Saint Teresa

[Nearly Sane]

There is nothing 'just' about it. If Jesus walked on water...it IS something extraordinary because it is not something anyone else can do. But that does not make it supernatural. He knew how to do it....others don't!  That is it. You can fire a gun that a Amazon tribal cannot...so it is extraordinary for the tribal ...but quite ordinary for you. 

It is about how we expand the scope of our understanding and how we accommodate phenomena into our fold of knowledge. Its basically about labeling....nothing else. 

It need not be about a advanced civilization from somewhere else. It could be something that we all are capable of but have not yet got around to.

Could well be, but the people who make supernatural claims aren't trying to say something was extraordinary. After all Adam Peaty's swim in the Olympic games is in that sense extraordinary. If you want to say to people that claim miracles are simply describing something like Peaty's swim to justify their beliefs, then you are telling them they are talking mince.

[Sriram]

Could well be, but the people who make supernatural claims aren't trying to say something was extraordinary. After all Adam Peaty's swim in the Olympic games is in that sense extraordinary. If you want to say to people that claim miracles are simply describing something like Peaty's swim to justify their beliefs, then you are telling them they are talking mince.

It depends on who one is talking to. Taking the instance of the tribal.  If the tribal tells another tribal that he witnessed something supernatural or miraculous when you fired a gun, ...he is  not talking nonsense. But if your friend says he saw something miraculous he is talking nonsense. It depends on whether the phenomenon is within the purview of our understanding or not, at that point of  time.

Something can be miraculous at one time and become natural later.  Its about perception...and labeling.

There could be many mental phenomena that we don't understand. It could be considered as miraculous or ordinary depending on whether we have any clue of it or not. 

I am off to bed now. See you tomorrow.

[Nearly Sane]

I am off to bed now. See you tomorrow.

sleep well

[wigginhall]

Sriram has his own take on it, but this is not a Christian view, surely.   The vast majority of Christians see Christ as the divine breaking into nature, or a rupture in the natural order.   That's one reason that you can't hoist yourself up by your bootstraps, you need grace, and grace is not from nature.   Or as the Protestants say, you don't/can't earn grace.  Salvation is not a reward for the good things you have done.

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram has his own take on it, but this is not a Christian view, surely.   The vast majority of Christians see Christ as the divine breaking into nature, or a rupture in the natural order.   That's one reason that you can't hoist yourself up by your bootstraps, you need grace, and grace is not from nature.   Or as the Protestants say, you don't/can't earn grace.

miracle claims are a breach of cause and effect, they have to be for their import. If Jesus is merely advanced scientifically, it is as Sriram points out that a plane might be seen as  miraculous by some

Actually it's somewhat worse than this, it means if the Catholic Church cannot explain a claim it might be lying, or being duped by an enemy of Jesus

[jeremyp]

no you can find out if the claim is backed up by the effect, not the cause. You cannot have a method that assumes naturalism, that has no way of looking at cause as not being natural can deal with any non natural claim.

Tell me what the difference is between a method that assumes naturalism and one that doesn't.

But you are absolutely right that any way of explaining things by science will be natural, it's written into the method. But it's based on the idea that anything you argue is a cause is natural.

No.

The scientific method does not rely on things being labelled as "natural". All that matters is that the method yields consistent repeatable results. If I claim that my ability to fly is based on Kevin's ectoplasmic effluence, I do not have to show that Kevin's ectoplasmic effluence is natural, I only have to find a way to falsify it.

But having done that, I have made Kevin and his ectoplasmic effluence part of the natural World.

If you define "supernatural" as "that which cannot be verified scientifically, then by definition it is not amenable to systematic study, but such a definition is a supernatural of the gaps.

[Nearly Sane]

Tell me what the difference is between a method that assumes naturalism and one that doesn't.
No.

One assumes naturalism and the other wan Disney! To be more serious I presume you asking what does a non naturalistic methodology look like. And the answer is I haven't a clue which is why I gave spent so long asking about one from those who claim miracles.

The scientific method does not rely on things being labelled as "natural". All that matters is that the method yields consistent repeatable results. If I claim that my ability to fly is based on Kevin's ectoplasmic effluence, I do not have to show that Kevin's ectoplasmic effluence is natural, I only have to find a way to falsify it.

But having done that, I have made Kevin and his ectoplasmic effluence part of the natural World.

If you define "supernatural" as "that which cannot be verified scientifically, then by definition it is not amenable to systematic study, but such a definition is a supernatural of the gaps.

And that's my whole point. Thise claiming supernatural causes are putting it beyond scientific investigation since no matter what science ever established their claim is still meant to a breach of the naturalistic assumptions of cause and effect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How would algebra deal with a eyelid that was turquoise?


The whole problem here is, as has been pointed out to you many many manytomes before, is that science is methodological naturalistic. It cannot show evidence for a supernatural claim. That's why you have been asked many many many times before for such a methodology and failed to provide it.

But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.

I think it's worth analysing whether the conclusion of popular science at least I.e. A spontaneous regrow th probably due to an extreme manifestation of the placebo effect is in fact scientific?

[Nearly Sane]

But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.

I think it's worth analysing whether the conclusion of popular science at least I.e. A spontaneous regrow th probably due to an extreme manifestation of the placebo effect is in fact scientific?

no that is an assertion, not a methodology. It also means that by this rule at one point you are supporting the ideasideas that lightning was supernatural but isn't now so it is an illogical assertion.

And in addition your idea of unique which is simply bunged in with no justication is another example of your problem with induction. You do go for degree  of difficulth of wrongness in your posts.

[Gordon]

But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.

First you have to establish that there was an 'event' to start with.

How would you propose to assess the risks of exaggeration, mistakes or lies where there are only anecdotes claiming the alleged event occurred in the first place?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

no that is an assertion, not a methodology. It also means that by this rule at one point you are supporting the ideasideas that lightning was supernatural but isn't now so it is an illogical assertion.

And in addition your idea of unique which is simply bunged in with no justication is another example of your problem with induction. You do go for degree  of difficulth of wrongness in your posts.

Gibberish

[Nearly Sane]

Gibberish

And brave Sir Vlad runs away , runs away runs away!

[Alan Burns]

She devoted her life to show love to the poorest of the poor.  Her only possessions were a bucket and two saris.  Whenever she spoke in front of politicians or high powered executives, she had a remarkable gift of subtly showing them the error of their ways with just a few humble words.   I praise God for her wonderful life and inspiration.

[Nearly Sane]

She devoted her life to show love to the poorest of the poor.  Her only possessions were a bucket and two saris.  Whenever she spoke in front of politicians or high powered executives, she had a remarkable gift of subtly showing them the error of their ways with just a few humble words.   I praise God for her wonderful life and inspiration.

just a pity about not spending money on sterilizing needles and thereby killing people

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.

Nope. It's just an event for which there is no known law and no known scientific explanation. You know, just like thunder was for the Norse people. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope. It's just an event for which there is no known law and no known scientific explanation. You know, just like thunder was for the Norse people.

Good old Hillside .....getting science to write little prophetic promise or iOS notes to us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope. It's just an event for which there is no known law and no known scientific explanation. You know, just like thunder was for the Norse people.

I'm talking unique events here . We know that thunder is a repeated event and therefore susceptible to science.

I'm just reflecting that any definition of  supernatural with the word supernatural in it.....which your working definition seems to have in it ........is a bad definition.

[Gordon]

She devoted her life to show love to the poorest of the poor.  Her only possessions were a bucket and two saris.  Whenever she spoke in front of politicians or high powered executives, she had a remarkable gift of subtly showing them the error of their ways with just a few humble words.   I praise God for her wonderful life and inspiration.

In these circumstances your praise is perverse, as of course is this whole sainthood nonsense. 

[Gordon]

I'm talking unique events here .

I'll ask again: what checks would you make to ensure that these 'unique events' actually occurred?

After all, given the very human risks of mistakes and lies that are evident throughout history, before worrying about the details it would be important to know that the claimed 'event' actually happened in the first place. If are there only historic anecdotal accounts, which seems par for the course for miracle claims, then surely you'd need to eliminate the risks that the claim is either wrong in some way or could be wholly fictitious before accepting any anecdotal claims that a miracle occurred. 

[ProfessorDavey]

She devoted her life to show love to the poorest of the poor.  Her only possessions were a bucket and two saris.  Whenever she spoke in front of politicians or high powered executives, she had a remarkable gift of subtly showing them the error of their ways with just a few humble words.   I praise God for her wonderful life and inspiration.

She received tens of millions in funding every year yet she denied the most basic of medical care to those in her homes - namely clean needles, proper analgesics, antibiotics. So people in her homes died in appalling pain when that pain should (and could) have been managed. She believed the suffering of the poor was somehow noble.

She refused to fund the most basic of diagnostic tests thereby failing to tell the difference between those who were actually dying and those who were merely ill with treatable diseases, allowing the latter to die when they could have lived.

She had the money to fund these basic things, yet refused to fund them, and it is still unclear where all that donated money went - it certainly didn't go into helping the poor. Yet when she was ill she ensured that she benefitted from the highest quality medical care.

She had an extremely dubious record in terms of the company she kept - regularly praising and being a strong supporter of the most authoritarian dictators and supporting anti-democratic actions in her adopted country.

Her global personality cult meant that she sucked money away from the many other organisations in Calcutta helping the poor, who were trying do the job properly, but suffered from lack of resources/funding (something that was never a problem for MT).

That is the person we are talking about.

[Bubbles]

Gordon


It depends on how you see miracles.

Everyone here seems to be obsessed with making miracles something which is outside the natural world.

But they don't have to be.

They can be an enormous and unlikely coincidence.

Miracles can be part of the natural world.

This is an example of something along the lines I mean.

http://www.history.com/news/the-man-who-survived-two-atomic-bombs

Sometimes people have stories where they have survived seemingly impossible odds.

Those can be miracles too.

The definition of a miracle is wider than something which is outside the natural world.

I don't think the RCC limits itself on a definition of miracles to things "outside" nature.

[Gordon]

It depends to how you see miracles.

Everyone here seems to be obsessed with making miracles something which is outside the natural world.

Those that support miracle claims seem to want them to be instances of divine intervention that aren't natural.

But they don't have to be.

Especially so if the claimed miracle didn't happen in the first place, which seems to be a risk the proponents of miracles prefer to avoid.

They can be an enormous and unlikely coincidence.

Then they would just be unlikely natural events and not miracles.

Miracles can be part of the natural world.

The either they aren't miracles and are unexplained phenomena in relation to current knowledge regarding the natural world. However, there is still the issue of excluding the risks of mistakes and lies in that it may be that the claim is fictitious.

[floo]

Getting back not so good 'saint' Teresa, I think she did more good leaving this world than she did when she was part of it!

[Bubbles]

This is the RCC definition of Miracles

Sometimes, however, man observes an event that cannot be explained by science because the normal powers of nature have been exceeded. The occurrence cannot
be attributed to natural causes nor can the laws of nature explain the outcome. Miracles occur in nature but are also truly supernatural because the normal powers of nature have been surpassed.

http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/above-and-beyond-the-churchs-teaching-on-miracles/

Gordon

Yes you might be right, they also seem to be looking for some hidden message about something to believe about God.

I think that's why some of their beliefs are very strange ( to me anyway)

MT will add to that oddity.

They appear to look for signs that conform and add to their already held perceived beliefs.

Let's hope they don't latch on to MT ideas on what really matters with things like pain relief or hygiene.

It's a self fullfilling thing, they declare miracles when it is what they want to hear or conforms to existing beliefs.

Its wishful thinking, they are not looking for miracles really but conformation of their own strange beliefs.

Anything that can be read as confirming it, gets the status.

But it has to supply that.

MT is in effect being used by the RCC to validate their own beliefs and justify their own ideas of their importance.

That's what a saint is.

Someone who validates what the RCC stands for, that they can use to validate their church in other people's eyes, mainly the congregations.

None of it is scientific, it's incredibly biased.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Good old Hillside .....getting science to write little prophetic promise or iOS notes to us.

Nope. You made a mistake and I identified it for you. An "event" (assuming it happened at all) for which there is "no law or scientific explanation" is not "by definition a supernatural event" (assuming for now that you have a cogent meaning for "supernatural").

All it would be would be an event for which there is no known law or scientific explanation. That's not to say that such an explanation would necessarily at some time be found, or even for that matter that ultimately it would turn out that there isn't one and that your "supernatural" wouldn't be the case. It is to say though that you have no basis whatever on which to claim "it is by definition a supernatural event".

"No known law or scientific explanation" is not in other words a synonym for "supernatural". Not by a long stretch.       

I'm talking unique events here . We know that thunder is a repeated event and therefore susceptible to science.

Actually you're talking about stories that claim unique events but, leaving that aside, that an event happened uniquely and thus was not readily accessible to the tools of naturalistic enquiry doesn't somehow make it "supernatural". If thunder had happened only once it would still be a natural phenomenon whether or not we had an explanation for it. 

I'm just reflecting that any definition of  supernatural with the word supernatural in it.....which your working definition seems to have in it ........is a bad definition.

No you're not. What you're actually doing is confusing "no natural explanation to hand" with "therefore supernatural", which is poor thinking.