Miracles

A question for theists.
Do you believe that miracles are at least sometimes a violation of the laws of physics? Would they be detectable as such if placed in a scientific experiment?

My reasons for asking are:
1. In discussions about Genesis and Noah etc, I find people who believe those stories to be true often try very hard to justify them as being not only possible within the law of physics but as having physical evidence for them.
2. I have never heard anyone try to justify Jesus' resurrection as possible within the laws of physics.
3. People who support ID are essentially claiming evidence for a violation of the laws of physics.
4. I often meet theists who believe in the miracle of Jesus' resurrection and say that it violated the laws of physics yet they ridicule fellow theists who believe in Noahs flood.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A question for theists.
Do you believe that miracles are at least sometimes a violation of the laws of physics? Would they be detectable as such if placed in a scientific experiment?

My reasons for asking are:
1. In discussions about Genesis and Noah etc, I find people who believe those stories to be true often try very hard to justify them as being t it violated the laws of physics yet they ridicule fellow theists who believe in Noahs flood.

It's true. A miracle, by it's very definition, implies the suspension of natural laws.

I don't think science can explain a miracle.
Do you think science is confined to the material/physical realm?

I believe it is a mistake to pick and choose what one accepts as true in the Bible. But I'm a literalist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A question for theists.
Do you believe that miracles are at least sometimes a violation of the laws of physics? Would they be detectable as such if placed in a scientific experiment?

My reasons for asking are:
1. In discussions about Genesis and Noah etc, I find people who believe those stories to be true often try very hard to justify them as being ...[text shortened]... t it violated the laws of physics yet they ridicule fellow theists who believe in Noahs flood.

I think in quantum physics one tends to talk about probabilities. This means that one can only say that a miracle is extremely unlikely rather than impossible. Technically (and you might correct me on this) a wardrobe could turn into an elephant at any moment according to the uncertainty at a quantum level , it's just that it's very , very unlikely. This then makes one ownder if miracles are actually a violation of the laws of physics or just very rare events?

Originally posted by josephw
It's true. A miracle, by it's very definition, implies the suspension of natural laws.

I don't think science can explain a miracle.
Do you think science is confined to the material/physical realm?

I believe it is a mistake to pick and choose what one accepts as true in the Bible. But I'm a literalist.

So would it be correct to say that whatever scientific evidence is presented to you that Noahs flood never took place can be validly dismissed by simply saying: "well it was a miracle and thus not subject to scientific laws"?
And the same would apply to the age of the earth.

Can one apply a similar methodology to say the historicity of Jesus or other Biblical events. If for example the Romans reported a different set of events which is in conflict with the Bible can we not simply say "well it was a miracle"?

With regards to the age of the earth and the flood etc, it therefore is not a question of showing that the events of Genesis are physically possible or supported by science but to question the origin of the scientific evidence that is in conflict with such events.
For example we see stars that we believe are billions of years old. So either:
1. Genesis is wrong.
2. We are wrong about the age of the stars - and there is a reasonable explanation for our mistake.
3. God through his miracles has deliberately mislead us - through the planting of false evidence.

2 is the answer given by most of the young earth creationists I have talked to.

Originally posted by twhitehead
3. People who support ID are essentially claiming evidence for a violation of the laws of physics.

Which laws of physics are necessarily violated by ID?

Originally posted by Palynka
Which laws of physics are necessarily violated by ID?

If they are not violated then ID is not evidence for a violation! ID is a direct claim of violation, it is a claim that the observed facts can not be explained by the laws of physics.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This then makes one ownder if miracles are actually a violation of the laws of physics or just very rare events?

And it makes one wonder whether a very rare event is in fact a miracle.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So would it be correct to say that whatever scientific evidence is presented to you that Noahs flood never took place can be validly dismissed by simply saying: "well it was a miracle and thus not subject to scientific laws"?
And the same would apply to the age of the earth.

Can one apply a similar methodology to say the historicity of Jesus or other ...[text shortened]... evidence.

2 is the answer given by most of the young earth creationists I have talked to.

I don't see the flood as a miracle in the sense that the laws of physics were violated in order for all that water to be released from the envelope of water that surrounded the earth and from within the earth. I could be wrong. But that's another story.

Interestingly enough, the Genesis account of creation, if read literally, does not support a young earth belief. Verse one says God "created the heaven and the earth", but not that they were created within the six days account. I believe man and all other biological life was created within the six days, if read literally.

It's called the "gap" theory. Something happened between verses one and two that I never hear anyone discuss.
Are you familiar with the "gap" theory?

Originally posted by josephw
I don't see the flood as a miracle in the sense that the laws of physics were violated in order for all that water to be released from the envelope of water that surrounded the earth and from within the earth. I could be wrong. But that's another story.

I thought it quite clearly stated that God caused the flood - and unless it was something he planned from before he made the earth one would presume at least a minor miracle is required to initiate it.
And why would you not think it was a miracle? And why would some people go to great lengths to try to show that it was physically possible even though the scientific community strongly disagrees? Even to the extent of making up lies to support such claims.(I am not saying you do this, but a lot of creationists do).

It's called the "gap" theory. Something happened between verses one and two that I never hear anyone discuss.
Are you familiar with the "gap" theory?
No, I don't think I have heard of it before. (I have heard of 'God of the Gaps' 🙂 )
Although that would solve some issues such as the age of the stars and rocks etc it still leaves you with the issues of dating fossils etc.
How do you explain that scientists are all so terribly wrong when it comes to the ancient past? Is it the work of the Devil? Just bad luck? Gods intention?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And it makes one wonder whether a very rare event is in fact a miracle.

So when Jesus was ressurected he just got "lucky"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
A question for theists.
Do you believe that miracles are at least sometimes a violation of the laws of physics? Would they be detectable as such if placed in a scientific experiment?

My reasons for asking are:
1. In discussions about Genesis and Noah etc, I find people who believe those stories to be true often try very hard to justify them as being ...[text shortened]... t it violated the laws of physics yet they ridicule fellow theists who believe in Noahs flood.

errm miracles are of course violations of physical laws. did they happen? who knows? anyway, miracles happen this day too. some are explained and they become scientific facts. some remain unexplainable. it isn't harmful to believe god made a miracle and cured a person's cancer as long as doctors don't stop working and ask for a miracle for every case.


4. I often meet theists who believe in the miracle of Jesus' resurrection and say that it violated the laws of physics yet they ridicule fellow theists who believe in Noahs flood.

we of course have evidence that noah's flood didn't happen or at least it wasn't as impressive as the bible tells us. the resurrection of christ isn't the same. since jesus's death we haven't killed another son of god as to see if he will comeback. so we either believe the miracle or we don''t our choice. and since i will not kill myself and hope for a resurrection(i am not God's son anyway) i think it would be safe to believe in the resurrection(and the easter bunny 😀 just kidding)

Originally posted by knightmeister
So when Jesus was ressurected he just got "lucky"?

Yep. That is what you are suggesting isn't it? Why should we think anything else?

PS. obviously I don't think he was resurrected in the first place.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
errm miracles are of course violations of physical laws. did they happen? who knows? anyway, miracles happen this day too. some are explained and they become scientific facts. some remain unexplainable. it isn't harmful to believe god made a miracle and cured a person's cancer as long as doctors don't stop working and ask for a miracle for every case.

You are contradicting yourself.

we of course have evidence that noah's flood didn't happen or at least it wasn't as impressive as the bible tells us.
Not if it was a miracle. If it violated the laws of physics then all scientific evidence is invalid.

the resurrection of christ isn't the same. since jesus's death we haven't killed another son of god as to see if he will comeback.
But we have killed lots and lots of human beings and we know that they do not come back.

so we either believe the miracle or we don''t our choice.
Again, it is a miracle - and therefore, by your own admission a violation of the laws of physics. So why even start to consider how many sons of God you have or haven't killed? It is irrelevant.

and since i will not kill myself and hope for a resurrection(i am not God's son anyway) i think it would be safe to believe in the resurrection(and the easter bunny 😀 just kidding)
"it would be safe" - What does that mean?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it isn't harmful to believe god made a miracle and cured a person's cancer as long as doctors don't stop working and ask for a miracle for every case.

I am getting tired of hearing the 'belief isn't harmful' nonsense. Belief often is harmful and is never ever neutral. I personally think that giving God undeserved credit for healing is more often than not harmful.

Originally posted by josephw
It's true. A miracle, by it's very definition, implies the suspension of natural laws.

I don't think science can explain a miracle.
Do you think science is confined to the material/physical realm?

I believe it is a mistake to pick and choose what one accepts as true in the Bible. But I'm a literalist.

I would disagree as I think you are talking about magic and not miracles. There is a difference.

With respect to what is true in the Bible and picking and choosing, I find it more helpful to pick what one finds as meaningful and relevant.