Miracles. Scientific Proof.

[Tiberius]

It’s been done tons of times and even documented well. But people dismiss the events and documentation.

Sure it has. Provide this documentation then.

 

[Sheldon]

Miracles being things happening that go well beyond what can be explained by our science do happen.

As I've explained, and you've just demonstrated, that is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Not having a natural or scientific explanation does not mean there isn't one. It's not a coincidence that the rate miracles are reported has dropped in proportion to scientif knowledge growing, or virtually everyone having a smart phone in their pocket.

Miracles are simply an appeal to mystery, as you just showed.

However proving them to someone who does not wish to see does not work.

No miracle has ever been evidenced, let alone proven, given you just stated the criteria is not having a natural or scientific explanation that makes everything we currently don't understand a miracle, and everything we do understand natural. If someone can't see the idiocy of that logical fallacy, then they're probably simply desperate to believe woo woo.

However just to keep an open mind, please present the most compelling evidence you think exists for any miracle, but please don't simply use an appeal to mystery. We don't understand X therefore miracle, is not credible evidence, it's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you mean they go beyond what science can CURRENTLY explain (suggesting that it's possible that science may be able to explain it in the future), or do you mean that it is fundamentally beyond any capacity for science to explain (meaning that science will NEVER be able to explain it, no matter what)?

I'd love to see them evidence the latter, or at least try.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sometimes people have operations and surgeons make mistakes, but they are not reported accurately. Meaning -- no lasting documentation of what really happened. hmm...

 

[YoursTrue]

Sometimes people have operations and surgeons make mistakes, but they are not reported accurately. Meaning -- no lasting documentation of what really happened. hmm...

Oh, and sometimes there were cities that were not discovered for centuries because they were under mounds of soil or water at sea.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It’s been done tons of times and even documented well. But people dismiss the events and documentation.

Yeah, if you give only a scripture as evidence, people of science will reject it. Documented where, in a newspaper/blog or a scientific journal?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sometimes people have operations and surgeons make mistakes, but they are not reported accurately. Meaning -- no lasting documentation of what really happened. hmm...

Not accepted till the proof is available. Courts will not penalize that surgeon on hear-say.

Oh, and sometimes there were cities that were not discovered for centuries because they were under mounds of soil or water at sea.

Sure, if there are mentions of the city in old literature, then it is a subject under consideration. Acceptance comes only with proof. Take the case of the city of Krishna's Dwarika being submerged. Mentioned, believed by many, but not proved unambigously.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not accepted till the proof is available. Courts will not penalize that surgeon.

Nevertheless, the surgeon may know he made a mistake, the ones around him may know he made a mistake, but they do not document it. It may never get to court.

 

[YoursTrue]

Many events have never been recorded. It doesn't mean they did not happen. Even on a jury, sometimes not all will agree. And sometimes some are in a hurry to get home so render a verdict that does not go along with the truth, going on a possibility. And sometimes that juror regrets it later.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nevertheless, the surgeon may know he made a mistake, the ones around him may know he made a mistake, but they do not document it. It may never get to court.

Happened with my father. His assistant was performing a simple appendix operation and cut some big vein causing the person to die. They hushed up the case. But unless some one speaks up, it is no case. You mean miracles may have happened but not reported or investigated? In that case, not acceptable. Science (or law) need proof.

 

[rational experiences]

Using textual formatted threats secretly one day is going to be realised also.

 

[Sheldon]

People healing way faster never seen science explain it. Same with people rising from the dead.

No one has ever been evidenced to rise from the dead, this is usually a misrepresentation of someone being resuscitated after their heart has stopped.

Heal way faster than what? The statement makes no sense, are yougoing to insert miracles every time we can't explain something? That's the very definition of superstition. So all the times humans have done this, and then later those things have been understood as entirely natural phenomena, has taught some people nothing it seems.

So in short if science does not cover it deny it?

There's nothing to deny, what exactly do you think no explanation means? If you're going to invoke the supernatural you'll quite obviously need something beyond "we can't yet explain it", it's astonishing how many people don't realise this is fallacious reasoning.

FYI the thread title says Miracles scientific proof, the hilarity of that statement is boundless. Firstly miracles are defined as defying scientific explanation, secondly proof are for mathematics and logic, not science.

We know natural phenomena are possible, we know science is very effective at explaining these. We have zero objective evidence that miracles or anything supernatural is even possible. So this sounds prima facie like Occam's razor applies. Before we get to the well evidenced antics of religions in lies and chicanery for this sort of claim.

"Splinters from the cross anyone, bargain at $100 each. Fake blood of Jesus only $20 dollars extra. Guaranteed to bring good luck and ward off imaginary demons."

 

[Sheldon]

If you want us to accept something as a miracle, then you need to show some evidence that it is impossible that science will EVER explain it.

Even then all we'd have is an inexplicable event, all their work would be before them, unless they want to invoke an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Many have. It’s well documented. Given that “science” is not looking how can they find the answer.

Harry Potter using magic is well documented, this doesn't make it true. Claims alone are not evidence.

Miracles defy scientific explanation by definition. However science can and has debunked such superstition by helping us understand the natural explanation for things.

 

[Sheldon]

It’s been done tons of times and even documented well. But people dismiss the events and documentation.

Please demonstrate the most compelling example you have then?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sheldon: "I don't believe in miracles"

Thesis: Miracles Exist. Proof:
If miracle is impossible, then it is impossible miracle. But latter is definition of a miracle.

ItSo: "That's a tautology".

No. I disagree. No tautology.

ItSo: "Therefore it IS a tautology."

No. Please explain. No tautology.
If miracle is impossible, then it is impossible miracle. No logical error.

ItSo: "If miracles are impossible, they don't happen."

Do not modify text of my proof. It is corrupting it. If I would add a^3 to the Pythagorean theorem a^2+b^2=c^2, it will corrupt it.

F1fan: "How would you test whether miracles happen?"

Physics does not know what is Effect Placebo and what is UFO.

I've seen God if the Gaps arguments before. But this appears to be a miracles of the gap argument, so kudos on tweaking a tired, old formula.

 

[Truth in love]

Yes, it's "well documented" said the person who is unable to provide any documentation of it happening.

Find a Bible. Christ rose from he dad and was seen my a great many,

 

[Truth in love]

Sure it has. Provide this documentation then.

Religious Forums

Well documented in its time. Many decline to accept the evidence, but it is most inaccurate to pretend that such is not there.

 

[Truth in love]

Yeah, if you give only a scripture as evidence, people of science will reject it. Documented where, in a newspaper/blog or a scientific journal?

This may come as a surprise, but "scientific" journals are not going to publish that which offends is paying base. Also they were not around 200 years back.

 

[ppp]

This may come as a surprise, but "scientific" journals are not going to publish that which offends is paying base.

Obviously, you have never read a scientific journal.