You didn’t answer the question Bill. I didn’t ask for ProfBravus’ definition of miracle. I asked for your definition of natural cause. Are you saying anything with a natural cause you don’t know is a miracle?
1 Like
Why don’t you be patient and let @ProfBravus answer the question I originally asked. He has offered a definition and I am simply asking for clarification.
I asked about your definition Bill. Why can’t you answer a simple question?
There is no “dilemma”. You made a false claim, and it was refuted with ease.
But nice try at saving face.
1 Like
I am trying to work with @ProfBravus definition. Your attempt at a burden fallacy shift is duly noted.
You are correct that the entrance of Allah presented no real dilemma. He was easily overthrown.
However, I do appreciate the new tidbit of information. I have made notes.
@ProfBravus didn’t give a definition of natural cause. He gave his definition of miracle.
I am trying to get you to commit to your own accepted definition of natural cause. Your continued refusal to answer and evade the simple question is duly noted.
1 Like
Included in that definition was the word “natural cause”. I am waiting for @ProfBravus to clarify. I am happy to go with his definition of miracle and natural cause if it ever becomes a clear definition.
I actually agree that the terms “miracle” and “natural cause” are problematic and difficult, if not impossible, to rigorously define in metaphysical terms.
I am left with the apparent best solution being to define a “miracle” as something that would appear to be impossible according to the available scientific evidence, and “natural” as those things that are consistent with this evidence.
I would add the further stipulation that a miracle would be an event of sufficient singularity that it would not compel us to revise our understanding of the laws of nature, but would instead be viewed as an instance in which the laws of nature were violated.
I am not convinced it is possible, even in theory, to demonstrate such a thing has occurred other than if it has been directly witnessed under circumstances where it can be assured that no trickery or misperception has occurred.
Specifically, a miracle cannot be demonstrated thru historical evidence of the sort allegedly found in the Bible.
My $0.02.
2 Likes
I am waiting for you to give your definition of natural cause. There must be some reason you are so afraid to answer.
It is completely inappropriate of you to ask this as I did not make a claim.
As I may have mentioned before, I’m in Australia, so I’ve been sleeping for the past 8 hours or so,.
The origin of flight is able to be relatively easily traced by natural steps of cause and effect, from non-flight to the ability to glide to the ability to flap, steer, control and so on. Many dinosaurs, we now know, were feathered, so the adaptation of feathers to flight, the adaptation of lighter hollow bones and so on, all are traceable in fossils and DNA. It’s not as though a single organism in a single moment was the originator of fully-formed bird-like flight. So no, I don’t think the origin of flight is a miracle under my definition, since it has clear natural causes of the same kind as many other kinds of physical and biological phenomena.
The origin of space-time and matter-energy in the Big Bang (which I presume is what you’re talking about, but correct me if not) is an interesting case. Causality requires an ‘arrow of time’: the cause occurs prior to the effect, not after it. Before time existed, in the very earliest Planck time moments of the Big Bang, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about cause and effect at all.
The ‘cause’ of the Big Bang is a unique event unlike any other in this universe. Whether you want to ascribe that to something supernatural is kind of a matter for discussion. In scientific terms, the cause is unknowable, although there are some interesting candidates in things like M-brane theory…
My definition of miracles owes much to C S Lewis’ little book of the same name, which is worth reading, though I come to different conclusions.
I think the impulse to diligently search for natural explanations, and to be willing to suspend judgement for a while during that search, rather than to immediately assume supernatural causation, is probably a key continuum along which most who post here have a position or range of positions.
Hope that’s helpful as a discussion: it’s a simple rule of thumb, not a fully thought out and extensively referenced thesis. 
1 Like
The resurrection is the only possible miraculous explanation to believe in because a good God cannot be deceptive and would not perform an arbitrary deceptive miracle. So no, my solution is not to believe whatever I want. I use logic.
Yes. It’s yours.
Hi David
Thanks for your thoughtful response. The counter to this idea of diligently searching for a natural explanation depends on your chance of success IMHO. If we are speaking of a scientific explanation I consider that to ultimately be the ability to model and test or just test the claim.
In the case of flight, you are explaining that flight came about by reproduction and the natural variation from that reproduction. This may be impossible to model and or test and therefor based on the criteria I gave not a scientific claim. So the how do we determine with reasonable confidence how flight originated?
I would argue that the origin of flight required extremely precise cellular engineering of new functional information in order to build flight feathers, animals with the proper structure and wings with correct aerodynamics. None of this appears to be the result of only reproductive variation from a creature that does not have these features.
I consider the origin of flight a miracle as I consider the resurrection of Jesus a miracle. We have not witnessed either event but we have evidence that both have occurred. I leave open the discussion of the strength of the evidence for both events.
You are assuming the existence of the Christian god in your argument. So:
1 Like
If your definition of science is a variant of the old Ken Ham ‘Were you there?’ I’m not sure there’s a lot more we can usefully discuss.
Philosophy of science is an interest of mine in which I’ve read pretty extensively and even published a little, and I can assure you that that notion does not describe science.
1 Like
It is completely inappropriate of you to dodge a question quite relevant to the conversation. What are you afraid of?
Bill forgets that flight evolved independently at least four times in insects, birds, bats, and pterosaurs. Of course anything Bill doesn’t understand = miracle from God did it.
It has to do with testable science. Where we can get a quantitive confidence in the conclusion. The standard I would point to is the theory of general relativity. You don’t have to be there when a black hole forms to understand that we have a tested mechanism and model to help us understand how they form.
In evolutionary theory we have population genetic models. The starting assumption with population genetics is existing viral or living organisms.
The papers you can find that describe the origin of flight, sight etc all use universal common descent as a working assumption. We can debate wither this assumption is warranted by the data or is a form of circular reasoning.
I should probably clarify that my definition of a miracle does not depend on my personal knowledge or ignorance. If it did, much of the world would be miraculous, because there are vast blank spots in my knowledge. I understand the broad principles of internal combustion engines, but if I was asked to explain the operation of my motorcycle’s engine in fine detail I would have to say “magic!”
No, I mean the sum total of humanity’s knowledge. I know that there are other people who know the stuff I don’t know - like the smart people at Kawasaki who get 140 hp out of a 1 L motor in my Ninja.
Only events - usually one-off rather than repeated - for which there is not a natural explanation known by some group of humans beings, would qualify as miracles.
And as I noted earlier, a vast number of events earlier thought to be miraculous or magical have since been explained as natural by science, while to my knowledge nothing for which there used to be a natural explanation has now been found to have a supernatural one instead.
1 Like