Why do most religion rely on miracles to exist
A miracle, in the conventional wisdom of the expression, is impractical and far-fetched. To recognize a wonder is to rebuff a established truth. The planet is ruled by the laws of nature; and one truth the the scientist and the philosopher agree is that: natural laws are immutable.
If so, they cannot be perched they could be hovering, they would not be unchallengeable. A single event of change ie a miracle these laws will make them mutable. All the miracles described in most religious texts are suspension of Nature's laws; hence the existence of god, except as an individual or figment of the human imagination, is unbelievable and unworkable.
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature; so does that mean religion and religious figures who so much stand on miracles is also a violation . Nothing is well-regarded as a miracle if it happens in the widespread course of Nature. It is no miracle that a healthy dies suddenly, though unusual this is not a miracle because of the frequency with which this event is observed, But for a dead man to come alive is a miracle
I would like some insights in religions of the world that shun miracles
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
The planet is ruled by the laws of nature;
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature" |
The idea is that a God would be outside the laws of nature, and so anything the God does would violate the laws of nature. Thus mircales, or anything that is unexplainable by the laws of nature are seen as works of God.Also, where do you get the idea that scientists and philosophers agree that the laws of nature are immutable? Philosophers are the ones arguing that the laws of nature are what you make of them, and can change to fit your desire if the will is strong enough, and scientists haven't bought that argument for centuries (it was too often used to slam some new theory when it contradicted the old one).
And miracles aren't necessarily seen as violations of the natural order; after all, when God is Nature, it's hardly a violation when He says something is to happen...
Past that: It's just to show that the religion in question has the ear of Someone who cares. After all, why should anyone care if you say you have the Ear of God, and yet you can't show it? It's just a matter of showing that you are Somebody...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Also, where do you get the idea that scientists and philosophers agree that the laws of nature are immutable? Philosophers are the ones arguing that the laws of nature are what you make of them, and can change to fit your desire if the will is strong enough, and scientists haven't bought that argument for centuries (it was too often used to slam some new theory when it contradicted the old one). |
Well, not too many philosophers argue that case, though some may do. | Quote: |
And miracles aren't necessarily seen as violations of the natural order; after all, when God is Nature, it's hardly a violation when He says something is to happen... |
A miracle is generally defined as a contravention of natural law. You can go to several sources - here are a few;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miracle
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861630365/miracle.htmlContravention<>violation. There's a difference between allowing a temporary suspension of the rules and an actual breaking of them...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
Contravention<>violation. There's a difference between allowing a temporary suspension of the rules and an actual breaking of them...
HM |
No, I disagree.
Contravention = Violation.
Contravention : An act or instance of breaking a law or regulation or of nonfulfillment of an obligation or promise, for example: breach, infraction, infringement, transgression, trespass, violation.
The act of contravening; a violation.Yes both words mean the same but HereticMonkey was interested in the temporary suspension of laws
which is more apt here as after the miravle everything return to normal which is why it is unbelievable
If there had been a permanent violation then it would not be a miracle there after
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Yes both words mean the same but HereticMonkey was interested in the temporary suspension of laws
which is more apt here as after the miravle everything return to normal which is why it is unbelievable
If there had been a permanent violation then it would not be a miracle there after |
I'm not clear what you mean by a permanent violation. Do you mean a previous 'law' being permanently changed or negated? In such a case the word 'violation' becomes redundant does it not?
I'm also unclear about what this has to do with miracles. Are there any examples of permanent changes of physical laws that we would call miracles? As far as I'm aware all claims for miracles are violations of existing physical laws, not permanent changes to such laws.
Physical laws do change in situations of extreme physics (singularities for example) but nobody has claimed that these are miracles (or perhaps they have and I missed it)...
A phenomenon which occurs as a result of temporary suspension of a natural law is functionally the same as a phenomenon which violates that law, or am I missing something?As per the definition of contravention, I'm referring to what appears to be a temporary issue, as most miracles are (even a resurrection can be seen as a temporary reversal of the rules, where the body's condition is reversed to just a few days prior in a few moments).
I'm aware that that the laws break down inside of a singularity; that is not what I am referring to. I'm not interested in the breakdown of natural order, but rather more of an impositioning of an alternate quantum reality unto the current reality. If that helps...
HM
I still don't understand why you think a contravention is something different to a violation. As far as I can see there is no difference in this application.
I also don't understand what you mean by the imposition of an 'alternate quantum reality'. The only thing I can think of is that you mean an alternate universe becomes 'superimposed' on our own universe (as per the quantum Many World Interpretation - Everett). This would, however, contravene the MWI theory itself since it is implicit in the theory that the individual 'worlds' are non-communicating.
| Bikerman wrote: |
A phenomenon which occurs as a result of temporary suspension of a natural law is functionally the same as a phenomenon which violates that law, or am I missing something? |
Strangely, nope; ie. you are missing something. We know from practical experimentation that a natural law can be suspended under the right circumstances. Consider gravity; we assume that everything will go downhill. Yet, there is a hill where vehicles, even after being turned off, will nonetheless go up the hill. In essence, we know that natural laws do not always apply, so why are a few simple contraventions an issue? After all, most miracles are either exaggerations of what we can do already (instant cures, replication of objects or people); why would it be so hard to look as miracles as possible, even if improbable?
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
A phenomenon which occurs as a result of temporary suspension of a natural law is functionally the same as a phenomenon which violates that law, or am I missing something? |
Strangely, nope; ie. you are missing something. We know from practical experimentation that a natural law can be suspended under the right circumstances. Consider gravity; we assume that everything will go downhill. Yet, there is a hill where vehicles, even after being turned off, will nonetheless go up the hill. In essence, we know that natural laws do not always apply, so why are a few simple contraventions an issue? After all, most miracles are either exaggerations of what we can do already (instant cures, replication of objects or people); why would it be so hard to look as miracles as possible, even if improbable? |
Nononono. Gravity has nothing to do with hills. The vehicle will ALWAYS obey the 'law' of gravity unless (as previously specified) we get into the realms of extreme physics such as a singularity.
You say that natural laws can be suspended and that this has been practically demonstrated? OK...which natural law and which experiment?
The whole idea of a physical law is that it IS a law...it applies under all circumstances where the physics are valid (ie in any circumstances we are ever likely to experience). | Bikerman wrote: |
| I still don't understand why you think a contravention is something different to a violation. As far as I can see there is no difference in this application. |
I'm looking at something that is temporary (a contravention, such as a one-time healing) versus something that is permanent in nature (such as the person being able to regenerate). From a strictly legal definition, it's a legitimate difference, especially as a contravention is a temporary violation, especially as most miracles are temporary in nature, or at least function that way.
| Quote: |
| I also don't understand what you mean by the imposition of an 'alternate quantum reality'. The only thing I can think of is that you mean an alternate universe becomes 'superimposed' on our own universe (as per the quantum Many World Interpretation - Everett). This would, however, contravene the MWI theory itself since it is implicit in the theory that the individual 'worlds' are non-communicating. |
Why would they need to be non-communicating? Just because we can't think of a reason how they would communicate doesn't mean that they couldn't...for that matter, if it was a regular parallel world, then impositions could be regular. In which case a miracle-worker is just someone who knows how to manipulate the impositions...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | I still don't understand why you think a contravention is something different to a violation. As far as I can see there is no difference in this application. |
I'm looking at something that is temporary (a contravention, such as a one-time healing) versus something that is permanent in nature (such as the person being able to regenerate). From a strictly legal definition, it's a legitimate difference, especially as a contravention is a temporary violation, especially as most miracles are temporary in nature, or at least function that way. |
The word contravene has no implicit assumption of 'temporary' so I don't really understand what you mean.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | I also don't understand what you mean by the imposition of an 'alternate quantum reality'. The only thing I can think of is that you mean an alternate universe becomes 'superimposed' on our own universe (as per the quantum Many World Interpretation - Everett). This would, however, contravene the MWI theory itself since it is implicit in the theory that the individual 'worlds' are non-communicating. |
Why would they need to be non-communicating? Just because we can't think of a reason how they would communicate doesn't mean that they couldn't...for that matter, if it was a regular parallel world, then impositions could be regular. In which case a miracle-worker is just someone who knows how to manipulate the impositions... |
They are non-communicating because the whole MWI theory depends on them being so. If you are proposing a different scientific theory then that's another matter but I see nothing here which could be considered a coherent theory. | Bikerman wrote: |
| [Nononono. Gravity has nothing to do with hills. The vehicle will ALWAYS obey the 'law' of gravity unless (as previously specified) we get into the realms of extreme physics such as a singularity. |
So how would a vehicle, without power, go UP a hill?
| Quote: |
| You say that natural laws can be suspended and that this has been practically demonstrated? OK...which natural law and which experiment? |
Dude: You've never heard of frogs spinning above a surface? Gravity is actually the easiest one to contravene. How about no object can exist in two places at one time? We've been able to do that with photons. Heck; I have no problem believing that a person can break a brick with his his hand; I just want to know why the skin doesn't tear.l
| Quote: |
| The whole idea of a physical law is that it IS a law...it applies under all circumstances where the physics are valid (ie in any circumstances we are ever likely to experience). |
Except that we know that laws tend to have a problem of being re-written...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | [Nononono. Gravity has nothing to do with hills. The vehicle will ALWAYS obey the 'law' of gravity unless (as previously specified) we get into the realms of extreme physics such as a singularity. |
So how would a vehicle, without power, go UP a hill? |
Quite easily. You could pull it.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | You say that natural laws can be suspended and that this has been practically demonstrated? OK...which natural law and which experiment? |
Dude: You've never heard of frogs spinning above a surface? Gravity is actually the easiest one to contravene. How about no object can exist in two places at one time? We've been able to do that with photons. Heck; I have no problem believing that a person can break a brick with his his hand; I just want to know why the skin doesn't tear.l |
I asked for an experiment which shows a physical law being contravened, not a lot of anecdotes. Give me an example of ANY experiment which shows a contravention of ANY physical law.
If gravity is easy to contravene then I wonder why I've seen nothing in the press. I would have thought that anti-gravity would have been big news...
As for photons - I presume you mean quantum superposition? There is no contravention of physical laws involved.I think I started off something on miracles
I am following Bike and monkey keenly
But please I asked " Why do most religion rely on miracles to exist "
and also that" I would like some insights on religions of the world that shun miracles"
Are there any by the way? ( Jedi perhaps?)
are we not going far away from that?
At this point, Bikderman, I have to assume that you are more into knee-jerk reactions than reasoned thought. Your definition of "anecdote", for example, is vastly different than mine; the frog spinning an inch above the surface was merely a demonstration of research into how gravity works, and that it was possible to eliminate some of the effects of gravity. I had thought it well-known, especially considering how often it made clip shows. Given that you cry "anecdote" every time that there is a scientific inquiry into something you don't believe happens, I really need to ask if you know what it means.
The photon, and other quantum tricks, is interesting in that it demonstrates our understanding of the universe isn't quite what we think it is. Given the amount of weird phenomenon that we still lack any sort of explanation for (even dark matter), and that SF tends to be a step ahead of science in terms of discovery, I'm just not really seeing that we are at the point where we can honestly say that miracles don't happen, especially given how little we actually know about the universe. I know that it's a lame point, but I feel that it's a far better point than knee-jerk "there's no way it could happen" atheism; one demonstrates scientific curiosity whereas the other is a more conservative viewpoint bordering on stopping all inquiry based on a religious issue.
Interesting that atheism is doing the same thing that religion is supposed to have done...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| At this point, Bikderman, I have to assume that you are more into knee-jerk reactions than reasoned thought. Your definition of "anecdote", for example, is vastly different than mine; the frog spinning an inch above the surface was merely a demonstration of research into how gravity works, and that it was possible to eliminate some of the effects of gravity. I had thought it well-known, especially considering how often it made clip shows. Given that you cry "anecdote" every time that there is a scientific inquiry into something you don't believe happens, I really need to ask if you know what it means. |
An anecdode is a second-hand story or report of something. That is EXACTLY what you keep providing. Show me a link to information on this experiment. Just because there are some clip-shows somewhere on the net doesn't mean that it is real science - the internet is filled with clips of bogus science and supposed miracles and you seem to believe in this guff. All I am asking for is a link to this 'well known' experiment so I can evaluate it for myself.
The law of gravity can be simply stated as follows;
F=G*m1*m2/(d*d)
Where F is force, G is Gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses under consideration and d is the distance between the two masses.
If you can show how this law is 'suspended' then I would be very interested to see such a demonstration.
You can, of course, balance or even overcome the 'F' in question with another 'F'. Pulling a car up a hill is an example - the F provided by the pulling overcomes the F of gravity (before anyone interjects, yes, I know there are other forces in play but let's keep it simple). It does NOT, however, 'suspend' or 'eliminate' the F of gravity.
| Quote: |
| The photon, and other quantum tricks, is interesting in that it demonstrates our understanding of the universe isn't quite what we think it is. |
I don't think you really have much of a clue about quantum physics otherwise you would not make these statements. Quantum theory describes exactly what happens and is accurate to an astonishing degree. The fact that you do not have any way to 'understand' this does not mean that any physical laws are being contravened as you claim. It is certainly true that the quantum world is weird and probably not capable of being 'understood' in the sense that we can analogise it. That is completely different, however, from claiming that physical laws are being contravened - they are not. | Quote: |
| Given the amount of weird phenomenon that we still lack any sort of explanation for (even dark matter), and that SF tends to be a step ahead of science in terms of discovery, I'm just not really seeing that we are at the point where we can honestly say that miracles don't happen, especially given how little we actually know about the universe. I know that it's a lame point, but I feel that it's a far better point than knee-jerk "there's no way it could happen" atheism; one demonstrates scientific curiosity whereas the other is a more conservative viewpoint bordering on stopping all inquiry based on a religious issue. |
What knee-jerk? I merely asked you to provide evidence for your statements that physical laws can be 'suspended' at will. I maintain that they cannot. You still provide no evidence to support your claims so I must conclude that they are bogus - that's the way science works. Scientists do not say 'no way it could happen', they simply say 'show me'. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What you demonstrate is not scientific curiosity but unscientific gullibility. | Quote: |
| Interesting that atheism is doing the same thing that religion is supposed to have done... |
Atheism is not at issue here. Many atheists are scientists and many are not. Many scientists are atheists, many are not. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in God, nothing more. You are mixing two different groups. Science is the issue in this debate. Science simply says 'show me'. When someone makes extraordinary claims - such as your claims about gravity and other physical laws - the scientist says 'show me'. That is all I have done. I am still waiting......
