Explain or Defend This Miracle

[William]

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.[2] Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (especially a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint, or a religious leader.

Informally, the word miracle is often used to characterise any beneficial event that is statistically unlikely but not contrary to the laws of nature, such as surviving a natural disaster, or simply a "wonderful" occurrence, regardless of likelihood. Some coincidences may be seen as miracles.

I thought it would be interesting to have a place where claimed miracles [specifically biblical] can be analyzed through scientific method to establish if there may be an explanation regarding any claimed miracle, which can be shown to be able to occur through natural causes rather than supernatural ones, thus establishing that the claimed miracle is not really a miracle at all.

My first choice is the following.




The Holy Fire

Description from within the Orthodox faith
Orthodox tradition holds that the Holy Fire happens annually on the day preceding Orthodox Pascha (Orthodox Easter). During this time, blue light is said to emit within Jesus Christ's tomb, rising from the marble slab covering the stone bed believed to be that upon which Jesus' body is to have been placed for burial. The marble slab is now in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem. The light is believed to form a column of fire, from which candles are lit. This fire is then used to light the candles of the clergy and pilgrims in attendance. The fire is also said to spontaneously light other lamps and candles around the church.[2][3] Pilgrims and clergy say that the Holy Fire does not burn them.[4][5]

While the Patriarch is inside the chapel kneeling in front of the stone, there is darkness but far from silence outside. One hears a rather loud mumbling, and the atmosphere is very tense. When the Patriarch comes out with the two candles lit and shining brightly in the darkness, a roar of jubilation resounds in the Church. [Link]

[brunumb]

If miracles are acts of God that occur as and when God decides, then we cannot test for them. If these events are not driven by causality or laws, but by God's will then they are not reproducible in any scientific way.

That also means that we have no way of determining if a miracle has occurred or not. All claims of miracles are unverifiable. One possible way around that would be to definitively eliminate every possible natural cause, some of which may currently be outside of our sphere of knowledge.

[William]

If miracles are acts of God that occur as and when God decides, then we cannot test for them. If these events are not driven by causality or laws, but by God's will then they are not reproducible in any scientific way.

That also means that we have no way of determining if a miracle has occurred or not. All claims of miracles are unverifiable. One possible way around that would be to definitively eliminate every possible natural cause, some of which may currently be outside of our sphere of knowledge.

In the case of the so-called "Holy Fire" [re OP] it can be determined to a certain degree of accuracy how the trick is performed.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #11]

"A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws" is simply the common definition of a "miracle"

That common definition is incomplete. You should specify that those "natural or scientific laws" are the ones that the person considering the event knows at the time. Knowledge of the laws of nature/creation will always be incomplete, so there will always be the possibility of an actual miracle occurring (based on this type of definition).

In addition, there is the real possibility that some person or small group has advanced and non-public information, as well as the technology and energy source necessary to produce events that will be incomprehensible to the general public, and therefore, if not clarified, they will constitute a miracle (performed by those individuals).

[Sherlock Holmes]

My position is that we tend to overemphasize the significance, necessity, of mechanism. Yes we observe mechanism, cause -> effect and it seems to be an inherent property of the universe, underpinning science.

But at the same time to what can attribute the existence of mechanism? of laws? certainly not mechanism, not laws else we're abandoning the very thing we seek - reductionism - the main characteristic of scientific explanations

So the need to "scientifically explain" everything seems misplaced to me, I've thought this since my early twenties, we must accept that something not-scientific must have been or is operating because without that we get to a situation where there can be no explanation.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #24]
Observing, studying, and knowing the laws of creation is part of the original work that human beings would have. They should be able to transform their environment (to a non-aggressive level, of course), enjoying and mastering everything that was made available to them from the first moment they came into existence.

Gen. 1:27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.
31 After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good. (...)

Pro. 6:6 Go to the ant, you lazy one;
Observe its ways and become wise.

Job 12:7 However, ask, please, the animals, and they will instruct you;
Also the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you.
 8 Or give consideration to the earth, and it will instruct you;
And the fish of the sea will declare it to you.

Rom. 1:20 (...) his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #24]

the need to "scientifically explain" everything seems misplaced to me, I've thought this since my early twenties, we must accept that something not-scientific must have been or is operating because without that we get to a situation where there can be no explanation.

My position is accepting the process of science as stipulated;

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

and therein attributing that process throughout worlds - be these realms of Gods or of Men.

The discovering of what makes the Realm of Humanity "tick", should not threaten the Realm of Godivinity even if the Human Realm learns a bit about what makes the God Realm "tick"

Correlations can be made.

If one cannot find what one is seeking, one would not be told to look.

What God has ever told us not to look?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #17]

But anyway - the thread subject is about scientifically explaining so-called miracles, so if you regard your own existence and awareness and cognition as a "miracle" - you are claiming that there is no ability of scientific investigation which can explain 'you'.

I would suppose that the first thing necessary for this to be testable, would be for you to define what you mean by 'you'...

What is this "testable"?

Already explained.

in the case of miracles (not subject to or driven by rules) a true miracle cannot be tested.

Are you claiming that you cannot be tested, because you are this thing you call a 'true miracle'?

Fascinating...

If miracles are acts of God that occur as and when God decides, then we cannot test for them. If these events are not driven by causality or laws, but by God's will then they are not reproducible in any scientific way.

There are lots of god concepts. Which one are you talking about and why that one over the others when your words would would apply to most all of the available god concepts?