Definition of "refuting a specific miracle"

[David Sklansky]

95% of the world realizes that this means that in cases where it can be examined thoroughly, there exists an explanation that follows the laws of science. Put another way, it can be duplicated without resorting to godlike intervention. Just like when Houdini or Randi explains or duplicates psychics tricks.

That is what almost all people think of as a refutation. We are not interested in the religous or non religious nuts who think otherwise. Obviously the ability to duplicate the trick doesn't logically prove the original trick wasn't miraculous. But even religious people realize it is strong evidence against it. Conversely if there was an event fully accessible and examined by present day scientists and magicians, that they were at a loss to explain, that wouldn't logically prove that it was miraculous. But it would be strong evidence of it especially if it was in conjunction with a biblical type prediction (because of the parlay price).

Of course almost everybody already knew and understood this except for the religious nutcases and the highfalootin philosphers. So I apologize for wasting your time.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
there exists an explanation that follows the laws of science. Put another way, it can be duplicated without resorting to godlike intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well although I am not one of them, there are plenty of the more moderate christians/muslims who see God acting through coincidence. They look for rational explanations for the parting of the red sea for example but see the miracle in the timing.

If I stood there praying in front of a pyre of wood while you look on (previously agreeing that this was to show you God exists), and a bolt of lighting hits the pyre and ignites it, would this be a miracle? (assuming we prove no cheating). I imagine so.
but "there exists an explanation that follows the laws of science."
A miracle can be found in the highly improbable yet physically possible.

[David Sklansky]

I agree that the fact that something can be duplicated naturally is sometimes not strong evidence against the miracle if that natural duplication was EXTREMELY unlikely probability wise. But I stress the word "extremely" because after the fact unusualness is no big deal. (Imagine a religion that gave godlike status to lottery winners to see my point.)

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A miracle can be found in the highly improbable yet physically possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm... don't miracles get easier than they already are that way ?? "The miracle of the Gaps" seemed enough, but should long odds events be added in?

I usually 'explain' coincidences by asking " wouldn't the real miracle be for lightning Never to strike while I pray by the wood pile?"

"Wouldn't the real wierd thing to explain is that Hortense never phones when I'm thinking of him?"

...caught me off guard, luckyme

If I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[bearly]

"95% of the world" ? maybe sir sklansky isn't very good at some stuff WITH numbers either........................b

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
"95% of the world" ? maybe sir sklansky isn't very good at some stuff WITH numbers either........................b

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that you have added some humor to your posts I am beginning to warm up to you, sir bearly.

[bearly]

good, i like spirited but friendly discussion..........b

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Definition of "refuting a specific miracle". 95% of the world realizes that this means that in cases where it can be examined thoroughly, there exists an explanation that follows the laws of science. Put another way, it can be duplicated without resorting to godlike intervention. Just like when Houdini or Randi explains or duplicates psychics tricks.

[/ QUOTE ]
The percentage you gave should be wildly incorrect. In fact, you might be talking about 5% of the world. But we agree on the premise of refuting miracles.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody already knew and understood this except for the religious nutcases and the highfalootin philosphers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Never mind the falootin'. Which philosopher does not accept that?