Like I said you need to learn to read -- I mean it...

where you go wrong -- for the life of me, I do not now why you keep doing it, there is no emotional attachment to this discussion as far as I am concerned, we are not debating your dick size -- you mix your own incoherent definition, namely:

then the laws of nature are the volition of that diety — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. You then continue to ignore Hume's definition, make up your own definition that goes straight against Hume's definitions, then go back to Hume and claim his definition is poor.

This comic illustrates you:

Let's play nicely, folks, or posts will start disappearing. And not supernaturally either.

Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. You then continue to ignore Hume's definition, make up your own definition that goes straight against Hume's definitions, then go back to Hume and claim his definition is poor. — Kitty

What are the "laws of nature"? What does "law of nature" mean?

Our scientific understanding of the world.

Our scientific understanding of the world. — Kitty

So anything that is a "transgression" of our scientific understanding of the world is a miracle. Then I guess light bending around the sun was a miracle the first time it was observed, since it was a transgression of our scientific understanding of the world at the time.

Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. — Kitty

The laws of nature exist with or without our understanding them. Our formulations thereof are our understanding thereof. Gravity, however, exists with or without us puny humans to formalize it. We and our scientists are simply in an ongoing process of trying to uncover and understand these rules.

Okay Agustino, you know I like you neff, but this is the last time I respond to something you could and should have read yourself... read Hume (read the thing I linked, it is only 4 pages mate, almost the size of this entire thread...)




seriously though, read Hume, lol.

edit: okay I am done with this discussion, there is no fruitful debate here. Just me teaching you some basic philosophy.

None of you actually studied philosophy, am I to presume?

Do these scientists even know what they are doing? — Coldlight

Funnily enough, that's what Marx also remarked in Das Kapital: "they do not know it, but they are doing it". For example, people go to school thinking they're building a great future for themselves, but all they're actually doing is making themselves into good workers that can then be enslaved, thus perpetuating a bad future. Marx thought that capitalism is characterised by this "false consciousness" where the participants do not know what they are doing. They think they are doing what's best for them, but actually, they merely contribute to the continuation of their oppression. Science operates much along the same lines. You say:

This time to scientists who will baffle and mesmerise us with their explanations of the world. — Coldlight

So the scientist takes the miracle of generation - of the sperm and the ovum going from a single cell into an organism with different kinds of cells, which do different kind of jobs, and tells us that the DNA contains the information that makes this generative process possible. Then the scientist tells us that the phenomenon is explained. As if I'm more enlightened if I use more technical jargon to describe what we observe... As if that makes it less of a mystery somehow. It is in this sense that the scientist does not know what he is doing. He fails to see that he has, as it were, merely explained the same phenomenon using different words, and has not rendered it any less mysterious, just shifted the mystery. I no longer wonder why the cells split and change function as they do, I now wonder how and why the DNA allows such changes to occur.

The way people talk about science these days is almost synonymous with God sometimes.
"Science will provide the answers one day"
"Look at all the things science has given us" — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yeah, I agree. I would like to see more humbleness in that regard, too. Firstly, there is a certain limit of our understanding, and secondly, I think there needs to be a conversion in our beliefs and approach to experience sooner or later. Otherwise, we are just committing the same mistake, psychically.

Okay Agustino, you know I like you neff, but this is the last time I respond to something you could and should have read yourself... read Hume (read the thing I linked, it is only 4 pages mate, almost the size of this entire thread...) — Kitty

Well you have told me quite a few times to read Hume, but I'm more interested to have a discussion with you. If you want to base your points on what Hume is saying, fine, I have no issue with that.

I asked you:

What are the "laws of nature"? What does "law of nature" mean? — Agustino

You said:

Our scientific understanding of the world. — Kitty

Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. — Kitty

So naturally, I respond with:

So anything that is a "transgression" of our scientific understanding of the world is a miracle. — Agustino

All I did was replace "laws of nature" with "our scientific understanding of the world".

Now you tell me that that is wrong, and actually laws of nature cannot mean "our scientific understanding of the world". So I will ask you again - what do you (or Hume) believe "laws of nature" to mean? What are "laws of nature"? The bit you referenced makes no mention of such a definition and merely takes it for granted that we know what they are.

None of you actually studied philosophy, am I to presume? — Kitty

My philosophy professors would agree with your sentiment privately about the limitations of a lack of formal training, but publicly shake their heads at your condescending tone towards people at least trying to get involved in interesting discussions. They might also point out to you that claiming to have superior knowledge or being right in this instance purely on the basis of your credentials without explicit reference to the actual arguments being made is a fallacy: appeal to authority. Even if you were Hume himself, that doesn't necessarily mean you're right!

Word to the wise (?), for your own sake, you'll do just fine around here if you cut the ad homs and provide real arguments.

Marx thought that capitalism is characterised by this "false consciousness" where the participants do not know what they are doing. — Agustino

It pretty much seems that way too many classes of people don't know what they're doing. Science is an example of that, too. I think this is where the 'progress' (as much as I dislike the word) doesn't exist. We - psychically - keep committing the same mistakes we were committing centuries, maybe even thousands of years ago.

As if I'm more enlightened if I use more technical jargon to describe what we observe... — Agustino

Yeah. It's the same as if it was explained in a poem using colourful language and all sorts of metaphors. It wouldn't shed any more light on the subject.

I voted "yes" for both but with some "reservations" due the definition of "supernatural".

I think that "reality" is much more complicated than how we normally experience it. At the same time however I do not believe in a Creator. Hence for me the "supernatural" is the part of reality that (normally) is not accessible to us (and because of this "miracles" are possible).

It pretty much seems that way too many classes of people don't know what they're doing. Science is an example of that, too. I think this is where the 'progress' (as much as I dislike the word) doesn't exist. We - psychically - keep committing the same mistakes we were committing centuries, maybe even thousands of years ago. — Coldlight

Indeed. Some people, like Zizek, would say that this sort of "blindness" is constitutive of our (social) reality. For example, the commodity exchange is only possible if we act as if coins really had an intrinsic worth that is different than their physical bodies - but paradoxically, it is our acting so that makes them have such an intrinsic worth in the first place. Because we all - without knowing it - agree that money is valuable and has such and such a worth - that's what actually gives it that worth. Bitcoin illustrates this very well - there is no paper there. Just the tacit social agreement that it is worth this much.

Yeah. It's the same as if it was explained in a poem using colourful language and all sorts of metaphors. It wouldn't shed any more light on the subject. — Coldlight

Yes - that's why I think that mystery, miracles and the supernatural are always within life. The difference is that some sorts of language make us aware that they are mysteries, miracles and supernatural and others conceal this fact from us, and give us the false impression that we understand them.

To go even deeper into this, I have grown quite convinced that the important movements in history have been spiritually driven from the very beginning. Even science itself is ultimately a spiritual force - destructive as it is. And some people have historically tried to take advantage of occult powers - for example, the Nazi's connection with the occult is well-known. Many historians have argued at length that the focus on the Occult was central to the growth & decline of the Nazi regime. Communism is another example of what is ultimately a spiritual ideology - indeed, it is the spiritual roots of communism that allowed it to grow, expand and flourish.

No -- I am not going to indulge you in this, sorry mate.

I will tell you why. It is the same reason why I dislike the new Atheist-movement. Take Sam Harris for example, he debated (and wrote a book about) moral philosophy with zero interest to address the arguments for or against by major moral philosophers in history. No way I am going to debate people like Harris with that kind of laziness. I don't even care whether I agree with the conclusions. It is so intellectually lazy and dishonest, it is not a debate worth having.

Debates like these are old. There are many arguments in favour and many arguments against. The least one should do is explore the basic (or most famous) arguments, and respond to them.

This is basic in philosophy class. You're interested in topic X? Read some basics on topic X that many great philosophers have already addressed.If you still disagree, then address those weaknesses. Write an elaboration with your own arguments to support your conclusion. Ta-da!

This is basic in philosophy class. You're interested in topic X? Read some basics on topic X that many great philosophers have already addressed.If you still disagree, then address those weaknesses. Write an elaboration with your own arguments to support your conclusion. Ta-da! — Kitty

Okay, I might agree with regards to the philosophy class, but we're not in a philosophy class here. We're actually in the Lounge of a philosophy forum. I don't mean to continue the discussion if it's not in your interest to have a discussion on this. I don't mind that you want to bring in existing philosophical arguments that have been made by other philosophers - feel absolutely free to respond with exactly what Hume said. What did Hume say that "laws of nature" are? I am ignorant of what he said, so please enlighten me. I'm not interested in his take on miracles, so I'm not going to read the whole essay. Just point me to the part where "laws of nature" are defined, and I will read that please.

Al right.

All I did was replace "laws of nature" with "our scientific understanding of the world". — Agustino

... and all you did was ignore what I quoted... The fact that you did that replacement showed that.

"our scientific understanding of the world" a.k.a. "laws of nature" could be wrong... Namely our subjective understanding of the objective world could be wrong.

edit: so I was a bit shoddy -- cold hands and lack of engagement -- with my phrasing.

Laws of nature is basically how the world works (objectively), and our understanding of it is through scientific endeavour.

Literally that piece I took a screen shot of, just for you darling.

"our scientific understanding of the world" a.k.a. "laws of nature" could be wrong — Kitty

So is it your claim that laws of nature can be wrong?

If laws of nature can be wrong, then how is it possible for miracles to be unreasonable, when miracles are precisely violations of laws of nature (ie, when they are wrong)?

If laws of nature cannot be wrong, then you're talking of two things. One is our understanding of laws of nature, and the other is the laws of nature themselves. So "our scientific understanding of the world" goes with the former, clearly. As far as I see, "laws of nature" still remain undefined.

Literally that piece I took a screen shot of, just you darling. — Kitty

I don't see a definition of laws of nature here. I merely see the term being used without any definition whatsoever. But this is what I want to know - I want to know what "laws of nature" mean - what they are, and what we're referring to through that word. Clearly, we're not referring to our scientific understanding of the world, since our scientific understanding of the world could be wrong, as we just established. So what are we referring to when we use the term "law of nature"? What is that?

I have read Hume, and the thing with Hume is that he uses many terms without ever defining what those terms mean, as if they are self-evident. But it's not at all self-evident what a law of nature is. I proposed it's merely a regularity. A regularity can always cease to hold, there are always circumstances where it is different, we have to decide what counts as different, etc. etc. So if a law of nature is merely a regularity, then we have definitely observed miracles.

In truth, I know quite well what laws of nature mean and why you can't define them. Because laws of nature are actually an antiquated and incoherent concept, that was first proposed because the world was conceived as a sort of "society" set up by God, according to some fixed rules, that could not be broken. "Laws of nature" are derived by analogy to "social laws", the only difference being that "laws of nature" cannot be violated by definition since they are set up by God. So if Hume is trying to tell us that if God changed the laws of nature that would not count as a miracle, then he needs to postulate another law of nature that dictates how God will change the laws of nature - and of course then that law must be above God which is incoherent. Hume falls in the other error of at one time conceiving of "laws of nature" to exist without God (conceptually impossible) and others, when it fits him, returning to the natural conception of laws of nature as the laws put in place by a Creator. We cannot speak of "laws of nature" without a law-giver - but if there is a law-giver, then miracles are clearly possible, by Hume's definition. If there is no law giver, then we cannot form the concept of "law of nature" - who would be there to impose a law on nature?!

My view, of course, is that there are no laws of nature whatsoever - and we're dealing merely with an antiquated and incoherent concept. You yourself have not shown the capacity to make heads or tails of this concept - you cannot even define it in fact. So defining miracles in terms of an incoherent concept is a no-go.

Where’s the smack down emoji?

For example, the commodity exchange is only possible if we act as if coins really had an intrinsic worth that is different than their physical bodies - but paradoxically, it is our acting so that makes them have such an intrinsic worth in the first place. — Agustino

Yeah, and that 'acting' hasn't changed in the slightest, which is why I am against the notion that there is any real progress.

Yes - that's why I think that mystery, miracles and the supernatural are always within life. The difference is that some sorts of language make us aware that they are mysteries, miracles and supernatural and others conceal this fact from us, and give us the false impression that we understand them. — Agustino

I agree with mysteries and miracles being always within life. After recognising that fact, it is more about working with one's own unconscious mind. Specific language use can also help with that, but generally things like dreams, visions, intuition have the possibility of uncovering what was unseen for us before. The experience is very individual, which is why it requires individual effort and insight.

To go even deeper into this, I have grown quite convinced that the important movements in history have been spiritually driven from the very beginning. Even science itself is ultimately a spiritual force - destructive as it is. And some people have historically tried to take advantage of occult powers - for example, the Nazi's connection with the occult is well-known. Many historians have argued at length that the focus on the Occult was central to the growth & decline of the Nazi regime. Communism is another example of what is ultimately a spiritual ideology - indeed, it is the spiritual roots of communism that allowed it to grow, expand and flourish. — Agustino

To use a Freudian framework, it might be that that's where the unconscious mind was directed, and so that became the centre of the spiritual. To me, unconscious and spiritual are closely linked. To relate it to the important movements in history, it could well be the case that the collective unconscious worked in that well and was directed by the spiritual. It is difficult to imagine any big movement without a 'spiritual cause'. If there was none, there wouldn't be such conviction and fervor in their acts.

I generally dislike that spiritual, mystical, and supernatural are often portrayed as some sort of medieval magic, and then dismissed right away. I also disagree with views that don't take into account the hidden, incoherent depths of unconsciousness. I'm not up for explaining anything just for the sake of seeming to have an answer.

Please explain how I am committing the fallacy of begging the question? I fail to see it. — NKBJ

When you say:

But since I presuppose one reality, one universe, I'll stick to all things that are in existence are "natural" in the sense that they obey the laws of nature. — NKBJ

The (serious) arguments for supernatural "entities" call this into question. Of course anything and everything is natural if you already assume everything that exists must obey the "laws of nature" (whatever those actually are).

Supernatural, transcendent things are not bound by these "laws" precisely because they are transcendent. You seem to be getting stuck with the idea that supernatural things are still immanent in the "physical", "natural" world. They're not, at least not the serious ones. Serious attempts at demonstrating the existence of a supernatural being (such as God) basically always aim to show that God is transcendent upon the immanent material reality. Or at least is not bound by the so-called "laws of nature".

[Delete] @Baden

'Miracles are not against nature but against what we know about nature' ~ St Augustine

.

Let's play nicely, folks, or posts will start disappearing. And not supernaturally either. — Baden

.and that would be a great loss.

[Delete] @Baden

Do You Believe In Miracles and/or The Supernatural? — Agustino

I do not.

But not believing in miracles and/or the supernatural doesn't mean living in a world which is not quite amazing.

If the cosmology of the big bang, 13.x billion years of time, a dust cloud that formed in this galaxy and produced this star, this solar system, this planet, this life is at least reasonably accurate, then our existence without miracles and the supernatural is still full of amazement.

Matter in its manifold complexity comprising all aspects of the physical world, including billions of minds, is not "mere". Looking for miracles in this world is "gilding the lily; it is adding cheap glitter to a sublimely complex, awful, wondrous, terrible, beautiful, beneficent, and even cruel and appalling reality. Existence is "super natural". There was once no existence; there was just matter.

That matter became life, without divine assistance, and evolved into the many beings of earth, is almost infinitely improbable, and one need look no further for miracles.

I generally dislike that spiritual, mystical, and supernatural are often portrayed as some sort of medieval magic, and then dismissed right away. I also disagree with views that don't take into account the hidden, incoherent depths of unconsciousness. I'm not up for explaining anything just for the sake of seeming to have an answer. — Coldlight

I used to be a believer and engaged in talk of the spiritual, mystical, and supernatural. I never did, and I don't think of it as "medieval"--more like "normal". This thing, "spirit" and the quality of "spiritual" have an earth bound reality, at least the way I like to use the term. (And "spirit" has a long string of meanings, associations, and loose usages that can make the concept pretty much meaningless.) It is a feature of our minds that we can have experiences we call spiritual, mystical, and supernatural. Our mystical mind-bending experiences are cooked up somewhere in what you call "the hidden, incoherent depths of unconsciousness". It's where we live. Imagining God, creating God, striving to fulfill divine commands and follow the paths of Buddha or Christ or... are all profound creative acts. It is human. It is one of the things we do.

One has to decide how much reality one's God has. For billions of people, God is real, and since God isn't on hand to contradict our various, quite contradictory and highly inconsistent imaginations, the trick works. Imagining God doesn't make the deity a "fraud". (The charge of fraud, if warranted, will be laid against the creators, not the creation.)

'Miracles are not against nature but against what we know about nature' ~ St Augustine — Wayfarer

What does "nature" mean?