Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski

10-23-2009 , 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
Miracles never happen in controlled environments even though there is a LOT of such environments nowadays. This is very interesting.
Can you follow up with some actual information about such environments? It would seem to me that the woman in the hospital is in a pretty controlled environment for witnessing a medical miracle.

Quote:
Suppose they happened at random one can probably figure out what the probability of a miracle happening in a controlled environment would be given the number of "miracles" reported. I anticipate this probability to be quite large but since you're the expert on "miracles" feel free to correct me and present the proper statistics. And I DO expect you to figure this out if you or anyone else want these so called "miracles" to get any sort of respect.

If they don't happen randomly and are somehow deliberately happening outside controlled environments - well, I suppose you can guess what I have to say about that if your best explanation is "God works in mysterious ways".
It sounds like you're starting down the path of "miracles don't happen" but this runs contrary to your admission of miracles previously. So I have to admit some confusion as to what you're trying to say here.

Edit: Also, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that all reported "miracles" are "miracles" nor have I ever made any claim of the frequency of such events. It's quite clear you're stretching here.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Can you follow up with some actual information about such environments? It would seem to me that the woman in the hospital is in a pretty controlled environment for witnessing a medical miracle.
Like I said - I'd need more details than you provided to even begin forming an opinion about what happened with that woman.


Quote:
It sounds like you're starting down the path of "miracles don't happen" but this runs contrary to your admission of miracles previously. So I have to admit some confusion as to what you're trying to say here.
I had to double edit since you replied too quick, so I'll post here:

The question is - what's stopping you from building miracle-detectors if these miracles are indeed real and keep happening all the time?
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
Like I said - I'd need more details than you provided to even begin forming an opinion about what happened with that woman.
And as I said, you're welcome to delve into it as deeply as you want. Regardless of your conclusion in this particular instance, do you agree that hospitals serve as sufficiently controlled environments to detect medical miracles? After all, people die in hospitals all the time. Doctors are constantly facing end of life scenarios. There are hospitals all over the US. Yet in this one hospital, this one particular person did something that goes against the current state of medical knowledge (as far as I can tell... if I forget to put this clause in at some point in the future, I think I've made it clear that I can be corrected on this point).

Quote:
I had to double edit since you replied too quick, so I'll post here:

The question is - what's stopping you from building miracle-detectors if these miracles are indeed real and keep happening all the time?
Who claimed that they are "happening all the time"? Also, the concept of detecting a "miracle" is an incredibly vague concept and I can't even conceive of how one might build a device that would satisfy your standard of evidence of a miracle.

I would suggest starting with laying out what would be sufficient to convince you that the woman coming back to life is a miracle (Edit: You don't even have to research to find out whether it's true -- just lay out a standard). At least then you can put something concrete forward.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
The question is - what's stopping you from building miracle-detectors if these miracles are indeed real and keep happening all the time?
To put it another way, if miracles really did happen "all the time" they most likely would not be described as miracles. The rarity of the event is part of the definition of what makes it a miracle if you're using the dictionary definition. If you're using the definition regarding the violation of the current state of scientific knowledge, then the preponderance of such events would change the state of scientific knowledge, and scientific knowledge would conform to account for these events.

So you're really playing a disingenuous game here.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
If the theoretical physicists are willing to hang their hats on a single photon, that's fine.
Yeah, but light is only a particle when we are observing it. It's what's happening when we aren't looking that's the most interesting.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
I said 'no evidence to speak of'
And I said "a great deal of evidence", which also answers the rest of your post.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
And I said "a great deal of evidence", which also answers the rest of your post.
A great deal of low-calibre evidence = 'no evidence to speak of'. The word of 99 other bums that the bum is teetotal does not convince me.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 09:26 AM
One thing that I find puzzling about modern day miracles is the scale.
Biblical miracles were big and spectacular and unmistakable.
Why must modern miracles be so tiny and ambiguous?
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
To put it another way, if miracles really did happen "all the time" they most likely would not be described as miracles. The rarity of the event is part of the definition of what makes it a miracle if you're using the dictionary definition. If you're using the definition regarding the violation of the current state of scientific knowledge, then the preponderance of such events would change the state of scientific knowledge, and scientific knowledge would conform to account for these events.

So you're really playing a disingenuous game here.
lol, I'M playing a disingenuous game? That's pretty funny. I am more than happy to accept any miracles when they are ACTUALLY observed even if science is unable to explain them. Why? Because I'm open to change, and I don't have FIXED ideas - they evolve and become better ALL THE TIME.

Now YOU on the other hand want to play the game where your "miracles" are BY (your) DEFINITION events that are arranged specifically NOT to be PROPERLY OBSERVED. As science progresses your "miracles" change and adapt to avoid observation.

And I'M playing a disingenuous game? Uhhh.... *facepalm*
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I would suggest starting with laying out what would be sufficient to convince you that the woman coming back to life is a miracle (Edit: You don't even have to research to find out whether it's true -- just lay out a standard). At least then you can put something concrete forward.
I'm not a doctor. Ask me smth physicsy instead if you want modern evaluation. If it were to me I guess I would define death when more than some % of your brain cells died.

E.g. from my limited knowledge about medicine - absence of brain-waves is NOT a sign of death nowadays even though it WAS 30 years ago - during heart transplants the temperature is lowered to be very low, almost all blood is pumped out, there are no brain-waves, etc for hours - yet these people are not dead. (note that this superficially fits the data you presented, which is why you'd really need to present more data if you want me to see "miracles")
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
lol, I'M playing a disingenuous game? That's pretty funny. I am more than happy to accept any miracles when they are ACTUALLY observed even if science is unable to explain them. Why? Because I'm open to change, and I don't have FIXED ideas - they evolve and become better ALL THE TIME.

Now YOU on the other hand want to play the game where your "miracles" are BY (your) DEFINITION events that are arranged specifically NOT to be PROPERLY OBSERVED. As science progresses your "miracles" change and adapt to avoid observation.

And I'M playing a disingenuous game? Uhhh.... *facepalm*
1) You're the one claiming that I'm making assertions about the frequency of miracles which I have not actually made.
2) The dictionary definition precludes the possibility that miracles happen with the frequency you say that I claim.
3) The definition of miracle that you have given also precludes the possibility that miracles happen with the frequency that you say I claim.
4) The statement in bold is a clear misrepresentation. At what point have I "changed a miracle" to avoid observation?

As you continue to distort the argument by making false claims, your position grows progressively weaker.

Last edited by Aaron W.; 10-23-2009 at 12:42 PM.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
I'm not a doctor.
If a doctor declares it to be a medical miracle, would you consent that it's a medical miracle?
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
If a doctor declares it to be a medical miracle, would you consent that it's a medical miracle?
How can a doctor prove a miracle from God when he cant even prove God. All he can say is a healing is unexplained.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
How can a doctor prove a miracle from God when he cant even prove God. All he can say is a healing is unexplained.
I'm not even talking about a "miracle from God." According to Eddi's definition of a miracle, there need not be any reference to God.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
To put it another way, if miracles really did happen "all the time" they most likely would not be described as miracles. The rarity of the event is part of the definition of what makes it a miracle if you're using the dictionary definition. If you're using the definition regarding the violation of the current state of scientific knowledge, then the preponderance of such events would change the state of scientific knowledge, and scientific knowledge would conform to account for these events.

So you're really playing a disingenuous game here.
You ofcourse mean perceived rarity. Who knows, could be a ton of demigods out there who have spontaneously resurrected inside their coffins.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I'm not even talking about a "miracle from God." According to Eddi's definition of a miracle, there need not be any reference to God.
If its not a miracle form God it wouldn't be a miracle afaik.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
1) You're the one claiming that I'm making assertions about the frequency of miracles which I have not actually made.
2) The dictionary definition precludes the possibility that miracles happen with the frequency you say that I claim.
3) The definition of miracle that you have given also precludes the possibility that miracles happen with the frequency that you say I claim.
4) The statement in bold is a clear misrepresentation. At what point have I "changed a miracle" to avoid observation?

As you continue to distort the argument by making false claims, your position grows progressively weaker.
At this point, to continue a meaningful conversation, I believe you are forced to give a very detailed definition of what a "miracle" is according to you and also give examples and occurrence rates of these. So go ahead.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
If a doctor declares it to be a medical miracle, would you consent that it's a medical miracle?
If A doctor declares it - no. Just like if A physicist declares that he observed propagation of info at faster than c.

My acceptance criteria are the same as for anything else in science. Independent observation, proper statistics and error analysis, etc.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
If A doctor declares it - no. Just like if A physicist declares that he observed propagation of info at faster than c.

My acceptance criteria are the same as for anything else in science. Independent observation, proper statistics and error analysis, etc.
Can you confirm the independent observation of the single photon?
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Can you confirm the independent observation of the single photon?
Umm, yes? Thankfully they're not relying on subjective eyes to do that, so it's not a problem. And they do record everything they do, and their instruments and error analysis are publicly available for scrutiny.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
At this point, to continue a meaningful conversation, I believe you are forced to give a very detailed definition of what a "miracle" is according to you and also give examples and occurrence rates of these. So go ahead.
The definition of miracle is what I take from the dictionary. Note again that you are the one using the unconventional definition.

I also need not declare the frequency of miracles. For the sake of this argument, it is entirely possible for there to be no miracles at all. By definition of a miracle, the rarity of the event must be taken into consideration, but this is an ill-defined boundary. Besides, the question itself is ill-defined. It's like asking "How often does something unusual happen?" The object "something unusual" is too poorly defined to be of value in determining the answer to the question.

It would be much simpler if you would admit that I never made any claims of knowledge of the frequency of miracles, nor have I claimed to be an "expert" in them (as you seem to be implying). I'm merely talking about reported phenomena that appear to be outside the realm of the ordinary and to which some attribution to God has been made. I think the record is clear on this one.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
Umm, yes? Thankfully they're not relying on subjective eyes to do that, so it's not a problem. And they do record everything they do, and their instruments and error analysis are publicly available for scrutiny.
How is this "independent confirmation"? You can have lots of eyes looking at a single piece of data, but it's still only a single piece of data gathered by a single source. To me, this does not appear to be "independent confirmation." Perhaps you can explain how you use the term "independent confirmation."
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
The definition of miracle is what I take from the dictionary. Note again that you are the one using the unconventional definition.

Miracle:

"# any amazing or wonderful occurrence
# a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent "

Given your notorious meticulousness - please define "marvelous", "amazing" etc in the above DICTIONARY definition.

Quote:
I also need not declare the frequency of miracles. For the sake of this argument, it is entirely possible for there to be no miracles at all. By definition of a miracle, the rarity of the event must be taken into consideration, but this is an ill-defined boundary. Besides, the question itself is ill-defined. It's like asking "How often does something unusual happen?" The object "something unusual" is too poorly defined to be of value in determining the answer to the question.
Sure, if you want to avoid any type of a constructive discussion, you need not declare anything. That last couple of lines seem to indicate you have no clue what a "miracle" is, but please feel free to correct me.

Quote:
It would be much simpler if you would admit that I never made any claims of knowledge of the frequency of miracles, nor have I claimed to be an "expert" in them (as you seem to be implying). I'm merely talking about reported phenomena that appear to be outside the realm of the ordinary and to which some attribution to God has been made. I think the record is clear on this one.
zzzzz, yeah, you just like to make empty arguments and weasel out by NEVER putting your own neck on the line. How about giving us your OWN opinion for a change, rather than criticizing everybody else's ([un]surprisingly not Pletho's or Stu's or Prax's or Splenda's though, EVER)?
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
How is this "independent confirmation"? You can have lots of eyes looking at a single piece of data, but it's still only a single piece of data gathered by a single source. To me, this does not appear to be "independent confirmation." Perhaps you can explain how you use the term "independent confirmation."
That single piece of data has error bars that can be independently verified.
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote
10-23-2009 , 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
That single piece of data has error bars that can be independently verified.
Okay, so you're using "independent observation" in the way that I would use "independent analysis."

Independent observation of a seismic event (for example) would require that two independent stations measure the event.

Independent analysis would be taking the record (or records) of a seismic event and have two different people (or groups) analyze the data to draw conclusions.

Last edited by Aaron W.; 10-23-2009 at 02:08 PM. Reason: confirmation --> observation
The Devil's Delusion -- David Berlinski Quote

      
m