'Splain this one Atheists...

[Seth]

Wow. 44 taps of the page down key to bypass seven posts.

Too many big words for you I guess. Probably a good thing you bypassed all that knowledge, you might have hurt yourself trying to understand it all.

Have another Thorazine...

[Forty Two]

I'm glad that track pad scrolling on my MacBook is quite rapid.

Congratulations, your trackpad is doing a find job of perpetuating ignorance.

I actually started reading your reply to Forty Two. By the time I got to the bit where you held forth on critically robust scientific evidence I realised, without surprise, that I had not read anything you had not already written when you posted at the Richard Dawkins forum seven or eight years ago.

It's not my fault that you folks keep on making the same errors in reasoning and logic year after year after year after year. Every time a new crop of Atheists shows up and makes the same stupid errors I have to correct them again.

Far from identify any error in reasoning in my posts, you have actually agreed with most of my main points:

You agreed that (a) it was not rational for the chiropractor and the family to say that the only explanation is divine intervention, and (b) that neither you nor I know how the girl recovered, (c) natural medical recovery without divine intervention is a possible explanation, and (d) there is no reason to think it was divine intervention (since, as you admitted, claiming such is "irrational."

We also both agree that it cannot be said that it is "impossible" for divine intervention to have occurred, and we both agree that divine intervention or even the existence of god has been disproven (whether with certainty, or with critically robust scientific evidence),

So, tell me what arguments I've made that have involved errors of reasoning and logic?

[Forty Two]

Well, you don't know that medical science doesn't know, do you? You only know that you don't know and nobody has told you (verbally or in writing), right?

Correct. I don't know. If you have critically robust scientific evidence showing how and why this girl recovered, then I'll be more than happy to examine it and amend my beliefs on the matter. As it stands, however, no one here has met the challenged posed by the OP, which is for YOU (Atheists) to provide such an explanation in order to rebut the (albeit irrational) claims of the participants.

Right, and nobody here has claimed that they do know. However, the challenge in the OP was "Splain this one Atheists" -- it was not "rebut the claims made by the chiropractor and family."

I can't explain it. She had a traumatic brain injury, was put into a medically induced coma, and then she recovered. That occurrence, to me, does not imply divine intervention. But, I can't explain how she recovered.

And that is a perfectly rational statement.

I do not have any rebuttal to the claims made by the chiropractor, other than to say that irrational claims are not reasonable. And, if we are in agreement that the claim "divine intervention is the only explanation" is irrational, then it's self-rebutting. It's an irrational claim. Irrational means "not logical or reasonable." So, its an unreasonable and illogical claim. Such claims hardly need rebutting.

Exactly my point.

However, people can only believe in the things they know about, and the things they don't know about they can't rationally believe in. That's not the same thing as saying that things are impossible, and it's certainly no reason to say "divine intervention" is what happened.

Then again, it's no reason not to. Where evidence is entirely absent, every hypothesis is equally sound...or unsound, as the case may be, until some evidence pointing one way or another is produced. Therefore, rejecting one hypothesis because it conflicts with one's other beliefs, where evidence is absent, is an irrational act. It's just as irrational for the chiropractor as it is for the Atheist to reject any hypothesis based only on one's own internal beliefs and biases. He has an internal pro-miracle bias, Atheists have an internal anti-miracle bias. Neither are rational biases and neither are rational foundations for either drawing a conclusion or rejecting a different hypothesis. Science requires an open mind.

It is, because we've already agreed that it is not a rational statement. There is every reason not to believe an irrational statement. It would be irrational to believe an irrational statement -- by definition.

"Where evidence is entirely absent, every hypothesis is equally sound." No. Irrational hypotheses are less sound than rational ones.

Miracles are contrary to science, and therefore you cannot assert scientific evidentiary requirements for miracles. Miracles are supernatural and science deals with the natural. By definition, a miracle is contrary to the natural order of things. It's a deviation from the laws of nature which science purports to investigate and explain. As such, the supernatural hypothesis of "god did it" is not scientific, and is not a rational hypothesis.

It is "possible" that it is true. But, the suggestion that god altered the physical laws of the universe in this particular instance is an inherently unfalsifiable hypothesis. It cannot be tested or disproven. As such it is inherently unscientific and like all unfalsifiable claims it is an irrational hypothesis and irrational hypotheses are less valid scientifically than rational ones.

That is "This must be divine intervention" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and as such is not subject to scientific scrutiny. It is the undetectable dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. There is literally nothing we can do with it. It can't be rebutted, and therefore it is a worthless claim or hypothesis and is not to be believed. it may also be something one does not wish to "disbelieve." Which is o.k. Feel free to be completely neutral on it. But, it is not irrational to disbelieve unfalsifiable hypotheses. From a scientific persepective, there is nothing to prove or disprove in an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

So, when you say "have you any critically robust scientific evidence to disprove the hypothesis that divine intervention saved the girl?" The question is nonsensical and inherently irrational, because the question answers itself. Since divine intervention is inherently unfalsifiable there can never be scientific evidence to disprove it. If there could be, then it would not be an unfalsifiable claim because it would be subject to scientific testing, evidence or disproof. However, calling it divine intervention or a miracle means it is not subject to testing and disproof because it is by definition a deviation from the laws of nature.

[Seth]

It is, because we've already agreed that it is not a rational statement. There is every reason not to believe an irrational statement. It would be irrational to believe an irrational statement -- by definition.

But you don't KNOW it's an irrational statement unless and until you have investigated it. Therefore, prior to investigation, it is irrational to dismiss it because it might be true.

"Where evidence is entirely absent, every hypothesis is equally sound."

No. Irrational hypotheses are less sound than rational ones.

But you don't know they are irrational until you discover that they are irrational through the use of evidence.

Miracles are contrary to science,

Why are miracles contrary to science? What is your scientific evidence that miracles are contrary to science?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

Usually, and historically, that which science does not understand is deemed to be "miraculous" or "supernatural." Science is very often wrong about that.

and therefore you cannot assert scientific evidentiary requirements for miracles.

Why not?

Miracles are supernatural and science deals with the natural.

Are they? What is your scientific evidence that miracles are supernatural?

By definition, a miracle is contrary to the natural order of things.

Ah, yes, "by definition." And therein lies the enormous cognitive disconnect of science. That which appears to be contrary to the natural order of things is deemed to be "miraculous" or "supernatural." In reality however, it's just as likely that it only appears that way to those who are ignorant of the science that controls such things.

It's a deviation from the laws of nature which science purports to investigate and explain.

Is it a "deviation" or is it merely a not (yet) understood natural phenomenon...kinda like gravity or the earth revolving around the sun?

As such, the supernatural hypothesis of "god did it" is not scientific, and is not a rational hypothesis.

Tautological expression of the Atheist's Fallacy. The only reason that the "supernatural hypothesis of 'god did it'" is not scientific is because science itself defines "god did it" as being supernatural, not scientific, and it does so based on the claims of theists that "god did it" is supernatural, but without any critically robust scientific evidence showing that god did not, in point of actual fact, do it.

You're bootstrapping your argument by defining "god did it" as supernatural as a false premise in a syllogism that leads to the equally false conclusion that "god did it" is "not scientific."

You have absolutely no evidence of the caliber science requires as credible and critically robust to show that "god did it" is not an entirely natural, if misunderstood, phenomenon.

It is "possible" that it is true. But, the suggestion that god altered the physical laws of the universe in this particular instance is an inherently unfalsifiable hypothesis. It cannot be tested or disproven. As such it is inherently unscientific and like all unfalsifiable claims it is an irrational hypothesis and irrational hypotheses are less valid scientifically than rational ones.

No, YOU cannot test, falsify or disprove it. Perhaps neither can any other person on earth today. But that does not prove the hypothesis that god exists and is capable of altering the physical laws of the universe in this particular instance is an impossibility. In fact it proves nothing whatever. It's just uninformed speculation based on your own personal biases, not scientific evidence or reasoning.

Just because YOU cannot falsify it doesn't mean that no one will ever be able to do so.

That is "This must be divine intervention" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and as such is not subject to scientific scrutiny.

What is your evidence that the hypothesis is not subject to scientific scrutiny?

It is the undetectable dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.

Just because Sagan can't detect it doesn't mean it's undetectable, it just means that Sagan's knowledge and understanding of the physical universe may be faulty or incomplete.

There is literally nothing we can do with it. It can't be rebutted, and therefore it is a worthless claim or hypothesis and is not to be believed.

Just because you can't rebut it doesn't mean it can't be rebutted.

it may also be something one does not wish to "disbelieve." Which is o.k. Feel free to be completely neutral on it. But, it is not irrational to disbelieve unfalsifiable hypotheses. From a scientific persepective, there is nothing to prove or disprove in an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

First you have to scientifically prove that it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Good luck with that.

So, when you say "have you any critically robust scientific evidence to disprove the hypothesis that divine intervention saved the girl?" The question is nonsensical and inherently irrational, because the question answers itself.

No, it doesn't, it generates several new questions.

Since divine intervention is inherently unfalsifiable there can never be scientific evidence to disprove it.

What is your scientific proof that divine intervention is inherently unfalsifiable or that there can never be scientific evidence to disprove it? So far all I see is your own biases and speculation at work, and not a shred of science anywhere.

If there could be, then it would not be an unfalsifiable claim because it would be subject to scientific testing, evidence or disproof.

Maybe it is. Just because you don't think it is doesn't mean it is, it just means that you don't know how to test it.

However, calling it divine intervention or a miracle means it is not subject to testing and disproof because it is by definition a deviation from the laws of nature.

Atheist's fallacy. What evidence do you have, other than the bald assertions of theists, that calling something "divine intervention" causes it to be not subject to testing and disproof? Does the label create the thing or does the thing exist independent of the label? What if theists are wrong about divine intervention being "a deviation from the laws of nature?"

[Hermit]

I had not read anything you had not already written when you posted at the Richard Dawkins forum seven or eight years ago.

It's not my fault that you folks keep on making the same errors in reasoning and logic year after year after year after year. Every time a new crop of Atheists shows up and makes the same stupid errors I have to correct them again.

10/10 for consistency.

[Seth]

I had not read anything you had not already written when you posted at the Richard Dawkins forum seven or eight years ago.

It's not my fault that you folks keep on making the same errors in reasoning and logic year after year after year after year. Every time a new crop of Atheists shows up and makes the same stupid errors I have to correct them again.

10/10 for consistency.

That's because the truth remains the truth year after year after year. Go figure.

[Forty Two]

It is, because we've already agreed that it is not a rational statement. There is every reason not to believe an irrational statement. It would be irrational to believe an irrational statement -- by definition.

But you don't KNOW it's an irrational statement unless and until you have investigated it.

Yes, we do. You AGREED it was an irrational statement above. I'll be happy to quote and link, if you dispute that....

Also, we do not have to investigate the facts when the statement itself, on its face, is irrational. The chiropractor and family's statement, based on the information given in the article, is irrational and illogical. A woman gets a head trauma and is placed in a medically induced coma. A chiropractor puts his hand on her neck and (says he) prays to God for recovery (and the family says they pray to God too) -- the woman later recovers from the trauma against the predictions of the medical doctors. THEREFORE, says the chiropractor, the ONLY explanation is divine intervention. Based on the facts presented, the conclusion drawn does not logically follow. It's fallacious reasoning and is therefore irrational and illogical.

Therefore, prior to investigation, it is irrational to dismiss it because it might be true.

It's not irrational to call an irrational argument irrational, Seth. The statement by the chiropractor is irrational and illogical because his conclusion does not follow from his premises (as set out in the article). Dismissing an irrational argument as irrational is quite proper.

"Where evidence is entirely absent, every hypothesis is equally sound."

No. Irrational hypotheses are less sound than rational ones.

But you don't know they are irrational until you discover that they are irrational through the use of evidence.

No no. Because here we have premises advanced to draw a conclusion. I need no evidence to know if an argument is irrational. It's like this:

The cat is black.
The dog is brown.
Therefore all cats and dogs are black and brown.

The premises may or may not be true. Nevertheless, if we assume the premises to be true the "therefore" conclusion does not follow and the argument fails on its face because it is irrational.

Similarly --

The woman was in an accident and suffered a head trauma and was sent into a medically induced coma.
The chiropractor and family prayed to God that the woman would recover.
Therefore, the woman's recovery can only be explained by divine intervention.

The premises may or may not be true. Nevertheless, if we assume the premises to be true, then the "therefore" conclusion does not follow and the argument fails on its face because it is irrational.

Can I explain how the woman recovered? No. But, I know that based on the premises presented in the article, it's irrational to conclude that divine intervention is the only explanation. That's basic logic.

Miracles are contrary to science,

Why are miracles contrary to science?[/quote]

By definition. Miracle: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. dictionary.com Or, an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause. Id.

What is your scientific evidence that miracles are contrary to science?

None. In English, the word "miracle" has a definition. If you wish to use a different definition, then let me know which one you're using and I'll revise my answer in relation to that usage.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

Usually, and historically, that which science does not understand is deemed to be "miraculous" or "supernatural." Science is very often wrong about that.

right, which counts against the argument that "the only explanation is divine intervention." The fact that you, I and the doctors may say "this is amazing, we never expected her to recover and we thought it impossible," does not mean it was divine intervention. Science is not what's "wrong about that" -- science acknowledges that things happen in the universe that we cannot yet explain, but science doesn't call that "miraculous" or "supernatural" or "divine intervention." Science says "I don't know yet," and chiropractors praying to gods say "it must be divine interventions!" It's the chiropractor that denies that there may be a perfectly natural, non-divine process that drove recovery of the girl.

Note Clarke's quote says "indistinguishable" from magic. He doesn't say that any sufficiently advanced technology IS magic. He says "indistinguishable from" magic. Meaning, if you take a caveman and show him a gun or an iPhone, he will think they are from the gods. The caveman is the chiropractor ascribing to the divine that which is actually natural. A rational thinking cave-scientist would understand that there are things we don't understand, but that doesn't make them products of the divine. We just don't know yet.

and therefore you cannot assert scientific evidentiary requirements for miracles.

Why not?

Because, as I noted, by the English definition of the word "miracle," they are deviations from the natural laws that are generally applicable. If a happening follows natural laws, then it's not a miracle. It may be "miraculous" in the secondary sense of "a wondrous or amazing occurrence." But, it's not a miracle in the sense of a divine entity changed the way things would have naturally happened and made the woman recover. Notice the chiropractor said divine INTERVENTION. The divine (God) intervened (verb) ("to take a decisive or intrusive role (in) in order to modify or determine events or their outcome") God intruded to modify or determine the outcome of the girl's situation. She would have died, but god modified things so she would survive.

Miracles are supernatural and science deals with the natural.

Are they? What is your scientific evidence that miracles are supernatural?

By definition, a miracle is contrary to the natural order of things.

Ah, yes, "by definition." And therein lies the enormous cognitive disconnect of science. That which appears to be contrary to the natural order of things is deemed to be "miraculous" or "supernatural." In reality however, it's just as likely that it only appears that way to those who are ignorant of the science that controls such things.

No! You have it backwards.

Science says: That which appears to be contrary to the natural order of things is NOT presumed to be miraculous or supernatural. Science posits that such things are natural, but unexplained at present. Science suggests that there was a process within the girl's body by which she recovered, but we just don't know what it is.

Chiropractor says: That which appears to be contrary to the natural order things can ONLY be explained by divine intervention. The chiropractor deemed it miraculous divine intervention, and as such "it's just as likely that it only appears that way to those who are ignorant of science that controls such things.

You beat your own argument, Seth.

It's a deviation from the laws of nature which science purports to investigate and explain.

Is it a "deviation" or is it merely a not (yet) understood natural phenomenon...kinda like gravity or the earth revolving around the sun?

Yes, science posits that there are many phenomenon that are not understood, and apparently the medical science in the case of this girl who recovered from head trauma the doctors said she would not recover from is one of those things. That's why science would say it's a "not (yet) understood natural phenomenon" and not "divine intervention." Whereas the chiropractor and the family say "the only explanation is divine intervention."

You again argue against your own position. Yes, indeed, the phenomenon that caused the girl to recover in this interest is not, apparently, understood by medical science. That doesn't mean it's divine intervention. It's, in your words, just as likely it was natural phenomenon that that we don't yet fully understand. Bravo!

that's how an atheist "splains" the situation in the article, Seth. Just like you did!

As such, the supernatural hypothesis of "god did it" is not scientific, and is not a rational hypothesis.

Tautological expression of the Atheist's Fallacy. The only reason that the "supernatural hypothesis of 'god did it'" is not scientific is because science itself defines "god did it" as being supernatural, not scientific, and it does so based on the claims of theists that "god did it" is supernatural, but without any critically robust scientific evidence showing that god did not, in point of actual fact, do it.

No no. The chiropractor and the family referred to a particular God in their statements. The Christian God, who is supernatural by definition.

If there is a God that is subject to the laws of the natural universe and whose miracles do not deviate from natural laws, I've not heard of it, have you?

Your argument here is sophistry, once again. My car made it to the gas station this morning even though I was running on 0 (empty) for a long time, therefore, I probably had a little bit of fuel in the car even though the gauge read zero. But, since there is no "critically robust scientific evidence" that there was any fuel in the tank, to be rational I need to be open to the possibility that divine intervention got my car to the gas station when really it should have stalled out miles before.

You're bootstrapping your argument by defining "god did it" as supernatural as a false premise in a syllogism that leads to the equally false conclusion that "god did it" is "not scientific."

By the English definition of God, the being is supernatural, and his "divine intervention" is a modification of the natural order of things. That's what those words mean.

Is there a non-supernatural God whose divine interventions do not modify the natural order of things? If so, let me know. Is that the one the chiropractor was talking about in the article? The article refers to the people involved as Christians, so I think I'm entitled to view them as such, and not as "pantheists" who think that "god" is really the universe and all of the natural laws are "god" etc.

If, however, we define god as the pantheist doctrine does, then that equates god with the universe - the universe and Nature is the equivalent of God. That's a wholly different animal. However, if that's the God we're talking about, then every natural occurrence is a miracle, and not just the ones we humans find amazing. A caveman would look at a car and think it's a miracle, because he doesn't understand how it works or even how it COULD work. We might think of the recovery of a woman from head trauma as a miracle, because we don't know how it works or how it could work. In that sense, yes, it was divine intervention, but it was not "divine intervention" in that specific case alone or uniquely. A person recovering from the common cold would also be a divine intervention, since God is everything and equivalent to nature. But if that's the kind of divine intervention the chiropractor thinks is the only explanation, then it's just semantics -- since divine intervention just means that the laws of nature (same thing as the divinity) operated such that girl recovered. What an atheist says is the natural order of things, and the theist says is divine intervention, assuming a pantheist deity, is the same thing.

You have absolutely no evidence of the caliber science requires as credible and critically robust to show that "god did it" is not an entirely natural, if misunderstood, phenomenon.

Right, but I do not claim that what happened was not entirely natural. The chiropractor does. I don't need evidence to support a claim that I do not make.

You say, "you have no evidence to show that 'god did it' is not an entirely natural phenomenon." I do not claim that 'god did it' is not an entirely natural phenomenon. I claim the opposite is very likely true. The chiropractor claims that "god did it" is not an entirely natural phenomenon, because he calls it a miracle and divine intervention. A miracle is a deviation from the natural order of things and divine intervention is like Vincent Vega says, "god came down from heaven and stopped these bullets..." I.e., the bullets would have hit, but god changed the natural order of things. That's supernatural. If god did not change the natural order of things, and things happened just as nature naturally operates, then it wasn't a miracle.

Words mean things.

It is "possible" that it is true. But, the suggestion that god altered the physical laws of the universe in this particular instance is an inherently unfalsifiable hypothesis. It cannot be tested or disproven. As such it is inherently unscientific and like all unfalsifiable claims it is an irrational hypothesis and irrational hypotheses are less valid scientifically than rational ones.

No, YOU cannot test, falsify or disprove it. Perhaps neither can any other person on earth today. But that does not prove the hypothesis that god exists and is capable of altering the physical laws of the universe in this particular instance is an impossibility. In fact it proves nothing whatever. It's just uninformed speculation based on your own personal biases, not scientific evidence or reasoning.

I never said it was an impossibility. I said exactly the opposite, Seth. Pay attention, please. I said "It is 'possible' that it is true.'

And, by definition, the suggestion that a god altered the physical laws of the universe in this particular instance is an inherently unfalsifiable hypothesis and cannot be tested or disproven. The reason being is that humans are governed by the physical laws of the universe and our tests are governed by the physical laws of the universe. If events occur 1000 times in one way, but in one instance god intervenes to make it happen differently, then we cannot test for that or disprove it. All our tests will be confounded by operating normally, unless god intervenes again.

It's like Vincent Vega's bullets.

Jules: This was Divine Intervention! You know what "divine intervention" is?
Vincent: Yeah, I think so. That means God came down from Heaven and stopped the bullets.
Jules: Yeah, man, that's what it means. That's exactly what it means! God came down from Heaven and stopped the bullets.

Just because YOU cannot falsify it doesn't mean that no one will ever be able to do so.

It's not a matter of ME not being able to falsify it. It's that the hypothesis as presented is LOGICALLY unfalsifiable. It's Carl Sagan's Dragon. The hypothesis presents a question that defines itself as untestable.

It's like saying "existence exists" as an axiom may be false because somebody some day may prove that existence does not exist. Yet, the axiom is an axiom precisely because you can't prove it false unless it is true. Can you still articulate that someone someday might prove that existence does not exist. Well, sure, you can say it. It's just wildly illogical. The sentence defines itself as wildly illogical. Same goes for your argument here.

That is "This must be divine intervention" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and as such is not subject to scientific scrutiny.

What is your evidence that the hypothesis is not subject to scientific scrutiny?

The hypothesis itself, on its face.

It is the undetectable dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.

Just because Sagan can't detect it doesn't mean it's undetectable, it just means that Sagan's knowledge and understanding of the physical universe may be faulty or incomplete.

That's what Sagan and science is trying to tell you. It's not "divine intervention" -- it's that your and our knowledge and understanding of the physical universe ARE faulty or incomplete. That's why science is the best way to look for truth. It assumes we don't know everything and it never says things like "divine intervention is the only explanation."

There is literally nothing we can do with it. It can't be rebutted, and therefore it is a worthless claim or hypothesis and is not to be believed.

Just because you can't rebut it doesn't mean it can't be rebutted.

True, but the hypothesis AS PRESENTED cannot be rebutted because by definition of terms it is not rebuttable on its face. it's not about what I can and cannot do. It's about what the hypothesis SAYS.

it may also be something one does not wish to "disbelieve." Which is o.k. Feel free to be completely neutral on it. But, it is not irrational to disbelieve unfalsifiable hypotheses. From a scientific persepective, there is nothing to prove or disprove in an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

First you have to scientifically prove that it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Good luck with that.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are not subject to scientific proof. If they were, they would not be unfalsifiable. When you define a hypothesis as untestable, then that hypothesis is untestable.

So, when you say "have you any critically robust scientific evidence to disprove the hypothesis that divine intervention saved the girl?" The question is nonsensical and inherently irrational, because the question answers itself.

No, it doesn't, it generates several new questions.

Yes, it does. Also, whether it generates new questions has nothing to do with whether the question is nonsensical and irrational because the question answers itself.

It can generate new questions all day long while being irrational and nonsensical.


Also, please tell me what these several new questions are? And, how does the initial question "generate" these new questions?

Since divine intervention is inherently unfalsifiable there can never be scientific evidence to disprove it.

What is your scientific proof that divine intervention is inherently unfalsifiable or that there can never be scientific evidence to disprove it? So far all I see is your own biases and speculation at work, and not a shred of science anywhere.

Because if divine intervention occurred, then a divinity intervened to modify the natural order of things in a particular instance. That's what divine intervention means. If that didn't happen then it's not "divine intervention." It might "nondivine" intervention, if a natural being intervened to fix the situation, or it might not be "intervention" at all, if it was just natural biological processes at work. Either way, it would not be "divine intervention" unless a divinity intervened.

The divine intervention is unfalsifiable because there would be no way to introduce proof. If we run tests for it, we can't reproduce the results because WE ARE NOT THE DIVINITY! Maybe the divinity will intervene every time, in which case the girl will recover every time from the same injury in the same way. Will that prove divine intervention? No, because it still will just look like the girl recovered from a very recoverable injury. Or, maybe the divinity will not intervene in the test subjects, and most or all of them will die. In that case, will it have disproven, or proven, anything about divine intervention in the original instance? No, of course not. Because we still will just be left with "not knowing" why the original girl recovered.

If there could be, then it would not be an unfalsifiable claim because it would be subject to scientific testing, evidence or disproof.

Maybe it is. Just because you don't think it is doesn't mean it is, it just means that you don't know how to test it.

Not quite. It's the hypothesis that is defining itself as untestable. You could probably write the hypothesis a different way, but the way you presented it, it can't be tested.

However, calling it divine intervention or a miracle means it is not subject to testing and disproof because it is by definition a deviation from the laws of nature.

Atheist's fallacy. What evidence do you have, other than the bald assertions of theists, that calling something "divine intervention" causes it to be not subject to testing and disproof? Does the label create the thing or does the thing exist independent of the label? What if theists are wrong about divine intervention being "a deviation from the laws of nature?"

Because divine intervention occurs when a "divinity" (of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being) intervenes (takes a decisive or intrusive role in order to modify or determine events or their outcome). Events are modified by a God to alter the natural course of events.

If you're saying that god has not modified the natural course of events, then we could test the natural events and see why and how they happened. But, then it would not be INTERVENTION! It would be the natural course of events. I.e., if the natural course of events have not been changed (we just didn't fully understand nature), then it's not an intervention.

If you're saying that god did modify the natural course of events, then we can't test for that modification because it's BY DEFINITION an aberration that BY DEFINITION does not result from natural process, but rather from the Divine.

[rainbow]

Do you seriously think anyone is going to read that?

[Forty Two]

Seth may.

[rachelbean]

I did. And I wish I had your patience...

[rainbow]

Seth may.

[Forty Two]

I did. And I wish I had your patience...

[Forty Two]

Seth may.

[Seth]

Seth may.

Of course I will, and I am, although my replay may be delayed by other demands on my time. I respect those who take the time to respond thoughtfully and rationally and I always read their contributions. It's the polite thing to do. Something others might profit from learning.

[Forty Two]

It is, because we've already agreed that it is not a rational statement. There is every reason not to believe an irrational statement. It would be irrational to believe an irrational statement -- by definition.

But you don't KNOW it's an irrational statement unless and until you have investigated it. Therefore, prior to investigation, it is irrational to dismiss it because it might be true.

Seth, that is not true. I can judge the rationality of a statement by its premises and conclusions. Where a conclusion does not follow from the premises it is an irrational statement. I demonstrated this above.

"Where evidence is entirely absent, every hypothesis is equally sound."

That's not the issue here.

If Premise A and Premise B do not logically result in Conclusion C, the argument is not rational.

And you AGREED that the chiropractor's argument that recovery after prayer can only be divine intervention is, in fact, irrational. It's not rational to believe irrational things. I don't, therefore, believe that the recovery can only be divine intervention. That does not mean there can NEVER be divine intervention. It means that the thing we've been asked to "splain" can be "splained" by saying that the chiropractor is irrational when he concludes irrationally that divine intervention is the only explanation. It isn't. AND -- we have been given no reason to think that it IS divine intervention.

Other than that, I make NO CLAIMS, nor do I need to make any. I don't know how she recovered. Neither do you. Neither does the chiropractor. But, HE SAYS -- not me -- HE SAYS what the "only" explanation is. I don't offer ANY explanation. I just don't believe his statement, because it is irrational.

No. Irrational hypotheses are less sound than rational ones.

But you don't know they are irrational until you discover that they are irrational through the use of evidence.

Untrue. We don't need evidence to know the following is irrational --

All cats have three legs.
All dogs have two ears.
Therefore, all cats have two ears.

That argument is irrational. It doesn't matter what's supported by evidence and what isn't. The argument on its face is irrational. And, it is so EVEN IF all cats do have two ears.

Miracles are contrary to science,

Why are miracles contrary to science? What is your scientific evidence that miracles are contrary to science?

Asked and answered. If you're just going to repeat questions after I answered them, then this is pointless. I told you above why. If you would like to address my answer and tell me why I am wrong in that answer, please do.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

Usually, and historically, that which science does not understand is deemed to be "miraculous" or "supernatural." Science is very often wrong about that.

Again, SCIENCE does not deem them "miraculous" -- praying chiropractors do. So, if anyone is wrong about that, then he is. Right?

and therefore you cannot assert scientific evidentiary requirements for miracles.

Why not?

I explained why not -- in the material you cut out -- immediately before my statement "and therefore." I just explained to you "why not" and then you just ignore the "why not" and ask "why not" again. Go back to my explanation and tell me why it isn't valid.

Miracles are supernatural and science deals with the natural.

Are they? What is your scientific evidence that miracles are supernatural?

I explained this before. You ignored, again, the explanation, and reasked the question.

By definition, a miracle is contrary to the natural order of things.

Ah, yes, "by definition." And therein lies the enormous cognitive disconnect of science. That which appears to be contrary to the natural order of things is deemed to be "miraculous" or "supernatural." In reality however, it's just as likely that it only appears that way to those who are ignorant of the science that controls such things.

It's a deviation from the laws of nature which science purports to investigate and explain.

Is it a "deviation" or is it merely a not (yet) understood natural phenomenon...kinda like gravity or the earth revolving around the sun?

It's a CLAIMED deviation. You get things backwards, Seth. The people who say "that was a miracle" (like a vision of the Virgin Mary or an amazing medical recovery) THEY claim that the "miracle" was a deviation -- a "divine intervention." THEY claim "god came down from heaven and stopped those bullets." That's them SAYING that god did not intervene, then something else would have happened. The deviation is what changed from what would have happened had god not intervened to what really happened when god did intervene. The people who claim the deviation occurred are the people who say "divine intervention" did it and it was a "miracle."

If it in reality was a natural occurrence which we just don't currently understand, yet, then that would be the exact position of the people who would suggest it's NOT a miracle and NOT a divine intervention. Yes, we don't know why the girl recovered.

Lastly, if a miracle is just nature doing it's thing according to natural laws, then it's not "divine intervention" or a miracle is it? It's the normal thing to have happen under the same circumstances. Name one actual miracle that is in full accord with the laws of nature and was not an act of a divinity?

As I already discussed, if you equate God with nature, then we are just talking semantics. A God that equals nature or "the universe" is a god that everyone believes in, because we obviously all believe there is a nature and there is a universe. To say, though, "it's a miracle! the laws of physics and physiology operated just as they always do!" is nonsensical, isn't it?

You skipped the substance of my arguments and you just reiterated questions I already answered.

I'm not answering any questions from you until you start providing answers of your own. You skipped my questions to you. Go back, please, and answer the questions I posed to you, and I'll be happy to further explain what I've already explained to you.