(October 10, 2018 at 5:09 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(October 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm)SteveII Wrote: I'm not redefining anything. That is the definition.
Yes, that is the definition of the word, “supernatural.” That the word has a definition doesn’t necessary mean that the concept itself is coherent, nor that it can be coherently applied to the reality we exist in. The dictionary also has definitions for words such as, “ghost”, “soul”, “fairy” and “Santa”, but that doesn’t mean these concepts are (or could ever be) manifest in reality.
Quote:The best way is context. Events contrary to what we know about the laws of nature are more likely miracles when there is a context that suggest a supernatural cause. For example, if Jesus tells a crippled man from birth to stand up, take up his mat and walk, that would seem more likely a miracle than not.
That people involved in the event in question are credulous to the notion of a supernatural cause, is not in any way related to the actual cause of the event. And it does not affect the probability of that event being supernaturally caused versus naturally caused.
Quote:If a whole church is praying for a little boy (like my brother-in-law) who had a brain tumor and on the morning of his surgery he had a CT scan for the surgeon to map his cuts, there was no tumor. Never came back. That might be a miracle.
So, again; rare medical phenomena happen. How do you rationally determine that the cause can’t, and never will be explainable via science, versus a natural cause that science can and may be able to explain at some point in the future? Because, people prayed first? I know you know what a ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy is.
Quote:If someone looses their car keys and prays and then finds them. Probably not.
Why not?
Quote:Looking through a microscope at a some sub-atomic particle that isn't behaving as expected would never be thought of as a miracle--there is no context to think that it would be. That concept is called epistemological naturalism and that is how a Christian who is also a scientist would approach his/her work.
Scientists have managed to explain many a rare, and seemingly miraculous natural phenomena using tools such as microscopes, Steve, lol. You talk about subatomic particles as though they aren’t in play during these supposedly miraculous healings.
Do you notice that you start by claiming the idea incoherent and then write 4 more paragraphs coherently discussing the concept? You seem to understand it fine. Also, the ideas of supernatural, ghost, soul, fairy and Santa are all coherent no matter if they are real or not.