremely complex funtions which boggle the mind. Now you want it to do a simple equation. You put into a calculator 2+2. The answer comes back 7. Now you know for a fact that this calculator has never given you a wrong answer. You perform other calculations and they all come back correct except this one. So you tear the calculator apart looking for a flaw, and there is none. It is functioning just as it should. So now you decide to get another calculator and type in 2+2 again. Again is reads 7 on the new calculator. Repeat this 6 times and this is what happened to the woman.

Our calculator science had advance WAY beyond simple physics. Physics, trajectories, impacts and such are childs play to scientists. Yet they are unable to figure out why all of a sudden it is saying 2+2=7.


Now since these events occur today, am I not entitled to believe that this same thing could have occured during the events in question?

Do you not see a historical pattern here? Let's go back to my previous example. Ancient civilizations regarded solar eclipses as miracles. They concluded this because there was no better explanation for the event. Now that we have more scientific knowledge, we know exactly what natural phenomena are at play in the event of a solar eclipse, and regard it as no more a miracle than the growing of grass.

I agree 100%. And This adds to my point. Science can explain many things today that it couldn't before. Physics, biology, etc are now so basic that a child in junior high learns them. Yet this powerful science we have is stumped why a simple physics equation presented results which contradicted everything we know SHOULD have happened. And this occured not once but six times. Now multiply this times the many occurances which happen and are documented, some of which I supplied a link for.

You point is taken. In fact I am adopting it as my own because in enhances my true point.

In the near future, a doctor or analyst of this situation will no doubt find a perfectly viable explanation for this bullet phenomenon (as scientists always do, sooner or later).

This is entirely possible. But my point still is, that this is a problem which they have the knowledge and tools to unravel TODAY. I doubt they are going to discover anything new about the nature of a bullet impacting a skull at a certain range, power, angle, etc. This is information we do not need to learn in the near future because we already have it.

There has never been any lasting evidence for miracles, and there never will be. Nature operates on a strict set of physical principles. Just because humans are not smart enough to figure out how it operates in certain situations does not mean that there is something "miraculous" at play.

This statement is still being debated by individuals with decades of expertise in their fields. And they have yet to come to a conclusion. So your simply stating it hardly makes it true.


Ok hopefully the confusion has been cleared up.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

My point is that Hume's theory, which McCulloch was kind enough to present in full, is flawed from the very beginning. I showed how in post 8. Basically Hume's theory rests on the assumption that we do not see things occur which violate natural law. Yet there are many occurances per year that do violate what is understood. Furthermore, if you extend these events back to a time when science was non-existent, then the lack of understanding only increases exponentially.

With these facts, Hume's theory (which is totally accepted by individuals like Mack and Crossan) that these miracles were totally invented and never took place, is no longer the most likely option. The most likely option now is that these events did happen, but no one understood how

An event can violate our understanding of natural law, but it can never violate the natural law(s) themselves.

Hume is right, because not a single one of us have ever witnessed an event that violates natural law. An event which violates natural principles would be known as a miracle, the existence of which you claim to deny.

There is often a great disparity between reality and our understanding of reality, but a violation of the later does not equate a violation of the former. Underneath all our disparate, often erroneous perceptions of reality, there is one true reality- absolute natural principles that make the world tick. These cannot be violated.


Beyond that, I still feel that I was correct in equating your argumentation as affirming the existence of miracles. You are using this woman's story to defend the viability of the miracles in the New Testament. Essentially, you follow up by saying that just as we do not understand how this woman survived, Jesus' followers did not understand how he walked on water or rose from the dead. You are claiming that there these odd occurances are in line with natural principles, but the only aspect missing is the observer's understanding of those principles (correct?).

What you fail to consider is that the miracles in the new testament are touted as just that: miracles. When Jesus cured people of diseases, he explicitly described his action as a miracle; a phenomena defying the natural laws of physics.

Joh 4:54
This was the second miracle that Jesus performed after he had come back from Judea to Galilee.

Act 4:22
(The man who was healed by this miracle was over 40 years old.)

Joh 12:18
Because the crowd heard that Jesus had performed this miracle, they came to meet him.


Miracles are, by definition, impossible feats. To use the story of the Brazilian woman as justification for Jesus' miracles, you must be willing to make the claim that this woman defied the laws of physics by surviving from her wounds. If you are not willing to claim that, then you have no point. As it stands, the only way to justify Jesus' miracles is to prove the existance of some supernatural force capable of making them.

You see science has the tools and ability to figure out the why behind this event. Only after science has come short (and shouldn't have) does this event begin to resemble other such occurances.

How can you claim that scientists SHOULD have been able to figure it out? The interplay of factors and forces in this event were likely almost infinitely complex; apparently, more complex than our current technology can descipher.

Given enough time, the doctors probably could have come up with an explanation of the event. However, since it is unlikely that this woman would have been willing to lie down in a lab with six bullets in her head for weeks on end, extensive research of the incident was not an option.

Here is yet another analogy. You have a calculator which is the most powerful machine in the world. It has never been wrong and it has been able to perform more and more functions as time goes on. It is learning and is now able to explain extremely complex funtions which boggle the mind. Now you want it to do a simple equation. You put into a calculator 2+2. The answer comes back 7. Now you know for a fact that this calculator has never given you a wrong answer. You perform other calculations and they all come back correct except this one. So you tear the calculator apart looking for a flaw, and there is none. It is functioning just as it should. So now you decide to get another calculator and type in 2+2 again. Again is reads 7 on the new calculator. Repeat this 6 times and this is what happened to the woman.

2+2 will never equal seven. Any calculator that claims so is flawed. Period.

Our calculator science had advance WAY beyond simple physics. Physics, trajectories, impacts and such are childs play to scientists. Yet they are unable to figure out why all of a sudden it is saying 2+2=7.

There is still much discovery to be made in the field of physics. Scientists could not determine why this woman survived because the forces at play were either (1) completely unknown to modern science, or (2) far too complex for a modern human mind to decipher.

You are overestimating scientific ability. We don't know everything, even regarding things considered to be simple (such as the physics at play from the firing of a bullet, it's trajectory path through the air, and it's contact with a human skull).

Even amoung simple scenarios such as these, there are possibly billions of factors at play. An unlikely (yet possible) combination of these factors leaves us with the phenomena of a woman being shot six times in the skull, and getting up to see another day.

[achilles12604]

I wrote:

Quote:
My point is that Hume's theory, which McCulloch was kind enough to present in full, is flawed from the very beginning. I showed how in post 8. Basically Hume's theory rests on the assumption that we do not see things occur which violate natural law. Yet there are many occurances per year that do violate what is understood. Furthermore, if you extend these events back to a time when science was non-existent, then the lack of understanding only increases exponentially.

With these facts, Hume's theory (which is totally accepted by individuals like Mack and Crossan) that these miracles were totally invented and never took place, is no longer the most likely option. The most likely option now is that these events did happen, but no one understood how

You countered:

An event can violate our understanding of natural law, but it can never violate the natural law(s) themselves.

Hume is right, because not a single one of us have ever witnessed an event that violates natural law. An event which violates natural principles would be known as a miracle, the existence of which you claim to deny.

There is often a great disparity between reality and our understanding of reality, but a violation of the later does not equate a violation of the former. Underneath all our disparate, often erroneous perceptions of reality, there is one true reality- absolute natural principles that make the world tick. These cannot be violated.

I hope you realize that you are arguing in a circle here. Basically you go from the assumption that miracles can't exist to the conclusion that miracles can't exist. However, this blantently disregards the circumstances and coincidences that have been documented and found through history and archeology. But this once again is not my point here. You keep jumping the gun and creating a strawman to attack even after I pulled out 3 quotes that show I am not trying to prove this (or anything) was in fact a divine miracle. You are getting to far ahead PP and You need to focus on what point I am making, not where you think I am going to go with it. So far you havn't addressed my main point so I'll get it to you straight. . . .



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The fact that there are circumstances which science has in the past been able to explain and now it can not, gives plausibility to the stories in the bible being actual events (even if they were nothing more than illusionist tricks or a great misunderstanding) rather than them being made up entirely as Mack, Hume and other non-theists claim they were.

Is this statement both true and logical? Yes or no and why.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


No more escaping the main point by veering off onto a side debate about adding divine nature to events. Answer one question at a time.

Beyond that, I still feel that I was correct in equating your argumentation as affirming the existence of miracles. You are using this woman's story to defend the viability of the miracles in the New Testament. Essentially, you follow up by saying that just as we do not understand how this woman survived, Jesus' followers did not understand how he walked on water or rose from the dead. You are claiming that there these odd occurances are in line with natural principles, but the only aspect missing is the observer's understanding of those principles (correct?).

Actually I was simply talking about the plausibility of events occuring whatever the cause. I was temporarily de-deifying these events to try and look at them without the blinders that non-theists put on whenever asked to examine events of supernatural origin. Trying to convince them of the whole package at once is like running my head into a wall over and over. So I am trying to go one step at a time.

YOU are the one who continues to attempt to add deification to these events. WHY?? Are you afraid to admit that these events which are unexplained does in fact invalidate Hume's first premise? The premise was that we do not see things occur which violate natural order. Yet here are events which not only violate what would happen 999,999 times out of 1,000,000, but furthermore they can not be explained by science. This is FURTHER compounded by the fact that science has been able to understand these exact circumstance millions of times before in every homicide that occurs with these conditions. Why is science baffeled now?

Now removing all the supernatural elements from both the current events and the ancient accounts, are they not similar? Quick and unexplainable healings? This is almost a carbon copy from one time to another. The only difference is that this time the person healing is not starting a movement. Once the blinders of deification are removed, these events can easily overlap and THAT is the point. This shows that it is not only plausible but in fact probable that the events in question did occur and were not later inventions. The why's of these events is a very seperate issue right now. I am not discussing the why. I am starting WAAAAY back at Mack's ideas that they were obvious inventions because Hume said so.

BTW - did you ever read that satire I posted written while Napoleon was alive which used Hume's logic to prove Napoleon never even existed? It is really quite good. I will try and find it again. But this is more evidence that Hume's theories leave a lot to be desired. My evidence simply shows his faults more clearly and more importantly, they are documented events.




Ah in the next two sections you do a textbook pleading the question along with a strawman attack. VERY very well done indeed.

You write: (strawman)

What you fail to consider is that the miracles in the new testament are touted as just that: miracles. When Jesus cured people of diseases, he explicitly described his action as a miracle; a phenomena defying the natural laws of physics.

Joh 4:54
This was the second miracle that Jesus performed after he had come back from Judea to Galilee.

Act 4:22
(The man who was healed by this miracle was over 40 years old.)

Joh 12:18
Because the crowd heard that Jesus had performed this miracle, they came to meet him.

And then you continue on with begging the question. . .

Miracles are, by definition, impossible feats. To use the story of the Brazilian woman as justification for Jesus' miracles, you must be willing to make the claim that this woman defied the laws of physics by surviving from her wounds.

"I'm right because everyone knows I am right!!!"

And then you return to another strawman.

If you are not willing to claim that, then you have no point. As it stands, the only way to justify Jesus' miracles is to prove the existance of some supernatural force capable of making them.

On the contrary, I do have a point. You have simply been avoiding it this whole time in lieu of a straw man that you put up instead and then burn it down. But not this time. I have a point and I even off set it above so it is now really easy to find. >>>>


I wrote:

Quote:
You see science has the tools and ability to figure out the why behind this event. Only after science has come short (and shouldn't have) does this event begin to resemble other such occurances.

You reply:

How can you claim that scientists SHOULD have been able to figure it out? The interplay of factors and forces in this event were likely almost infinitely complex; apparently, more complex than our current technology can descipher.

How can I claim this? Because Mr. Plat, we have perfected the science of ballistics to the point where error is basically zero. In addition to this, simple physics is a very easy science to understand and employ.

Example: When you shoot a bullet out of gun X it travels at X feet per second. If item Y (skull) is impacted at R degrees, we can be sure that bullet X will penetrate item Y.

Why? Because physics has shown it to be true over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over . . . . . . . Science, especailly in regards to police work and in this case the physics of ballistics, was not born yesterday. We have CENTURIES of data that has been collected from all over the world. And yes we know that when bullet X hits skull Y at R angle . . . it should have broken through and killed person G. Note this didn't happen once, twice, three times . . .

It happened 6 consecutive times. Hence, the scientists say, they can not explain it.

KEY POINT HERE!!

Why can't they explain it? Because they don't have the scientific tools to understand what happened? No. They can't explain it because it violates their understanding of science which has remained perfectly constant for as long as they have been taking records.

Thank you Mr. Hume, your first premise was just thrown out.

There is still much discovery to be made in the field of physics. Scientists could not determine why this woman survived because the forces at play were either (1) completely unknown to modern science, or (2) far too complex for a modern human mind to decipher.

Umm. PP you are grasping at straws. We don't understand mechanical physics? I'm not sure what you background with physics is but physics (mechanical) is understood and applied everday. If you don't think physics has been thuroughly researched then I advise you to get out of your house (it may suddenly collapse), never drive again (what a disaster that could be) or even start to walk again. All of those things are explained by physics and they are always correct. Same with ballistics. Unless you think that humans are still in the dark ages then neither option 1 nor option 2 are valid. We understand the physics that should have occured and it is well within our purview to conceptualize these factors.

Even amoung simple scenarios such as these, there are possibly billions of factors at play. An unlikely (yet possible) combination of these factors leaves us with the phenomena of a woman being shot six times in the skull, and getting up to see another day.

So you do admit that natural law (what should occur according to nature) does not always bring about the result that we see all the time? Careful here. . . .

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The fact that there are circumstances which science has in the past been able to explain and now it can not, gives plausibility to the stories in the bible being actual events (even if they were nothing more than illusionist tricks or a great misunderstanding) rather than them being made up entirely as Mack, Hume and other non-theists claim they were.

Is this statement both true and logical? Yes or no and why.

I am pretty certain that Mack and Hume would not deny the existance of illusions. The one thing they do deny is the existance of miracles.

My answer to your question is yes, but I still don't see where you are going with this. Regardless of the answer, there is still absolutely no evidence for the miracles that Jesus' followers claim he performed.

YOU are the one who continues to attempt to add deification to these events. WHY?? Are you afraid to admit that these events which are unexplained does in fact invalidate Hume's first premise? The premise was that we do not see things occur which violate natural order. Yet here are events which not only violate what would happen 999,999 times out of 1,000,000, but furthermore they can not be explained by science.

Once again, ANYTHING that violates the natural order is a miracle. Hume's first premise deny's the existance of miracles. Nothing more, nothing less. If you do not attempt to provide any evidence of miracles, then there is nothing you can say that would invalidate Hume's premise.

It does not matter if an event will only occur 999,999 times out of 1,000,000. Hell, it doesen't matter if there is only a one in INFINITY chance of the said event occuring. As long as there is a one in X chance of something occurring, then it is sanctioned by the laws of physics, and does not violate the natural order.

An event which defies the natural order has a 0 in infinity chance of occurring; only possible by divine intervention.

How can I claim this? Because Mr. Plat, we have perfected the science of ballistics to the point where error is basically zero. In addition to this, simple physics is a very easy science to understand and employ.

This is false.

Sorry, but we don't know everything about anything. You will not find a credible scientist on earth who will claim otherwise.

Example: When you shoot a bullet out of gun X it travels at X feet per second. If item Y (skull) is impacted at R degrees, we can be sure that bullet X will penetrate item Y.

If only it were that simple.

Some other possible factors in the scenario:

- Wind
- Atmospheric conditions (which could concievably effect the path of a bullet)
- A flaw in the particular gun used which may have effected shooting accuracy
- A flaw in the shooter which may have effected shooting accuracy
- Abnormal skull structure and/or consistency of the woman in question
- ect ect ect ect ect ect

This particular scenario likely has THOUSANDS of various factors which may have contributed to the outcome. Your scenario cited five.

To say that any scientist should be able to determine the exact causality in every single one of these complex scenarios is placing far too much faith in the extent of these scientist's knowledge.

Why can't they explain it? Because they don't have the scientific tools to understand what happened? No. They can't explain it because it violates their understanding of science which has remained perfectly constant for as long as they have been taking records.

Invoking my former argument,

Is violating our understanding of the natural order the same thing as violating the natural order itself? In other words

Your understanding of Hume is seriously flawed.

Umm. PP you are grasping at straws. We don't understand mechanical physics? I'm not sure what you background with physics is but physics (mechanical) is understood and applied everday. If you don't think physics has been thuroughly researched then I advise you to get out of your house (it may suddenly collapse), never drive again (what a disaster that could be) or even start to walk again. All of those things are explained by physics and they are always correct. Same with ballistics. Unless you think that humans are still in the dark ages then neither option 1 nor option 2 are valid. We understand the physics that should have occured and it is well within our purview to conceptualize these factors.

So in other words, scientists know everything?

So you do admit that natural law (what should occur according to nature) does not always bring about the result that we see all the time?

When did I ever claim otherwise?

The laws of physics operate in a consistent, logical, absolute pattern. It is our subjective perspective of these laws (our inability to take into account all the various factors at play) that makes these laws appear to fluctuate in rare circumstances.

As we learn more about the universe, of course, we will find fewer and fewer different natural phenomena that surprise us. However, the only way to truely know everything would be to ascent to a divine state of being, granting us objective perception. Assuming this will never happen, we can probably be certain that there will always be those phenomenons which violate our understanding of the world.

But nothing can ever violate the natural order.

[Wyvern]

Why? Because physics has shown it to be true over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over . . . . . . . Science, especailly in regards to police work and in this case the physics of ballistics, was not born yesterday. We have CENTURIES of data that has been collected from all over the world. And yes we know that when bullet X hits skull Y at R angle . . . it should have broken through and killed person G. Note this didn't happen once, twice, three times . . .

It happened 6 consecutive times. Hence, the scientists say, they can not explain it.

As it has been noted there are quite a few factors involved here. This crime happened in Brazil, which means the atmosphere is in general pretty humid which will slow the bullet to a certain extant. How long the bullets have stood around in this atmosphere is unknown so it is possible that they may have degraded somewhat. The skull is by no means a flat surface so unless you have perfect conditions you are more than likely going to get a deflection. The actual angle the bullets struck at is unknown. Not much of an investigation was conducted otherwise the bullets wouldn't still be lodged in the womans scalp. These two people were having an argument so I assume she wasn't sitting still and he probably wasn't aiming either. After all if the shooter really wanted to kill her by shooting her in the head he should have shot her in the face, few deflections and thinner bones. All in all the real miracle to me is that he hit with all six bullets.

KEY POINT HERE!!

Why can't they explain it? Because they don't have the scientific tools to understand what happened? No. They can't explain it because it violates their understanding of science which has remained perfectly constant for as long as they have been taking records.

No, this will remain unexplained because of a lack of data to go on. The only concrete data there is in this case is the muzzle velocity and even this has a lot of variables since the particular type of bullet and manufacturer is also not known.

[Confused]

Why? Because physics has shown it to be true over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over . . . . . . . Science, especailly in regards to police work and in this case the physics of ballistics, was not born yesterday. We have CENTURIES of data that has been collected from all over the world. And yes we know that when bullet X hits skull Y at R angle . . . it should have broken through and killed person G. Note this didn't happen once, twice, three times . . .

It happened 6 consecutive times. Hence, the scientists say, they can not explain it.

As it has been noted there are quite a few factors involved here. This crime happened in Brazil, which means the atmosphere is in general pretty humid which will slow the bullet to a certain extant. How long the bullets have stood around in this atmosphere is unknown so it is possible that they may have degraded somewhat. The skull is by no means a flat surface so unless you have perfect conditions you are more than likely going to get a deflection. The actual angle the bullets struck at is unknown. Not much of an investigation was conducted otherwise the bullets wouldn't still be lodged in the womans scalp. These two people were having an argument so I assume she wasn't sitting still and he probably wasn't aiming either. After all if the shooter really wanted to kill her by shooting her in the head he should have shot her in the face, few deflections and thinner bones. All in all the real miracle to me is that he hit with all six bullets.

KEY POINT HERE!!

Why can't they explain it? Because they don't have the scientific tools to understand what happened? No. They can't explain it because it violates their understanding of science which has remained perfectly constant for as long as they have been taking records.

No, this will remain unexplained because of a lack of data to go on. The only concrete data there is in this case is the muzzle velocity and even this has a lot of variables since the particular type of bullet and manufacturer is also not known.

I think he is on the right path here. It is impossible to calculate all the extraneous variables that led to the results of this event. Wind speed, direction, position of the body, atmosphere, etc..... Science never claimed to be able to explain everything, but most turn to science before miracles. If you had a STD, would you pray for a cure or seek a doctor. If you had cancer, same scenario. I am not discounting the miracle theory. I am only saying that to give it even a quarter of the credit for the outcome over any other influence is a pretty big stretch.

[achilles12604]

Why? Because physics has shown it to be true over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over . . . . . . . Science, especailly in regards to police work and in this case the physics of ballistics, was not born yesterday. We have CENTURIES of data that has been collected from all over the world. And yes we know that when bullet X hits skull Y at R angle . . . it should have broken through and killed person G. Note this didn't happen once, twice, three times . . .

It happened 6 consecutive times. Hence, the scientists say, they can not explain it.

As it has been noted there are quite a few factors involved here. This crime happened in Brazil, which means the atmosphere is in general pretty humid which will slow the bullet to a certain extant. How long the bullets have stood around in this atmosphere is unknown so it is possible that they may have degraded somewhat. The skull is by no means a flat surface so unless you have perfect conditions you are more than likely going to get a deflection. The actual angle the bullets struck at is unknown. Not much of an investigation was conducted otherwise the bullets wouldn't still be lodged in the womans scalp. These two people were having an argument so I assume she wasn't sitting still and he probably wasn't aiming either. After all if the shooter really wanted to kill her by shooting her in the head he should have shot her in the face, few deflections and thinner bones. All in all the real miracle to me is that he hit with all six bullets.

KEY POINT HERE!!

Why can't they explain it? Because they don't have the scientific tools to understand what happened? No. They can't explain it because it violates their understanding of science which has remained perfectly constant for as long as they have been taking records.

No, this will remain unexplained because of a lack of data to go on. The only concrete data there is in this case is the muzzle velocity and even this has a lot of variables since the particular type of bullet and manufacturer is also not known.

I think he is on the right path here. It is impossible to calculate all the extraneous variables that led to the results of this event. Wind speed, direction, position of the body, atmosphere, etc..... Science never claimed to be able to explain everything, but most turn to science before miracles. If you had a STD, would you pray for a cure or seek a doctor. If you had cancer, same scenario. I am not discounting the miracle theory. I am only saying that to give it even a quarter of the credit for the outcome over any other influence is a pretty big stretch.

I still disagree that the variables in this example are great enough to explain the result that occured. 6 bullets into the skull at a range close enough to where he was able to hit the target 6 times (point blank), one would think that at the very least the skull would have been cracked or penetrated at least once. But no matter.

All the non-theists here are still missing my ultimate point.

Once again I am not out to prove that this is a bonafide example of a miracle. What I am attempting to show is that since there are events which even today's advancement consider to be mysterious and "miraculous", non-theists can not use the line of reasoning . . . .

"We do not have examples of things occuring outside of natural expectations, so miracles do not exist."

Further more Hume's whole theory is frought with logical fallacies.

Moreover, he stresses that talk of the miraculous has no surface validity, for four reasons. First, he explains that in all of history there has never been a miracle which was attested to by a wide body of disinterested experts. Second, he notes that human beings delight in a sense of wonder, and this provides a villain with an opportunity to manipulate others. Third, he thinks that those who hold onto the miraculous have tended towards barbarism. Finally, since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous -- that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle -- any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enquiry_Co ... erstanding (notice I used a favorite site of non-theists)

First, he explains that in all of history there has never been a miracle which was attested to by a wide body of disinterested experts.

This is the point I am trying to show is not entirely valid.

Second, he notes that human beings delight in a sense of wonder, and this provides a villain with an opportunity to manipulate others.

This actually gives some support to my claim that these events did happen. Next all we need to discuss is the reason they occurred.

Third, he thinks that those who hold onto the miraculous have tended towards barbarism.

This is the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

Finally, since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous -- that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle -- any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating

This is not a logical arguement against the occurances since even if one side is true or false, it has no bearing on all the others. This would be like saying since most races have racist people, that there are no true racists (or everyone is racist). Either way this arguement, while it does cast some light, does not follow through logically.

[Confused]

Why? Because physics has shown it to be true over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over . . . . . . . Science, especailly in regards to police work and in this case the physics of ballistics, was not born yesterday. We have CENTURIES of data that has been collected from all over the world. And yes we know that when bullet X hits skull Y at R angle . . . it should have broken through and killed person G. Note this didn't happen once, twice, three times . . .

It happened 6 consecutive times. Hence, the scientists say, they can not explain it.

As it has been noted there are quite a few factors involved here. This crime happened in Brazil, which means the atmosphere is in general pretty humid which will slow the bullet to a certain extant. How long the bullets have stood around in this atmosphere is unknown so it is possible that they may have degraded somewhat. The skull is by no means a flat surface so unless you have perfect conditions you are more than likely going to get a deflection. The actual angle the bullets struck at is unknown. Not much of an investigation was conducted otherwise the bullets wouldn't still be lodged in the womans scalp. These two people were having an argument so I assume she wasn't sitting still and he probably wasn't aiming either. After all if the shooter really wanted to kill her by shooting her in the head he should have shot her in the face, few deflections and thinner bones. All in all the real miracle to me is that he hit with all six bullets.

KEY POINT HERE!!

Why can't they explain it? Because they don't have the scientific tools to understand what happened? No. They can't explain it because it violates their understanding of science which has remained perfectly constant for as long as they have been taking records.

No, this will remain unexplained because of a lack of data to go on. The only concrete data there is in this case is the muzzle velocity and even this has a lot of variables since the particular type of bullet and manufacturer is also not known.

I think he is on the right path here. It is impossible to calculate all the extraneous variables that led to the results of this event. Wind speed, direction, position of the body, atmosphere, etc..... Science never claimed to be able to explain everything, but most turn to science before miracles. If you had a STD, would you pray for a cure or seek a doctor. If you had cancer, same scenario. I am not discounting the miracle theory. I am only saying that to give it even a quarter of the credit for the outcome over any other influence is a pretty big stretch.

I still disagree that the variables in this example are great enough to explain the result that occured. 6 bullets into the skull at a range close enough to where he was able to hit the target 6 times (point blank), one would think that at the very least the skull would have been cracked or penetrated at least once. But no matter.

All the non-theists here are still missing my ultimate point.

Once again I am not out to prove that this is a bonafide example of a miracle. What I am attempting to show is that since there are events which even today's advancement consider to be mysterious and "miraculous", non-theists can not use the line of reasoning . . . .

"We do not have examples of things occuring outside of natural expectations, so miracles do not exist."

Further more Hume's whole theory is frought with logical fallacies.

Moreover, he stresses that talk of the miraculous has no surface validity, for four reasons. First, he explains that in all of history there has never been a miracle which was attested to by a wide body of disinterested experts. Second, he notes that human beings delight in a sense of wonder, and this provides a villain with an opportunity to manipulate others. Third, he thinks that those who hold onto the miraculous have tended towards barbarism. Finally, since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous -- that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle -- any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enquiry_Co ... erstanding (notice I used a favorite site of non-theists)

First, he explains that in all of history there has never been a miracle which was attested to by a wide body of disinterested experts.

This is the point I am trying to show is not entirely valid.

Second, he notes that human beings delight in a sense of wonder, and this provides a villain with an opportunity to manipulate others.

This actually gives some support to my claim that these events did happen. Next all we need to discuss is the reason they occurred.

Third, he thinks that those who hold onto the miraculous have tended towards barbarism.

This is the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

Finally, since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous -- that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle -- any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating

This is not a logical arguement against the occurances since even if one side is true or false, it has no bearing on all the others. This would be like saying since most races have racist people, that there are no true racists (or everyone is racist). Either way this arguement, while it does cast some light, does not follow through logically.

I am sorry. I misinterpreted your intention here. I can no more prove it was extraneous variables than I could prove it was a miracle. Yes, science should be farther along in some areas, but priority and money and politics dictate research. For example, the Bush foundation granted another few million to the research of returning to the moon, but still bans fetal stem cell research which could yield so much more to mankind. Now, I don't want to get into a debate about embryonic stem cells. Not for this forum and I only use it as an example. Could miracles happen through a Supernatural intervention, I can't prove nor disprove it. I can only go with what I see and know (or think I see and know).