Miracles 'n' Science

[Veridicus]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1822995' date='Apr 2 2009, 07:58 PM']Would transubstantiation of bread and wine be considered miracles? That sounds like something that could be studied quite rigorously. If provided with sound evidence that transubstantiation is real, I would most certainly rethink my beliefs (but it wouldn't stop me from trying to fully understand the process of transubstantiation!). Why hasn't this been done? Is it simply sacrilege, or is it somehow impossible?[/quote]

Transubstantiation relies on a philosophical understanding of being rather than a scientific understanding and thus it would be outside the scope of analysis. Substance and Accident are philosophical terms rather than scientifically testable variables.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][url="http://saints.sqpn.com/miracle/"][b]Miracle[/b][/url]
An effect which causes admiration because it cannot be produced by any natural agency but only by the power of God. (1) It is above the natural law, as when one dead is restored to life; (2) contrary to this law, as when Moses caused water to gush from a rock; (3) independent of the law, as when something that might be done by natural causes, e.g., the immediate cure of a dangerous malady, is effected without the aid of physician or medicine.

Granted the existence of Almighty God, since He could create the universe and establish its laws, there is no reason why He cannot alter its course and interfere with its laws. There is every reason why He should do so if He wills to conflrm some truth or fact by miraculous manifestation of His power, as did Our Lord and His Apostles when it was hopeless to expect men and women, as they were at that time, to accept the teachings of Christianity without such evidence of their Divine origin as miracles.[/quote][quote name='hamflask' post='1822995' date='Apr 2 2009, 08:58 PM']My claim that science assumes constant natural law follows from the fact that scientific theories are expected to make accurate predictions. If the natural laws that the theories model are not constant, making accurate predictions is impossible.

My claim about miracles being supernatural is simply my understanding of the difference between miracles and non-miracles. If you disagree (which it seems you may), what is the difference? Could finding a $20 bill that I didn't really need be considered a miracle? Is the matter entirely subjective?[/quote]God created and sustains all things; thus all things that exist, even that which is merely natural, must have been created by God and is currently sustained by Him. Some philosophers have suggested that we may be merely the thoughts of God. But it may be helpful to have a somewhat Catholic definition, see definition above.

Following the definition above, the discovery of currency moreover when not needed would hardly classify as a miracle, nonetheless a supernatural miracle.[quote name='hamflask' post='1822995' date='Apr 2 2009, 08:58 PM']By "explanation", I actually meant "theory". This implies that miracles would be about as predictable as gravity. Does this change your answer?[/quote]If you suggest an explanation or theory that attempts to subtract God from reality, [b]then yes it would change my answer[/b]. Supernatural miracles to be duplicated would require the duplication of their origin, Whom is God, thus I doubt this is possible.

It is possible to do that which is similar to God, for example by supernatural miracle He may heal the sick, but through the Divine gift of reason we can learn how to heal the sick ourselves.



[i]I would respond to more of what you wrote, but it would simply take too long. Needless to say I personally think many of your premises may simply be wrong concerning Catholicism (Christianity), or even more simply wrong in matter of fact.[/i] For example you may be attempting to treat God more as a “natural phenomena” than a “metaphysical entity”.

I personally think it would benefit you to focus more on the philosophy aspect of this subject at this juncture. Again welcome to Phatmass and I hope you enjoy your visit; there are educated and good intentioned people here, hopefully they can be helpful to you now and in the future.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[hamflask]

[quote name='philothea' post='1823191' date='Apr 3 2009, 12:17 AM']The idea of a clockwork universe -- where you could determine how events would unfold if only you knew the exact state of everything -- was proven wrong over a hundred years ago.[/quote]
That depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. The many worlds interpretation is deterministic. There is certainly debate over this, and it is by no means proven either way.

[quote name='philothea' post='1823191' date='Apr 3 2009, 12:17 AM']I don't know that having divine intervention be scientifically explainable would actually violate anything. It would depend on the explanation! Would have to be pretty sophisticated given the results we see, though.[/quote]
That's very interesting. Could all of God be subject to scientific explanation?

[quote name='Veridicus']Transubstantiation relies on a philosophical understanding of being rather than a scientific understanding and thus it would be outside the scope of analysis. Substance and Accident are philosophical terms rather than scientifically testable variables.[/quote]
I was not aware of that. Thank you for clarifying. I'll have to read a bit more about substance theory, though from what I've seen so far, it doesn't seem very convincing.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat']I would respond to more of what you wrote, but it would simply take too long. Needless to say I personally think many of your premises may simply be wrong concerning Catholicism (Christianity), or even more simply wrong in matter of fact. I personally think it would benefit you focus more on philosophy at this juncture. Again welcome to Phatmass and I hope you enjoy your visit; there are educated and good intentioned people here, hopefully they can be helpful to you now and in the future.[/quote]
You may be right. This thread has already got me rethinking my beliefs in more detail. Thanks everyone!

[philothea]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1823255' date='Apr 3 2009, 03:01 AM']That depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. The many worlds interpretation is deterministic. There is certainly debate over this, and it is by no means proven either way.[/quote]
I think what you're looking for (if you want to imagine that the universe can be precisely determined) is a hidden-variables theory [[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theories"]link[/url]]. Multi-worlds interpretation doesn't really do away with the arbitrary, statistically driven nature of quantum events.

To explain very crudely -- imagine a multi-worlds scenario, and a quantum even that has four possible outcomes: A, B, C, and D, all at 25% probability. We can determine which answer we got, and test multiple times to see that the 25% probability holds up. If we assume that there are three other universes, and the answers are all evenly distributed elsewhere, with 100% certainty... that still doesn't at all predict which universe gets which result. It's still random.

Also, interpretations of theories aren't science, they're philosophy. They may drive theorists and experimenters to try out certain testable ideas, but that's all.

And finally! It was the second law of thermodynamics that undermined the clockwork universe, not QM (though QM is obviously the most dramatic refutation.)