Causation

[liamconnor]

Hello all,

I typically am over in the apologetics department, but sometimes have purely philosophical OPs which are always turned into apologetics.

So, hopefully frequenters of this forum can resist "reading between the lines".

I have a hard time conceptualizing the concept "the laws of nature" as any thing other than our assumption that our common experience must form an unalterable pattern.

As Hume pointed out, we can't perceive causes. All we can do is see what occurs when x is added to y under conditions z.

But would this not mean that our so-called supernatural/natural distinction is misleading. The supernatural would not mean "caused by a god" but merely "extremely unique". The difference between, say, a flower dying in the winter and springing back up in the spring, and a body three days dead reversing the processes of decay--well, it would not mean there was a god, but rather, that the one event is widespread, while the other is unique?

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you seeking to blur the distinction between a rare event like an earthquake in Jerusalem and a miracle which is a rare implausible event with religious significance, such as an earthquake in Jerusalem coincident with the death of the Son of God and an unscheduled solar eclipse that left no seismological evidence and was missed by three of the four writers known to be chronicaling the events of that day.

[marco]

But would this not mean that our so-called supernatural/natural distinction is misleading. The supernatural would not mean "caused by a god" but merely "extremely unique". The difference between, say, a flower dying in the winter and springing back up in the spring, and a body three days dead reversing the processes of decay--well, it would not mean there was a god, but rather, that the one event is widespread, while the other is unique?

That is a good way of looking at things. The dead flower becomes alive after some months; the unconscious bear or dormouse regains consciousness after hibernation. We can explain these things. It may be that there is a natural explanation for some corpses to spring into life again, but we are ignorant of why this should be. With our present state of knowledge we would not say this is a unique event but an impossible one.

Incidentally "unique" is never modified; unique is unique, never very unique.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

What's wrong with the typical definitions along the lines of nature - according to the laws of nature and supernatural - contradict the laws of nature?

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I have a hard time conceptualizing the concept "the laws of nature" as any thing other than our assumption that our common experience must form an unalterable pattern.

Not following you here. Are you relegating each identifiable law of nature to the status of an "unalterable pattern"? Does this mean a law of nature exists only in the conception [not sure how you'd factor perception into this?] of intellectual operation?

The supernatural would not mean "caused by a god" but merely "extremely unique". The difference between, say, a flower dying in the winter and springing back up in the spring, and a body three days dead reversing the processes of decay--well, it would not mean there was a god, but rather, that the one event is widespread, while the other is unique?

It's at least conceivable that reanimation of a three day corpse might come about by natural causes well beyond our present range of knowledge. I'm not an educated man, but have to think that the science of chemical changes that take place in a dead body would throw serious doubt on the notion of reanimation as a natural process.

At what stage in composition would coming back to life exceed the possibility of "natural" reanimation, especially in cases where body parts are scattered or dissolved, etc.?

[Divine Insight]

But would this not mean that our so-called supernatural/natural distinction is misleading. The supernatural would not mean "caused by a god" but merely "extremely unique". The difference between, say, a flower dying in the winter and springing back up in the spring, and a body three days dead reversing the processes of decay--well, it would not mean there was a god, but rather, that the one event is widespread, while the other is unique?

A flower never ever "springs back up" after dying.

You can prove this to yourself by simply cutting down the dead flower in the fall and keeping the remains in a box. The next spring when you go out and see that a "New" flower has spouted from the same bulb or a seed you can then open the box and observe that you still have the dead carcass of the flower that had died in the fall.

So your analogy of a new flower growing in the spring where an old flower had previously been does not amount to a "resurrected flower". It's a whole new flower, and the old flower is still dead.

[marco]

A flower never ever "springs back up" after dying.

So your analogy of a new flower growing in the spring where an old flower had previously been does not amount to a "resurrected flower". It's a whole new flower, and the old flower is still dead.

How unpoetic, DI. The philosopher-botanist would ask what best constitutes the flower: the corolla, the foliage or the generating bulb. The bloom, as Burns said, is shed when one plucks it; but death for the plant is illusory. We shed our hair as decades pass but our hearts beat on. And who is to say whether or not, at the final heartbeat, an invisible principle of life continues? I hope so, and so did Emperor Hadrian, so I am in good company.

[4gold]

Hello all,

I typically am over in the apologetics department, but sometimes have purely philosophical OPs which are always turned into apologetics.

So, hopefully frequenters of this forum can resist "reading between the lines".

I have a hard time conceptualizing the concept "the laws of nature" as any thing other than our assumption that our common experience must form an unalterable pattern.

As Hume pointed out, we can't perceive causes. All we can do is see what occurs when x is added to y under conditions z.

But would this not mean that our so-called supernatural/natural distinction is misleading. The supernatural would not mean "caused by a god" but merely "extremely unique". The difference between, say, a flower dying in the winter and springing back up in the spring, and a body three days dead reversing the processes of decay--well, it would not mean there was a god, but rather, that the one event is widespread, while the other is unique?

Let me flip your statement on its head. If Hume's Problem of Induction is correct that we can't perceive causes, then realism is “the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of science a miracle.� -- Hilary Putnam. Humeans would have a very difficult time explaining science's success without using a word similar to miracle.

If Hume is wrong, then realism can adequately determine first causes...so how do we explain miracles under realism philosphy? Is that your question?

[4gold]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you seeking to blur the distinction between a rare event like an earthquake in Jerusalem and a miracle which is a rare implausible event with religious significance, such as an earthquake in Jerusalem coincident with the death of the Son of God and an unscheduled solar eclipse that left no seismological evidence and was missed by three of the four writers known to be chronicaling the events of that day.

Given his statement on Hume, I believe he is asking how a miracle can be explained in a non-Humean way (using a realist philosophical lens).

I would argue this...if you had me in a controlled laboratory environment and every single blind person I touched was instantly able to receive sight, what scientific evidence would conclude that the supernatural exists?

Assuming the answer is "no lab experiment exists that can detect the supernatural", my response is that miracles can only exist in a realist philosophy, not under Hume's Problem of Induction, but under Aristotle's Unmoved Mover argument.

[McCulloch]

if you had me in a controlled laboratory environment and every single blind person I touched was instantly able to receive sight, what scientific evidence would conclude that the supernatural exists?

I would conclude that you had an ability that I don't understand.