Saint Teresa

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once you've ensured that it occurred in the first place, especially when dealing with anecdotal reports of miracle claims involving people. Which reminds me, you've still to tell me how you assess the risks of mistakes or lies when dealing with anecdotal accounts.

I'm sorry Gordon but this debate goes beyond the limitations of your brain.
The universe must have either come into existence out of nothing or have been created or be eternal and perturbed (changed) by an external or be eternal and self perturbed. Those are our only options......ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them.

Not only that there can be but one start of the universe and one universe observable by science.

Nothing can ever pop out of nothing since there is something already here. A unique eternal is a one off thing.

The universe you see is evidence of a supernatural event which is not describable in terms of natural laws or scientific investigation which operates on repeatability.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

How can you know that an event is unrepeatable Vlad? Note unrepeatable, not unrepeated.

He can't.

Nor can he know that an event we only believe to have happened once hasn't in fact happened more times than that already.

Nor, even if he could do those two things and thereby show an event to be unique, does he have an argument of any kind to take him from "unique" to "supernatural".

Apart from that though...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them.

Try really, really had to see what's wrong with that sentence.

If you can finally manage it I'll give you a Liquorice Allsort.

Deal? 

[wigginhall]

I'm curious what these unrepeatable events are.   Any clue, Vlad?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can you know that an event is unrepeatable Vlad? Note unrepeatable, not unrepeated.

If the universe is, as one theory goes, a succession of big bangs and crunches that would mean it is eternal and not subject to cause and effect. If the presence of change is due to something outside of the universe that would be supernatural since it would not be subject to natural laws. If it is self perturbed then that does not follow any observed law.

Conjuring up multiverse does not help at all here.

There is no escape that the character of the universe as something given a helping hand or helping itself is not susceptible to science or laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm curious what these unrepeatable events are.   Any clue, Vlad?

See above. If Gordon's brain only allows him to conceive of  things in the universe with no questions asked about the character of the universe then yours somehow forbids you from recognising I have been talking about origins and overarching characteristics of the universe.

[wigginhall]

See above. If Gordon's brain only allows him to conceive of  things in the universe with no questions asked about the character of the universe then yours somehow forbids you from recognising I have been talking about origins and overarching characteristics of the universe.

So you are saying that the universe is unrepeatable.   How would you know that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Try really, really had to see what's wrong with that sentence.

If you can finally manage it I'll give you a Liquorice Allsort.

Deal?

If YOU can manage it I'll give you a whole packet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you are saying that the universe is unrepeatable.   How would you know that?

I ask you to see above. See about a series of big bangs and big crunches.

If the universe has a start, there can be no repeat

If the universe is just a never ending or beginning series of crunches and bangs then it is eternal and possibly self perturbed and these things are not observed or susceptible to science. There can be no law of universes since only one is observed.

Whatever the solution it cannot be susceptible to or observed except by a God and you are welcome to try and establish that Gods come under the remit of ''The natural''.

[wigginhall]

Wow, Vlad, where do you get this stuff?  It looks as if you've read a paperback on cosmology, and you're regurgitating it without much sense. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wow, Vlad, where do you get this stuff?  It looks as if you've read a paperback on cosmology, and you're regurgitating it without much sense.

Let me spell it out again.

The universe exists as is

the fact that it exists must be due to

creation

or

It popped out of nothing

or if it was not created or popped out of nothing it must be eternal.

But how is change explained?

either the eternal universe has a helping hand

or it is self changed.

None of the above is susceptible to scientific investigation or subject to any known laws and since they are all unique situations there cannot be any laws of nature governing them and no law can be drawn from them.

[floo]

If god created the universe who created god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can you know that an event is unrepeatable Vlad? Note unrepeatable, not unrepeated.

A good point. But the appearance of the universe i.e. the appearance of everything by definition cannot be repeated can it?
Neither can the eternal existence of everything.

You can tell Hillside that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If god created the universe who created god?

A good question which by itself does not stop God from possibly creating the universe.

[floo]

A good question which by itself does not stop God from possibly creating the universe.

No, but even if there was an intelligent designer there is no evidence it has anything to do with the god featured in the Bible, who seems like a very human production to me.

[Gordon]

I'm sorry Gordon but this debate goes beyond the limitations of your brain.
The universe must have either come into existence out of nothing or have been created or be eternal and perturbed (changed) by an external or be eternal and self perturbed. Those are our only options......ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them.

Not only that there can be but one start of the universe and one universe observable by science.

Nothing can ever pop out of nothing since there is something already here. A unique eternal is a one off thing.

The universe you see is evidence of a supernatural event which is not describable in terms of natural laws or scientific investigation which operates on repeatability.

I didn't ask you about the universe, Vlad (although you do seem somewhat preoccupied by universes at present).

I simply repeated my previous question about how you address the risks of mistakes or lies when it comes to anecdotal reports of 'events', such as miraculous cures attributed to the subject of this thread.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, but even if there was an intelligent designer there is no evidence it has anything to do with the god featured in the Bible, who seems like a very human production to me.

It might be an idea to debate that on another thread.
The reason being that On this thread we are arguing whether in fact there can be things which are not susceptible to scientific investigation using the methods of observation, repeatability etc or things which are not covered by any laws of nature.

If i'm not wrong you believe that science will be able to answer everything.........have I got that right?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If YOU can manage it I'll give you a whole packet.

It's simple enough. Here's your claim again:

"Those are our only options......ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them."

For this particular daftness to work you'd have to show that our obscure species in an obscure backwater of the universe had developed a method method that was comprehensively able to investigate every possible phenomenon and then concluded that one or some of them were not within any and all possible natural laws, and so must be "supernatural".

You've painted yourself here into a weird ontology of thinking that every possible natural process has somehow been mapped by current science, and so anything that doesn't fit must be supernatural. The reality of course is that it's entirely possible that there's a vast amount of knowledge we don't have and for that matter may never have, but not for one iota of one jot of one second does that jump you to "supernatural" with no logic to get you there.

I'll have my valet collect the Allsorts in the morning.     

[floo]

It might be an idea to debate that on another thread.
The reason being that On this thread we are arguing whether in fact there can be things which are not susceptible to scientific investigation using the methods of observation, repeatability etc or things which are not covered by any laws of nature.

If i'm not wrong you believe that science will be able to answer everything.........have I got that right?

I am of the opinion science will be able to answer it all one day, however long that takes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The reason being that On this thread we are arguing whether in fact there can be things which are not susceptible to scientific investigation using the methods of observation, repeatability etc or things which are not covered by any laws of nature.

No we're not. You're conjecturing events that -even if we had perfect and complete understanding of all possible natural events - would fall outside of that knowledge. That's not the same thing as phenomena that in principle at least could be investigable if ever we had the tools and techniques to do it. 

If i'm not wrong you believe that science will be able to answer everything.........have I got that right?

No-one claims that, and it's not what "scientism" means either despite your personal re-definition of the term.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't ask you about the universe, Vlad (although you do seem somewhat preoccupied by universes at present).

I simply repeated my previous question about how you address the risks of mistakes or lies when it comes to anecdotal reports of 'events', such as miraculous cures attributed to the subject of this thread.

I think it comes down to how you think the world is and what offers the solutions to what you want to know.

I cannot take your line that these things never happen because that just flags up the problem of induction.

I also cannot take your approach to history which I see as an extension of your scientism.

Neither though am I a catholic, an ex catholic or even the axe grinding son of catholic forebears sore at having been forced to church so I am not keen to rush to pile up the miracle quotient.

Unlike you when talking about whether there are things that cannot note cannot be susceptible to science or covered by laws of nature; The explanation for how the universe is as is, I think it is vitally important to recognise that inexplicable things have happened which will remain inexplicable by naturalism.

These aren't just ''we don't knows '' these are ''science will not tell us''.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am of the opinion science will be able to answer it all one day, however long that takes.

Why do you think that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No-one claims that, and it's not what "scientism" means either despite your personal re-definition of the term.

Sorry, Floo seems to prove you wrong on this.

[Gordon]

I think it comes down to how you think the world is and what offers the solutions to what you want to know.

There is ample evidence that people make mistakes or tell lies - I'm simply asking how you assess these risks when it come to claims about miracle 'events'. You seem to be ignoring the question. 

I cannot take your line that these things never happen because that just flags up the problem of induction.

Which isn't what I've said - you're overflowing with straw again.

I also cannot take your approach to history which I see as an extension of your scientism.

So, my asking how you assess risks of human artifice in anecdotal accounts is 'scientism' - how does that work? 

Neither though am I a catholic, an ex catholic or even the axe grinding son of catholic forebears sore at having been forced to church so I am not keen to rush to pile up the miracle quotient.

Not quite sure what you are saying here: sounds a little like you'd prefer to avoid these inconveniently embarrassing miracle claims, although I might be wrong. 

Unlike you when talking about whether there are things that cannot note cannot be susceptible to science or covered by laws of nature; The explanation for how the universe is as is, I think it is vitally important to recognise that inexplicable things have happened which will remain inexplicable by naturalism.

I'm just asking about the risks of mistakes or lies but you seem determined to go nuclear.

These aren't just ''we don't knows '' these are ''science will not tell us''.

Have you considered that 'don't know' means exactly that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's simple enough. Here's your claim again:

"Those are our only options......ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them."

For this particular daftness to work you'd have to show that our obscure species in an obscure backwater of the universe had developed a method method that was comprehensively able to investigate every possible phenomenon and then concluded that one or some of them were not within any and all possible natural laws, and so must be "supernatural".

You've painted yourself here into a weird ontology of thinking that every possible natural process has somehow been mapped by current science, and so anything that doesn't fit must be supernatural. The reality of course is that it's entirely possible that there's a vast amount of knowledge we don't have and for that matter may never have, but not for one iota of one jot of one second does that jump you to "supernatural" with no logic to get you there.

I'll have my valet collect the Allsorts in the morning.     

Sorry but any natural law demands repeatability and observability. All of what I have raised are by definition unrepeatable and/or unobservable by anything evolved.

I'm afraid I don't give prizes for just writing verbose grandiose sounding repetitions of previous error.

As you said yourself in your quote from Wikipedia the supernatural is that which cannot explained by science or subject to laws of nature.

You are of course talking about multiverse here. That doesn't help.
as for unknown unknowns...