(August 16, 2013 at 5:49 am)Godschild Wrote: Are we going to use the Bible as the evidence, since there is no other place to gather info, or is this a let's just make stuff up type of deal.

There's a difference?

(August 16, 2013 at 11:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I think it's more than twice that you've managed to misunderstand FNM.

Supernatural events cannot be proved to be supernatural.

If they really are supernatural, you will always be able to doubt that they are. EVERYTHING could be explained away using a natural explanation, but that doesn't mean that you can know if it was natural or not.

We have no scientific evidence at all of anything ever having supernatural cause. That's how it should be. That's how it has to be.

That doesn't disprove the supernatural at all. Do you see?

The New Atheism, read it.

(August 16, 2013 at 7:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 16, 2013 at 3:18 am)FallentoReason Wrote: For those of you who believe that miracles are indistinguishable from natural processes (i.e. miracles can be *explained* naturally)

I didn't read past this epic fail.

It depends on how you define natural? Rising from the dead is certainly not normal. How do you know that the Providential order does not include a means of resurrection that operates under His rational governance of reality?

Personally I do not belief miracles upset the order of the universe. Instead I think they expand our notion of the possible.

(August 16, 2013 at 11:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I think it's more than twice that you've managed to misunderstand FNM.

Supernatural events cannot be proved to be supernatural.

Because our means of proving things are through natural ways. So far so good?

Quote:If they really are supernatural, you will always be able to doubt that they are.

Only if it acts identically to natural phenomena, which is what you've explicitly said before. So far so good?

Quote: EVERYTHING could be explained away using a natural explanation,

Ok, this is where we should get really specific in order to see if we're still on the same page. When you say "explained away", do you literally mean that a supernatural event could be explained such that there's no violation of nature, and thus there's a naturalistic explanation *of a supernatural event*? If you were to say that God made it rain today, would that be synonymous with saying that meteorologists have noticed over the last 48 hours that a storm was brewing and the chances of rain were extremely high today? If you were to say that God filled up your car's tank when you ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, would that be synonymous with the naturalistic explanation being _____, since gas popping into existence is impossible because energy can't be created or destroyed? Is this what you're saying when you say there's a "natural explanation" for a miracle?

The other interpretation of your sentence would be this: miracles are supernatural in how they occur. The laws of physics are literally suspended from time t - x to t, which is the before and after. The reason why it rained today is because God literally created water droplets and condensed them by supernaturally lowering the temperature. Your gas tank was literally empty and gas popped into existence as God suspended the laws of nature. What do we perceive though? Well, that clouds began forming above us and eventually rain fell, like we know happens all the time. Our car just started running again because maybe we knew that our engine is a little faulty, and it seemed like must have been out of gas. To us, it all *looks* natural, but in reality if we had extracted data from these events, we would notice straight away that things weren't behaving like they should have i.e. the temperature dropping in the atmosphere all of a sudden wasn't caused by any flow of warm/cold air nearby, therefore making it physically impossible. I.e. we noticed that the weight of our car jumped to a higher value within a split of a second which we know couldn't possibly happen if our car was untouched by anything around it.

What exactly do you mean? Get real specific here.

Quote: but that doesn't mean that you can know if it was natural or not.

Part of me understands what you mean, and that it is a matter of faith (which we haven't discussed yet), but part of me also isn't so sure just yet. I guess I'm really keen to hear how you respond to my two paragraphs outlining what I think are the only options.

Quote:We have no scientific evidence at all of anything ever having supernatural cause. That's how it should be. That's how it has to be.

And if you were to pair up this sentence of yours with one of my paragraphs above, which one would it be?

Quote:That doesn't disprove the supernatural at all. Do you see?

Partly. Only if you think the first paragraph represents most accurately what you believe about miracles.

As Ambrose Bierce wrote in The Devil's Dictionary.

Quote:MIRACLE, n.
An act or event out of the order of nature and unaccountable, as beating a normal hand of four kings and an ace with four aces and a king.

(August 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(August 16, 2013 at 7:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I didn't read past this epic fail.

It depends on how you define natural? Rising from the dead is certainly not normal. How do you know that the Providential order does not include a means of resurrection that operates under His rational governance of reality?

If you think natural laws as defined by scientific study (i.e. our means of observing God's Creation) are a part of this Providential order, then I'd be surprised if we can't come to know of this method by now. Or do you mean that only God is able to perform such an action?

Quote:Personally I do not belief miracles upset the order of the universe. Instead I think they expand our notion of the possible.

But then if it's something "possible", then doesn't it follow that *we* can come to know of a way to repeat said miracle? But then, where's the miracle? It's an everyday occurrence. Is my heartbeat miraculous?

(August 16, 2013 at 11:37 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: ...do you literally mean that a supernatural event could be explained such that there's no violation of nature, and thus there's a naturalistic explanation *of a supernatural event*?

I cannot speak for Fr0d0, but I can see that many miraculous events could be both natural and providential. For example, God times the opening of a sinkhole with Joshua blowing a horn. Or a shower of meteorites strike Sodom and light the town on fire, etc.

(August 16, 2013 at 11:37 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: If you were to say that God made it rain today, would that be synonymous with saying that meteorologists have noticed over the last 48 hours that a storm was brewing and the chances of rain were extremely high today?

Sure. Why not. The universe behaves in a certain way. Modern science began as a means for understanding how God governs the universe through the natural world.

Yet, archaeology has shown that "joshua" is as phony as "god."

Or, as William Dever once succinctly put it was "the real miracle of joshua was that he destroyed a city that wasn't there."

(August 17, 2013 at 12:08 am)Minimalist Wrote: Yet, archaeology has shown that "joshua" is as phony as "god."

Quite the opposite...

Tell es-Sultan aka Jericho

(August 16, 2013 at 10:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Godschild Wrote:Are we going to use the Bible as the evidence, since there is no other place to gather info, or is this a let's just make stuff up type of deal.

I take it your answer is then A, which would be the more plausible out of the two.

Then again, you might believe in the traditional miracle where the supernatural violates nature.

I asked a simple question to find out what grounds we can argue on so I could make a choice to debate, that's all, and what happens the same old childish nonsense.

GC

---

(August 17, 2013 at 12:08 am)Minimalist Wrote: Yet, archaeology has shown that "joshua" is as phony as "god."

Or, as William Dever once succinctly put it was "the real miracle of joshua was that he destroyed a city that wasn't there."

Shows how dumb Dever is, Joshua did not destroy Jericho.

GC