My response to the following question: What is a Miracle? A miracle is an awe inspiring event that transcends the productive power of nature and it is a sign of Gods presence. In other words when a naturally impossible event is manifested, then it is a miracle. Furthermore a miracle is an event that transcends minds and subsequently it is inexplicable. But we must be careful with such a criterion because there are events that may be inexplicable because of our epistemological limitations and ignorance. In medieval times they made that error. However the scientific community in Western Europe provided explanations for natural phenomena. However it lead to an inquisition and persecution(of the scientific)in western Europe. Argument for Gods existence: 1. A miracle is an awe inspiring event that transcends the productive power of nature and it is a sign of Gods presence. 2. Thus, if the origin of life transcends the productive power of nature, then it is a miraculous event and a sign of Gods presence. 3. The origin of life transcends the productive power of nature. 4. Therefore, necessarily, the origin of life is a miraculous event and a sign of Gods presence. This is a rational understanding of miracles, but there is also a spiritual and biblical understanding as well. Kevin then explain to the professors how life began to exist on the basis of naturalism. For I am aware of professors that say they do not know. And models do not refute arguments. The criterion is logic. In other words you have evaluated the argument wrongly. How life began to exist is a miracle. Why? Because such an event is naturally impossible because life cannot originate from non life or biogenesis cannot begin from A biogenesis. And it is also logically impossible. It is logically impossible according to logic. Logic is the science that treats forms of thinking and the inferences of reason. Thus to think that mammalian life can begin to exist without the uterus whilst knowing that mammalian life is contingent on the uterus is a violation of the principle of logic, namely: The principle of non contradiction. And consequently such a thinking is a logical fallacy. For mammalian life or complex life cannot be contingent on the uterus and not contingent on the uterus at the same time. Thus: 1. It is either that mammalian life cannot begin to exist without the uterus and its conditions or it can begin without the uterus and its conditions. 2. It is impossible for mammalian life to begin to exist without the uterus and its conditions (that is a fact of observation and insurmountable evidence) 3. Mammalian life cannot begin to exist without the uterus and its conditions. 4. If mammalian life cannot begin to exist without the uterus and its conditions, then it is naturally impossible for mammalian life to begin to exist. 5. It is naturally impossible for mammalian life to begin to exist. 6. If it is naturally impossible for mammalian life to begin to exist, then an event/cause that transcends nature caused mammalian life to begin to exist.(An event that transcends nature or what is naturally and logically impossible must be supernatural and miraculous) 7. An event/cause that transcends nature cause mammalian life to begin to exist. Conclusion: The existence of complex life is a sign of Gods existence. Moreover it is naturally impossible because complex life/mammalian life cannot begin to exist without the blue print of life/DNA in a cell that is placed in the uterus. The whole organization of complex life/mammalian life(by means of DNA)cannot occur outside the biological conditions of the uterus. Yes the mammalian gestation period is subject to fixed biological conditions in the uterus and subsequently it cannot begin to exist contrary to them. Our experience confirms this every time we observe complex life beginning to exist and we have never observed a single exception. That is, we have never observed mammalian lifeforms come into being or come into the earth without initially developing in the uterus. According to the principle of induction we may argue as follows: 1. For every natural phenomena, If there are no observed exception, then it is very certain that it always occurs that way. 2. There are no observed exception to the natural phenomena of mammalian life forms being contingent on the uterus in order to begin to exist. 3. Therefore, necessarily, it is very certain that mammalian lifeforms are always contingent on the uterus in order to begin to exist. It is possible to apply the antithesis of the principle to demonstrate that mammalian lifeforms cannot begin to exist without the uterus and subsequently it is naturally impossible for life(ultimately)to begin to exist naturally. Consider: 1. If there have been no observed instances of an alleged natural phenomena, then it is very certain it never occurs. 2. There have been no observed instances of the alleged phenomena of mammalian life beginning to exist outside the uterus. 3. Therefore ,, necessarily, it is very certain that the alleged phenomena of mammalian life beginning to exist outside the uterus never occurs. It is also possible to apply the argument to a biogenesis and spontaneous generation. However the ideas have been refuted by biogenesis(Thomas Henry Huxley) Furthermore a biogenesis and spontaneous generation are very uncertain events according to the antithesis of the principle of Induction. For there has not been one observed instance of life coming from non life or life originating from rotten meat and subsequently it is very certain that such ideas never actually occur. However the skeptic may want to object to my reasoning on the basis of what is known as the problem with induction. Nevertheless my reasoning is still sound. For the problem with induction does not affect it. Let us consider the problem with induction. Firstly, science is the systematic study of nature and it is one way of understanding natural phenomena by means of testing and observation, and the formulation of general theories and laws. The scientific methodology is data obtained from sensory experience and subsequently science is an empirical discipline. Furthermore scientific discipline entails three methods for acquiring provisional knowledge from data, namely: 1. Abduction(inference to the best explanation). For example: The death of the dinosaurs requires an explanation. 1. Asteroid remnants have been observed in the geological strata with dinosaurs fossils. 2. An asteroid from space hit the dinosaurs. (Hypothesis) 3. Therefore an asteroid from space killed the dinosaurs. My conclusion from my observation is known as the inference to the best explanation. But abduction is not uncertain because 2 is simply a hypothesis amongst many other competing hypothesises. For example it is also believed that the dinosaurs died as a result of natural selection, a volcano eruption, and a worldwide flood(Noahs flood). However the scientific community favour the view about an asteroid colliding with the earth. 2. Deduction is simply based on making inferences from apriori propositions about natural phenomena. A priori(along with logic and mathematics)belongs to the realm of relation of ideas. Moreover its inference is known as a necessary truth. The Highs Boson particle was discovered by mathematical deduction and by a prior I postulations. But some do not think that deduction is scientific because it is based on pure reason and a prior I propositions rather than on sensory experience and. Aposteori propositions. Others reject it for epistemological and philosophical reasons. Nevertheless some scientific discoveries have been made because of deduction. Philosophically speaking, there two main school of thoughts about, What we can know? And, how we can know it? Namely, The Empiricists and The rationalists. According to the empiricists what we can know is restricted to the senses and subsequently nothing can be known beyond sensory experience. Therefore reason cannot grant us knowing of the world. But the rationalists disagreed. For they believed that reason can grant us knowledge about matters of facts in certain situations. But the point is some reject deduction as a scientific method of understanding the world, on philosophical grounds. Nevertheless(like I stated earlier on)it does work. For the Highs Boson was discovered by mathematical deduction and A priori postulation. And 3. Induction is the process of formulating theories(about generalizations)from an observation of a particular sample size of certain things that belong to nature. A classic example of induction is as follows: 1. All swans we have ever seen are white. 2. Therefore all swans(past, present, and future)are white. But Science cannot guarantee the uniformity of the trait whiteness and subsequently there may be instances of black swans. Thus the conclusion of induction is never certain. However such a judgement about the conclusion of Induction is itself uncertain until the Skeptic can provide exceptions to the conclusion . Thus even though scientific theories are subject to modification in light of contrary evidence it does not mean that the problem of induction is always valid. For often the Skeptic is simply applying Skepticism for the sake of Skepticism. But our belief in the uniformity of certain things is constantly being verified by our experience and thus the door for Skepticism has been shut. For there are events that we have never observed a single exception to. In fact this is why scientific predictions are successful. The fact is the extent of the observed sample size determines the power of the conclusion of induction and our belief in natures uniformity. For example: Our observation today is that seven billion humans live today that did not begin to exist without the uterus. In fact we constantly observe that it is impossible for any human to begin to exist without a uterus. Moreover in all human generations that have ever existed this fact is true. So the evidence for uniformity is very strong. For we have a sample size of more than a trillion. And there have been no observed instances of exceptions. Therefore it is very certain that it is naturally impossible for mammalian life to begin to exist without a uterus. So induction can grant us confidence even though there are times when we may observe exceptions to uniformity. But we are less susceptible to observing exceptions or we are less susceptible to doubt if the induction is strong. For there are two kinds of induction, namely:1. Strong induction and 2. Week induction. What is strong induction? Strong induction is a process that provides us with a conclusion that is based on an overwhelming sample size of uniformity and with no observed exceptions. And consequently the conclusion is very certain. For example, 1. All living humans we have ever seen have heads with brains. 2. Therefore all living humans(past, present, future)have heads with brains. I believe that it is impossible for the Skeptic to apply the problem of induction to that reasoning. For the Skeptic cannot convince me that there are exceptions. That is, that there may be living humans with no heads with brains. Or the Skeptic cannot prove that my experience will be contradicted. But the fact is the skeptic cannot provide me with proof of a living human with no head with a brain. The fact is such an observation is possible because human anatomy and physiology is understood. Thus the sample size of our experience of the conclusion and the science of anatomy and physiology provide us with good grounds to believe that conclusion is very certain. What is weak induction? Weak induction is a process that yields a weak conclusion. For example; 1. All peppered moths have a light pigmentation. 2. Therefore peppered moths have a light pigmentation. It was believed that the peppered moths were only light or speckled. But a new form began to emerge, namely: a peppered moth with dark pigmentation. Apparently that example is an instance of evolution by natural selection. Thus the conclusion is relatively true because of mutation, assorted speciation, and evolution by natural selection. Furthermore such conclusions about phenotype may be very uncertain because all the traits that constitute an organisms phenotype may not be displayed or its expressed genotype may contain recessive genes and dominant genes and subsequent my recessive traits will be masked. However recessive genes will be expressed if the organisms genotype contains only recessive traits/genes and subsequently it is possible for such traits to be expressed in successive generations. Thus the potential for exceptions to a particular phenotype is high especially because it is natural selection that determines which traits thrives.(according to Darwinism. I am simply describing the evolutionary stance) But my induction in the context of mammalian life forms is strung. Thus no inorganic thing in the universe can cause life to begin to exist from non life. And even the organic things that are necessary for sustaining live cannot cause life to begin to exist. For their are parameters that life is contingent on. For example complex life or mammalian life forms CANNOT begin to exist without the uterus and its conditions. Experience/shows us this fact. And millions of years ago in the past it is also true. For palaeontology dhows us that organisms were subject to the same conditions for life. Thus organisms in the past could not have begun to exist outside the uterus and its conditions. The same is true for eukaryotic organisms or simple Life. For example, The bacteria cannot begin to exist without binary fission and its conditions. This is true on the basis of observation and thus to postulate another origin for life that(you have never seen in nature)and that is contrary to the origin that no life(for example: mammalian life)as ever acted contrary to is surely false. For according to strong observational evidence we know that no complex life form(e.g mammals)that lived millions of years ago or now has ever began to exist outside the conditions of the uterus. Fact. And the conditions are natural. Thus no complex life(mammal)as ever violated natures conditions for replicating life and subsequently we have never seen a human beginning to exist outside the uterus or in the earths soil. This is a fact of observation. For no human knows a beginning without the uterus. It is naturally impossible for nature to cause mammals to exist without the uterus. For such an event is logically impossible and naturally impossible. Thus complex life cannot have a natural beginning. For nature(based on my reasoning)cannot cause life to begin to exist. Thus the origin of complex life(mammals)transcends the limits of nature. Thus the origin of complex life is a miraculous event because: 1. What was naturally impossible has been made possible and only a cause or event that transcends nature can produce such an outcome. Since it is transcendent it must be supernatural. 2. It is awe inspiring when the truth of the of life had been discovered by means of reason. And 3. The event transcends our minds and subsequently it is inexplicable. But like I stated earlier on we must apply caution and discernment when we use 3 as a criterion or framework for identifying a miracle. For example: In medieval Europe or Western Europe(before the rennaisance movement)it was believed that the rainbow was a miracle and consequently it is inexplicable. That understanding of the rainbow was the prevailing worldview. However as humanism, natural philosophy, and free thinking began to emerge or as the believe in self and the power of education began to be encouraged a new worldview began to be propagated. This worldview was based on natural philosophy. And over the years it has gradually developed from the speculation of metaphysics. For now its hypothesis can often be tested by its empirical methodology of data gained from observation. Furthermore it could demonstrate it claims. And that is exactly what it did. For it showed that a rainbow is simply an effect of white light reflected through raindrops. In fact this can be demonstrated by observing light pass through a prism. Today we know a lot more about the rainbow. We know that white light contains seven kind of wavelengths and energy that makeup the colour spectrum. And we know that the wavelength are all that actually exist independent of the subjective physiological processes of the brain. For we know that the wavelengths or photon particles are used by cone cells(in the eyes), and the connection between the brain, neurones, and optics nerve---- to create the illusion of the colours we perceive on the rainbow. So the worldview at that time was based on ignorance. For a rainbow was a natural phenomena and not a supernatural phenomena. Thus, and this is the central point, an event may be inexplicable because we are ignorant and not because it is a miracle. Nevertheless genuine miraculous events are inexplicable. So the question is: How do we determine whether an event is inexplicable because it is a miracle and not because we are ignorant? Well since a miracle transcends nature it follows that if an event transcends nature, then it is inexplicable because it transcends nature and not because we are ignorant. Next let us consider what Skeptics call the God of the gap arguments. What is the God look Gap the gap argument? Well atheists claim that theists exploit the gaps in the scientific and naturalistic worldview of the world. For whenever science cannot explain something theists say God did it. Hence the phrase, the God of the gap argument. However the atheistic scientists say that science will fill the gaps and subsequently a God explanation is not necessary. For there are events that were inexplicable in the past and that were attributed to God, but eventually science demonstrated that the events were effects of natural causes. This is true for some but it cannot be applied to all events. That is, just because some events have been explained it does not follow that all events will be explained. For the scientific method suffers from epistemological limitations and subsequently there is a limit to what we can know. Thus to state that all gaps require a natural explanation is an assumption that the scientific methodology cannot provide adequate and sufficient grounds for. And to state that science will provide natural explanation for everything is to put a burden on the scientific method that it cannot carry. Thus Scientism is unreasonable. Often we hear Skeptics defining what a miracle is as follows: A miracle is an event that has not yet been explained. But such a skeptical approach does not grant the skeptic certainty because it assumes that the event will be explained. But like I stated earlier on the scientific method is limited and thus there are events that scientists will never be able to provide natural explanations for. The origin of mammalian life is such an event. Furthermore it is important to consider the following: Science presupposes that the gap has a natural explanation on the basis of materialism. However the idea that everything can be understood in terms of matter is philosophical rather than scientific. Moreover it cannot be justified. Therefore it is an assumption. As a result miracles cannot be ruled out categorically. My reasoning proves that.
Posted on: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:21:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015