Renewed Debate, mostly on Miracles as Such

Under some debate with Tony Reed:

Terncote
[who probably has *nothing* to do
with "turn coat", just pronounced the same ...]

"Mine for BB might need refining on a few points, but involves miracle plus very high current strengths, which cannot a priori be ruled out. "

Once you invoke miracles your claims can't be falsified and are no longer credible. And once you invoke miracles I can invoke COUNTER miracles so nyah nyah nyah...

And quite frankly, your scenario of a global flood, interlaced with right angle currents, capable of moving boulders while leaving adjacent silt undisturbed, is laughable.

If you want to know how the air and water currents on a water-world would function, look at Jupiter. Without continental land masses to break up air and water currents, they form into lateral bands. Storms don't last for days, they last for years, centuries.

There would be no surgical counter currents, delicately excising mountain sized chunks of sediment and depositing them, intact, at fanciful angles.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Once you invoke miracles your claims can't be falsified and are no longer credible."

Would be true if "miracles can happen" meant "anything whatsoever can happen in any sequence whatsoever". Which is not the case.

"And once you invoke miracles I can invoke COUNTER miracles so nyah nyah nyah..."

Attributable to what God or divinity? Testified by - for the case of the Flood - what ancient source?

"And quite frankly, your scenario of a global flood, interlaced with right angle currents, capable of moving boulders while leaving adjacent silt undisturbed, is laughable."

What do you mean "right angle currents"? A current comes at one angle, abates, another current comes at another angle.

As to "capable of moving boulders while leaving adjacent silt undisturbed" would perhaps depend on the angle of the current - vertically, that is.

"If you want to know how the air and water currents on a water-world would function, look at Jupiter. Without continental land masses to break up air and water currents, they form into lateral bands. Storms don't last for days, they last for years, centuries."

But Earth during Flood was not a water world. There was land - functioning as sea bottom - underneath the waters.

Also certain parallels to Jupiter can be observed about the Flood. Currents go very far in rather broad lateral bands at any given time, and we do find rocks very far apart across US carved into the trail of what seem to be parallel currents. Or serial ones, same in two places.

"There would be no surgical counter currents, delicately excising mountain sized chunks of sediment and depositing them, intact, at fanciful angles."

Since there was sea bottom - previously land, some of it rocks - there WOULD have been counter currents. As for currents excising chunks of anything (Tony Reed was talking about a boulder of coral reef, not sediment) and depositing them, that would depend on how much mud the current was already carrying.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Would be true if "miracles can happen" meant "anything whatsoever can happen in any sequence whatsoever".

That's pretty much what miracles are, magic. Or do you have some novel definition from your personal lexicon?

"Attributable to what God or divinity?"

The Great And Powerful Woo-Woo!

"Testified by - for the case of the Flood - what ancient source?"

If you don't know I can't help you. He only reveals himself to the faithful. You know how that works, right.

"What do you mean "right angle currents"? A current comes at one angle, abates, another current comes at another angle.

Geological features you are attempting to explain with your magic current thesis, often exist at very acute angles to existing strata.

"As to "capable of moving boulders while leaving adjacent silt undisturbed" would perhaps depend on the angle of the current - vertically, that is."

Certainly miracle currents would explain it.

"But Earth during Flood was not a water world. There was land - functioning as sea bottom - underneath the waters."

It was covered to the tops of the tallest mountains. The surface winds would move unabated. Good luck surviving a year of persistent category 6, 7, 8 plus hurricanes in a cedar tub held together with pegs and pitch.

"Currents go very far in rather broad lateral bands at any given time, and we do find rocks very far apart across US carved into the trail of what seem to be parallel currents. Or serial ones, same in two places."

Citations please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That's pretty much what miracles are, magic. Or do you have some novel definition from your personal lexicon?"

Even "magic" (which you misuse) does not mean "anything can happen in any sequence whatsoever".

"The Great And Powerful Woo-Woo!"

Sounds like a spoof rather than a serious belief you entertain.

"If you don't know I can't help you. He only reveals himself to the faithful. You know how that works, right."

For the devil, yes. For the true God, no, He does leave sufficient indications of His existence and of His major deeds for non-believer to be without excuse.

"Geological features you are attempting to explain with your magic current thesis, often exist at very acute angles to existing strata."

Currents need not be magic, only strong and changing.

"Certainly miracle currents would explain it."

So would very strong currents carrying very much mud - non-miraculously. A boulder would not budge for pure water, I presume, but once the water is thick with mud, well, it would probably work as well as ice - or better.

That said, I think an ice age did happen. After the Flood.

"It was covered to the tops of the tallest mountains."

Yes, which were how tall exactly in the pre-Flood world?

"The surface winds would move unabated."

Until the waters abated, I presume.

"Good luck surviving a year of persistent category 6, 7, 8 plus hurricanes in a cedar tub held together with pegs and pitch."

That seems to be another argument. We were talking about how currents could shape geological features. Of course, Japanese or Korean navy has tested the Ark by modelling and computer simulation (I'll look it up on CMI in a moment) and concluded waves three times as high as tsunami waves would not sink it.

Here:

CMI : Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway

"Citations please."

Oh dear, sorry, that was a video I saw months ago ... I am afraid you will have to do with two links very technical which I found but haven't had time to read ... here:

COCCOLITHOPHORES AND CHALK LAYERS
John Woodmorappe answering a letter
in CEN Tech. J., vol. 9, no. 1, 1995
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_1/j09_1_29-36.pdf

Young evidences in an ancient landscape:
part 1—the Eastern Structural Front of the Appalachian Mountains
Kenneth H. Karle
Journal of Creation 23 (3) 2009
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_76-83.pdf

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Even "magic" (which you misuse) does not mean "anything can happen in any sequence whatsoever"."

And yet in Genesis, light was created BEFORE the sun, moon and stars. Go figure! That Yahweh, such a kidder.

"Mine for BB might need refining on a few points, but involves miracle plus very high current strengths, which cannot a priori be ruled out. "

Did you forget you invoked a similar, arbitrary miracle in your version? And indeed your version CAN be ruled out, a priori, since no miraculous, supernatural event has EVER been reliably recorded or observed.

"So would very strong currents carrying very much mud - non-miraculously. A boulder would not budge for pure water, I presume, but once the water is thick with mud, well, it would probably work as well as ice - or better."

Presume nothing, given your previous and dubious record with hydro dynamics. I look forward to reviewing the results of your experiments on the action of sub-surface mud flows on erratic boulders.

Until then....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"And yet in Genesis, light was created BEFORE the sun, moon and stars. Go figure! That Yahweh, such a kidder."

And before lamps. And before candles. The point is, since God is omnipotent and author of ALL creation, He can of course produce light through candleflames and stars, but equally on His own, without these aids. This does not mean that anything can happen in just any sequence whatsoever - for instance, it does not mean it can be dark immediately after God made light.

"Did you forget you invoked a similar, arbitrary miracle in your version?"

God steering the Ark was providential, if the boy falling from a high floor, bouncing on the sheet over the café entrance which would have been rolled in but wasn't, since the café owner had found it stuck, and falling into the arms of a rugby player who walked by was providential rather than miraculous.

I invoked no specific miracle about Ark keeping afloat in the dune waves it would normally go through.

"And indeed your version CAN be ruled out, a priori, since no miraculous, supernatural event has EVER been reliably recorded or observed."

Lots have, not my fault if you are sore at history. This one - of Ark staying afloat - was reliably observed and recorded (by oral text or by writing, whichever) by Noah, his wife, their three sons and daughters in law.

"Presume nothing, given your previous and dubious record with hydro dynamics. I look forward to reviewing the results of your experiments on the action of sub-surface mud flows on erratic boulders. Until then...."

Has it not occurred to you that water with lots of sand in it flowing very rapidly is even in everyday use for certain blasting and scouring operations? Water without sand in it if running very rapidly can scour the dirt off house walls very quickly. Mud has a thickness and specific weight (enough to carry boulders) comparable to ice.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"And before lamps. And before candles. The point is, since God is omnipotent and author of ALL creation, He can of course produce light through candleflames and stars, but equally on His own, without these aids."

YAY! Magic and miracles again!

If you are just going to invoke a being who can magically change the laws of nature at will, there is no point in us discussing the "science" of supernatural hydro-dynamics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"YAY! Magic and miracles again!"

Miracles, yes. Anything can happen in any sequence whatsoever, no.

"If you are just going to invoke a being who can magically change the laws of nature at will, there is no point in us discussing the "science" of supernatural hydro-dynamics."

I don't think the hydrodynamics as such were supernatural.

If you can't take a debate with a Christian who believes in miracles, leave it to others.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Miracles, yes. Anything can happen in any sequence whatsoever, no."

But you just agreed that Yahweh CAN do things in arbitrary sequences. Miracles are inherently arbitrary.

Claims about miracles are unfalsifiable. You can invent anything to explain them. They are NOT science.

So stop trying to play both games. As soon as you stick God or Miracles in your "data" you have left the realm of science.

"I don't think the hydrodynamics as such were supernatural."

Yes you do... ""Mine for BB might need refining on a few points, but involves miracle plus very high current strengths, which cannot a priori be ruled out. ""

Remember? "involves miracle"

"If you can't take a debate with a Christian who believes in miracles, leave it to others."

I think I am acquitting myself quite well. You are the one who wants to play on both sides of street.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But you just agreed that Yahweh CAN do things in arbitrary sequences. Miracles are inherently arbitrary."

If you take "arbitrary" in the first and oldest meaning : depending on someone's - i e God's arbitration.

"Claims about miracles are unfalsifiable. You can invent anything to explain them. They are NOT science."

Claims about miracles involve God. They are therefore theology.

"So stop trying to play both games. As soon as you stick God or Miracles in your 'data' you have left the realm of science."

In that case only Atheists would be scientists - which is preposterous.

" Yes you do...'Mine for BB might need refining on a few points, but involves miracle plus very high current strengths, which cannot a priori be ruled out.'

Remember? 'involves miracle' "

Yes, the entire scenario as such does. But not the hydrodynamics, that involves very high cirrent strength.

"I think I am acquitting myself quite well. You are the one who wants to play on both sides of street."

If you think believing in natural science and believing in miracles is "wanting to play on both sides of the street", you are still not adequately debating a Christian who believes miracles are miracles and do happen and science is science and can be observed and proven. That is, observed in some parts, proven from observations in other parts.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Claims about miracles involve God. They are therefore theology."

Theology is not science.

"In that case only Atheists would be scientists - which is preposterous."

Theists can be scientist. They just can't use God or miracles as data. Nobody can.

"Yes, the entire scenario as such does. But not the hydrodynamics, that involves very high cirrent strength...."

...and miracles...

Hydrodynamics + Miracles = Miracles.

Anything + Miracles = Miracles.

"you are still not adequately debating a Christian who believes miracles are miracles and do happen and science is science and can be observed and proven."

More like you haven't adequately defined "miracles", as you use the term. So now would be a good time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Theology is not science."

It is the queen of sciences.

"Theists can be scientist. They just can't use God or miracles as data. Nobody can."

False. Miracles are observed data. God is - among other things and more important ones - the ultimate explanatory datum.

"...and miracles..."

Before, as in starting of Flood. Not necessarily in the hydrodynamics.

"Hydrodynamics + Miracles = Miracles."

No. It is =Miracles and Hydrodynamics.

"Anything + Miracles = Miracles."

No, it is Miracles + anything.

"More like you haven't adequately defined "miracles", as you use the term. So now would be a good time."

Any act beyond the power of a merely created agent in his own right, or any event beyond the causal powers of merely created factors. = Anything which clearly depends very directly on God.

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It is the queen of sciences."

Theology makes no falsifiable claims. It is NOT science.

"Miracles are observed data."

Citations please.

"God is - among other things and more important ones - the ultimate explanatory datum."

Begging the question logical fallacy (God proves God). Try harder.

[Missed the accusation of vicious circle - see my added answer below.]

"Before, as in starting of Flood. Not necessarily in the hydrodynamics."

What starts as a miracle is still a miracle.

"No, it is Miracles + anything."

If you insist. Miracles + Anything = Miracles. This changes nothing.

"Any act beyond the power of a merely created agent in his own right..."

Actual examples please.

"or any event beyond the causal powers of merely created factors."

I.E. supernatural. I.E. magic.

"Anything which clearly depends very directly on God."

I.E. supernatural. I.E. magic.

[He seems to be allergic to that.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Theology makes no falsifiable claims. It is NOT science."

Theology makes the claim that God documents His existence by both natural processes ultimately reducible to miracle and by more minute miracles.

BOTH are falsifiable. NEITHER is falsified.

Man having consciousness is ultimately a miracle.

Sun turning around us both day and year in different but coordinated ways along with rest of non-terrestrial universe is ultimately a miracle. Life being there is ultimately a miracle.

More minute miracles involve both Flood and Resurrection of Christ, and many more recent ones. All of which are very well documented.

BBL, not necessarily today!

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Theology makes the claim that God documents"

Again with the question begging fallacy.

"His existence by both natural processes ultimately reducible to miracle and by more minute miracles. BOTH are falsifiable."

Please propose a specific experiment or observation which could falsify the existence of any god or any miracle.

"Man having consciousness is ultimately a miracle."

That's an assertion, not a fact.

"Sun turning around us both day and year in different but coordinated ways along with rest of non-terrestrial universe is ultimately a miracle."

That's explainable by physics.

"More minute miracles involve both Flood and Resurrection of Christ, and many more recent ones. All of which are very well documented."

Claims about the flood and miracles ascribed to Jesus and others are reported but not substantiated in any way. Allegorical evidence is not credible evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Again with the question begging fallacy."

No, it is a falsifiable claim.

"Please propose a specific experiment or observation which could falsify the existence of any god or any miracle."

Non-observation of any thought or any even being would very clearly falsify God, though we would not be there to make the observation and falsification.

A specific miracle claim can be falsified by ...

• showing a natural explanation;
• showing story wrong for OTHER reasons than its being miraculous, including, but not limited to showing transmission of message very unreliable or going back only to a claim made much later than the miracle the claim is about.

"That's an assertion, not a fact."

Let's back it up by fact.

Man has hands and feet, or if really handicapped at least a torso that are made of MATTER.

Matter does not inherently have the capacity of life, that is an added thing or of consciousness.

Otherwise lifeless things would be coming to life all the time, like "the swamp thing" and life without endowment of reason in consciousness would acquire this all the time. Even "talking snakes and donkeys" don't make us assume a serpent started to reason or a donkey started to comprehend information only the angel could give. Satan opened the serpent's mouth, God opened the donkey's.

"That's explainable by physics."

Oh, really? Details, please!

"Claims about the flood and miracles ascribed to Jesus and others are reported but not substantiated in any way. Allegorical evidence is not credible evidence."

Where do you get it from this is "allegorical evidence" and what do you even mean by the phrase?

Terncote

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"No, it is a falsifiable claim."

Then tell us how ""Theology makes the claim that God documents"" can be falsified.

"Non-observation of any thought or any even being would very clearly falsify God..."

What does this even mean? I don't observe any unicorns... therefore GOD? Explain.

"A specific miracle claim can be falsified by ... * showing a natural explanation"

Debunking claims of specific miracles is not the same as flasifiying miracles as a class of phenomena. You need to state a condition or observation which would prove that miracles are impossible. If you can't then you aren't talking science.

"Man has hands and feet, or if really handicapped at least a torso that are made of MATTER. Matter does not inherently have the capacity of life, that is an added thing or of consciousness."

We don't know that. You are begging the question, using your premise as your conclusion = logical fallacy.

"Otherwise lifeless things would be coming to life all the time..."

Not according to evolutionary theory. If things did that, evolution would be falsified.

"Satan opened the serpent's mouth, God opened the donkey's."

Prove that Satan or God exist. And provide falsification for their existence too.

"Oh, really? Details, please! [for explanations of how celestial mechanics works]"

Get a text book on astrophysics or search the YouTube videos for stuff on cosmology.

"Where do you get it from this is "allegorical evidence" and what do you even mean by the phrase?"

Allegorical evidence is evidence from stories. If I say I saw an elephant on main street, that's allegorical evidence. Just an unlikely story.

If I show you a poster from the circus that's in town, show you a photo I took of the parade or take you to the big top, point at the elephant and say, "That's her. She was in the parade!", that's corroborative evidence.

Biblical claims are all allegorical. No posters. No photos. No talking donkeys.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Then tell us how ""Theology makes the claim that God documents"" can be falsified."

If no documentation of the aftermentioned kinds were observed.

"What does this even mean? I don't observe any unicorns... therefore GOD? Explain."

A falsification of a claim involves among other things a consequence of the claim being negated. A consequence of the claim "God is there" is "mind is there". If NO mind at all were there, then God would indeed not exist. Also, we would not exist either and be able to see He didn't.

"Debunking claims of specific miracles is not the same as flasifiying miracles as a class of phenomena. You need to state a condition or observation which would prove that miracles are impossible. If you can't then you aren't talking science."

Neither "miracles can happen" nor "miracles cannot happen" is natural science. Both are philosophy. However, if you really want a test, here is one for your claim. Supposing NO miracle happened. Then either NO or very rare and easily explodable stories of miracles would be involved, I do not say in the history of historians (these can have and recently do have an antimiraculous bias, most of them), but the history of testimonies and of chronicles. Instead we do find very many miraculous stories. Just suffices to look up Medieval biographies of saints, from early ones like Vita Sancti Genovefae (there are two parallel ones in the Bollandists) or Eugippius' Vita Sancti Severini, or for that matter biographies of Saint Patrick by next generation Irish clergy - miracles abound. They do not cease to do so through the centuries for that type of document.

"We don't know that. You are begging the question, using your premise as your conclusion = logical fallacy."

Yes we do know that for following reason (see answer to next one):

"Not according to evolutionary theory. If things did that, evolution would be falsified."

If NOWHERE anything like primordial soup is coming to anything like life, abiogenesis is falsified, which it is. I e, matter as such does not in-he-rent-ly have the capacity of life. Actually, if matter had an inherent capacity for life rather than getting life from the outside, a primordial soup would NOT be the only thing which would come to life.

"Prove that Satan or God exist. And provide falsification for their existence too."

The point was not MAKING these religious claims, but rather NOT MAKING the claim that serpents and donkeys have minds. Capable of such things as conceptual language.

"Get a text book on astrophysics"

Been there, done that. Went to physics class. Heard all about "stone on string experiment" and saw it executed too.

"or search the YouTube videos for stuff on cosmology."

You might REALLY like this one. Since gravity is a force and electromagnetism is a force, the closer parallel to supposed physics for solar system on Newtonian lines is Don Petit's experiment with charged knitting needles and water droplets.

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

"Allegorical evidence is evidence from stories. If I say I saw an elephant on main street, that's allegorical evidence. Just an unlikely story."

Sorry, for one thing, stories are the main type of evidence available especially after long time, for another thing, allegorical means something quite different [do you want to know what?] and finally, the story is not very unlikely.

"If I show you a poster from the circus that's in town, show you a photo I took of the parade or take you to the big top, point at the elephant and say, 'That's her. She was in the parade!', that's corroborative evidence."

Indeed, but it can be produced only for very fleeting time. Say you tell the story one month after circus was in town, when posters are down, and you have no camera, you don't have this corroborative evidence any more, just your story. Those who evaluate it would be better off not saying elephants are allegorical if in reality they know you are a truthful guy.

"Biblical claims are all allegorical. No posters. No photos."

You mean "just stories" - which is true for most of history.

"No talking donkeys."

Actually, if we started meeting talking donkeys everywhere, this would rather invalidate the Biblical world view in which God made a unique miracle in opening the donkey's mouth. Precisely as finding parallels to supposedly billions of years ago occurring abiogenesis would invalidate the idea of "common descent". In either case, we would be talking about sth which is "miraculous" in the sense of being very unique. Only, we are somewhat more logical than you in supposing such unique events presuppose someone who has the power to do such, you consider abiogenesis just happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
added later:

Oh, btw, missed one.

Me: God is - among other things and more important ones - the ultimate explanatory datum.

You: Begging the question logical fallacy (God proves God). Try harder.

Logic lesson : I was not saying "God proves God". I was not saying "this miracle proves this miracle". I was not saying "God proves this miracle and this miracle proves God".

I was however saying God EXPLAINS this miracle and this miracle PROVES God.

That is not a circle in logic, if that is what you thought, since explanation and proof are opposite directions.