1. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Dec '10 16:22
    Is science equipped to test the validity of a miracle?

    Does the scientist have the tools that can test a miracle if one were to occur?
  2. Standard memberChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    American West
    Joined
    19 Apr '10
    Moves
    55013
    12 Dec '10 17:55
    Originally posted by josephw
    Is science equipped to test the validity of a miracle?

    Does the scientist have the tools that can test a miracle if one were to occur?
    James Randi, a professional stage magician succeeded in showing how Uri Geller fooled scientist.
  3. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91945
    12 Dec '10 18:35
    Originally posted by josephw
    Is science equipped to test the validity of a miracle?

    Does the scientist have the tools that can test a miracle if one were to occur?
    Errr..take it to science?
  4. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    12 Dec '10 19:17
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Errr..take it to science?
    no...science does not concern itself with magic, twinkle dust, etc...; this discussion belongs in spirituality
  5. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    12 Dec '10 19:32
    Originally posted by josephw
    Is science equipped to test the validity of a miracle?

    Does the scientist have the tools that can test a miracle if one were to occur?
    Define "miracle."
  6. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    12 Dec '10 19:45
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Define "miracle."
    I define 'miracle' as something that happens despite the laws of physics. Therefore its existance cannot be proven by science.

    Miracle is a religious phenomenon. Religion and science cannot be mixed.
  7. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    12 Dec '10 19:59
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I define 'miracle' as something that happens despite the laws of physics. Therefore its existance cannot be proven by science.

    Miracle is a religious phenomenon. Religion and science cannot be mixed.
    That's what I was getting at. Whether "miracle" is defined as a violation of physics, or as merely an extremely unlikely, but fortuitous, event. If the definition of "miracle" cannot be made precise, then it could not be studied due to its incoherence.
  8. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Dec '10 20:24
    Originally posted by ChessPraxis
    James Randi, a professional stage magician succeeded in showing how Uri Geller fooled scientist.
    And that's not all!

    I especially liked the video where Randi debunks the Bible. 😲


    Could it be that Nazareth was located elsewhere?
  9. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Dec '10 20:26
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Define "miracle."
    You know, that thing that God does. 😵
  10. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    12 Dec '10 21:16
    Originally posted by josephw
    You know, that thing that God does. 😵
    True. Religion only. Nothing more.
  11. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Dec '10 21:58
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    True. Religion only. Nothing more.
    Are you saying that science is limited in its scope?

    It seems to me that if the universe was created, it should be within science to discover whatever clues there may be to prove it.

    "Religion", isn't just about the miraculous or the spiritual. It is about all creation of which science is a part.

    I don't think we should think in terms of the separation of science and religion. Instead they both are integral. If they contradict each other, then one of them is wrong.
  12. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    12 Dec '10 22:451 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    Are you saying that science is limited in its scope?

    It seems to me that if the universe was created, it should be within science to discover whatever clues there may be to prove it.

    "Religion", isn't just about the miraculous or the spiritual. It is about all creation of which science is a part.

    I don't think we should think in terms of the separa ...[text shortened]... n. Instead they both are integral. If they contradict each other, then one of them is wrong.
    To prove anything religious is outside the domain of science.

    The existence of a creator is not necessary to understand the beginning of the Universe. There is no possible method to scientifically confirm a god. It's simply outside the domain of science.

    "If they [religion and science] contradict each other, then one of them is wrong." Agreed. And that is what I've said all the time. Religion and science cannot be mixed. If science is correct, then religion must be wrong.

    Edit: I back on the last remark. Religion can exist and be correct under its own domain at the same time as science can be correct under its own domain. Religion can stipulate that there is a god at the same time as science don't. Religion can coexist if they reside in different domains. But when a creationist says that creaion is scientifically true, then he does a mistake. He tries to mix science with religion - it cannot be done.
  13. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    12 Dec '10 23:14
    A word from Isaac Newton on gravity and atheism:

    YouTube&feature=channel
  14. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Dec '10 23:45
    Originally posted by jaywill
    A word from Isaac Newton on gravity and atheism:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTmvyq_LLCo&feature=channel
    Senseless indeed. I might add, empty and void of reason.
  15. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    13 Dec '10 00:042 edits
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    To prove anything religious is outside the domain of science.

    The existence of a creator is not necessary to understand the beginning of the Universe. There is no possible method to scientifically confirm a god. It's simply outside the domain of science.

    "If they [religion and science] contradict each other, then one of them is wrong." Agreed. And t ly true, then he does a mistake. He tries to mix science with religion - it cannot be done.
    Its true, atheistic science has thrown God out of the equation of life.

    But true science which you dont subscribe to, actually recognizes the spiritual factor in life, which with out there is no life at all.

    Vedanta Sutra is the highest science....the science of life.

    You are a pseudo science person, because you reject the spiritual factor, which you cannot do, because science must take into account all factors and not be biased in their investigative approach. (that is dishonest)
Back to Top