Texas teen dies rock climbing, two hours later he revives: 'A literal miracle'

I believe this is your only correct statement here. I have an extremely limited understanding of how nature works, and I am more than happy to acknowledge there is a relatively infinitesimal amount that I don't know as compared to the amount that I do.

I'm not sure where you get this from. Anything falsifiable is subject to change (one of the things we can all appreciate about science). If we encounter new evidence that contradicts a law, then that law will no longer be a law or otherwise subject to modification. Here are a couple of examples:

Hundred-year-old law on fluid flow overturned by research: Engineers have dispelled a 100-year-old scientific law used to describe how fluid flows through rocks (Darcy's Law)

https://www.optica-opn.org/opn/media/Images/PDFs/5392_10735_53446.pdf (Ptolemy's Law of Refraction)

Think of it this way, scientific laws aren't created, they are discovered through observation. Sometimes our observation is limited or the scope of application is limited. But their falsifiable nature makes them entirely possible to be modified or potentially even discarded as "laws." The minute we call something in science non-falsfiable, we are relegating that something to a matter of faith. I don't think that benefits those who believe or those who do not.

Sorry, I agree with this statement as well as the first one.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

&

Death in negotiable?

Not a 'law of nature'?

....alriiiiigggghhhttyyyyy then....

 

That’s not a law.

You see your example is easily argued against by those who might say there was no proof he was actually dead to begin with, but merely unconscious, so you would have to define death in indisputable terms. There are countless stories of people who re-awaken inside a coffin, and Edgar Allen Poe even wrote a story about it called "The Premature Burial.” I would look for another example that can’t be argued against so easily.

 

I don’t really need to but if you’re feeling the tug to dive a little deeper then by all means. I’m comfortable with where I am at on the subject.

 

Please clarify.

Is your argument actually that death isn't a law of nature, or are you arguing that there are various cases of death being prematurely and therefore incorrectly, declared?

 

I personally make no claims regarding the origin of the universe as I find it currently outside the limits of measurement. However, I would say that both the natural and religious explanations rely on winning multiple lotteries. Why should a God have seen fit to create this particular universe and also think to add someone as insignificant as me?

As for the natural evolution of intelligence, I think your last line hints at my answer: If our minds did evolve via evolutionary processes, why should we ever expect them to necessarily be able to clearly comprehend this process? What reason have we to begin with the premise that our minds are so infallible that anything we can’t currently comprehend must be in reality false?

 

The best solution to this is cremation.

 

No sir. God does not rely on a 'multiple lotteries' which necessarily implies dumb luck; belief in God necessarily begins with an acknowledgment of superior intelligence.

Not ours to know.

I won't dispute that our minds did evolve via evolutionary processes--but to suggest that evolutionary processes were driven by accident, is the height of absurdity.

That's where the lottery business comes in.

Dumb luck does not inform a species to opt for things that insure it's survival; dumb luck does not drive a species or anything, to seek to perpetuate its own....

According to dumb luck, there isn't a damn thing *preferable* about existence over non-existence, let alone order over chaos/disorganization.

These are undeniable evidences of intelligence.

 

You have to define death. If something is dead then it’s deprived of life. Either something is dead or it isn’t. It can’t be both.

 

So death is a law of nature then, right?

....and your argument is that those cases were not a matter of dead then alive, but rather mistaken declaration of death?

 

Mine too, but thats not what anyone is talking about here. None of the people being mocked here are getting rich or promoting "hate" .

 

Heck. Faith almost requires it.
Faith is substance and hope in the unseen and unknown according to scripture. un-KNOWN. Faith is a component of not knowing.

Faith is still believing when flooded with doubt. This idea that belief does not coexist with doubt and uncertainty is some pollyanna view of faith from those who either don't posses it or from believers who are to pompous to admit they have doubt.

 

"Laws" of nature are mostly man made understandings in the interim.

Had you gone back in time, billions of years, you would find different views on "laws" of nature. Heck the universe itself is defying the earliest "laws". Life and death became a "law" , but were not always a "law" .

Being open to the idea that spiritual forces may exist that surpass the evolving natural "laws" that we know of in our limited scope is an enlightened approach to many.

Limiting your entire universal view to physical laws really limits you to this singular time and place in the history of the universe both past and future.

We know as a fact that certain laws of today will be disproven or cease to exist tomorrow.

What we know little about is how much change happens outside of the physical realm, or if any change happens there at all.

 

What poster is getting rich here ma'am? What hate has been spoken in this thread about a kid being revived?

Your narrow mind is showing.

 

When an environment changes, those members of a species genetically fit (through random mutations) to adapt to that change survive and reproduce; those who are not so genetically fit (i.e. not beneficiaries of those random mutations) do not. That's survival of the fittest. IOW dumb luck.

 

Again it depends on your definition of death. To some it’s alive if the heart’s beating and dead if it’s not, but to others it’s it’s dead if there’s no brain activity at all. Death isn’t a law like the law of gravitation, but is the irreversible natural cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism.

If you shoot a deer and remove it’s internal organs, but it stands up fully healed and runs away, then that would be a miracle.

 

I understand your definition of a god implies superior intelligence, but I just mean to say that superior intelligence doesn’t necessary imply the existence of you and me. Or Earth. Or gravity. Or anything. From our perspective, all of these are accidents, as we have been given no laws outside of God that would have necessitated any of these things.

As for the evolution of intelligence, I think we need to define dumb luck in your context. While natural selection does not posit an intelligent force, it is certainly not a theory of dumb luck. If we dropped a group of poodles into a natural forest, I am pretty sure we both know how that experiment would end. The traits required to survive and reproduce in nature are complex, but they are anything but random.

 

Go back to post #73 and show me where I said I had disdain for posters here getting rich. I have no idea what anyone’s financial status here is. It’s frankly it’s none of our business. But to the point if you have a good argument to make then the very least you can do is make that argument honestly.

By the way your religious snobbery is showing.

 

Then out of curiosity why do so-called people of faith keep looking for proof, and get so defensive when they proclaim a miracle happened when the so-called miracle is shown to be no miracle at all.