Recently, someone set out to demonstrate that perhaps Jesus walked on a sheet of ice on the Sea of Galilee rather than literally on water.
Was this in an article you recently read? Not that it surprises me somebody would try to make this argument (which I wonder how cold it really does get in that part of the world) as a way to diminish the miracle of Christ walking on water.
I think your question on defining miracles weighs heavily on who you're talking to and their general faith structure. From people I've met and talked with, it seems to me that miracles, to those folks who have no belief/no strong belief in God are "black boxes" which they don't know the answer to at present, but are most certain that there is a rational explanation to what happened. Since they are certain they can find an answer to it, they can continue to tell themselves, "that if they can only understand everything then, therefore, God cannot exist."For somebody like myself, or someone who has a belief in a higher being, I would say that very astounding
( ... )
Computers are rather easy to assemble, takes an hour or so of plugging things together. Lego sets are more complicated.... But yes, computers aren't black boxes, some people (like me) have a reasonable idea of how they work.
"How do you define miracle?"
A fortuitous or unexpected event, which may or may not seem to defy "natural law". For example, you are on a ledge and start to fall, a gust of wind pushes you back enough to regain your balance. Miraculous?
Many atheists seem to think that if they can only understand everything then, therefore, God cannot exist.
I thought that the atheist position is that if we have explanations for everything, then we don't need God. Basically, if science can explain how everything has happened since the beginning of time and can do so without ever once invoking God, then God would be (for them) a superfluous assumption, i.e. He is no longer necessary and therefore does not exist.
The little piece of skin is dependent on the world (i.e. genes) for its existence, unlike God who has no dependencies (see also "I am who I am"). IF science could prove there did not exist a dependency between creation and God, then atheists could (attempt to) claim that God does not exist.
As soon as God Himself is comprehensible, He is made in our image and He ceases to be God. I would agree. I am nowhere claiming that we shall ever come remotely close to understanding God.
However, God has allowed us to understand much of what He has done or set-up through science. To what extent we shall be able to understand His world is not yet known. Regardless, understanding His artwork does not imply understanding why He did anything. (That would be like claiming that knowing what paintbrush an artist used gave you some sort of insight into his emotional state at the time of the painting.)Sure, nature is comprehensible, because God chooses to make sensible things that He fully comprehends. We can never fully comprehend nature, because we are ourselves part of nature. As "part" of nature, we can never comprehend it any more than a man can swallow his own face. The inside of something can never be bigger than the outside. For every atom in the universe, there's a fact to be known, and it takes billions of atoms working together
( ... )
Did any of you see the episode of House that was on tonight? It interestingly ties into this whole discussion. (Spoiler Alert if you want to watch it
( ... )
If I recall correctly, the words translated "miracle" are better translated "sign" or "power/ability", depending on the Greek word used. In the former case, a sign is something that communicates something to another. A sign oftentimes has no connection to the thing actually being communicated. For example the word "cat" is a sign for that furry animal that makes me sneeze. The letters c, a, and t have no connection with the actual animal. Likewise, a miracle communicates an abstract thing -- usually God's power and authority -- to human hearts -- just as you said. Which (a relative pronoun starting a sentence for jeltzz, if he's still reading) leads me to the other word for miracle. If humans do not have the power or ability to do something or to understand something, it is a miracle. This does not mean that humans will never have the ability or power to do or understand that thing. Nor does this mean that if a human can do that thing that he or she will do it in the same way as God might.
Comments 15
Was this in an article you recently read? Not that it surprises me somebody would try to make this argument (which I wonder how cold it really does get in that part of the world) as a way to diminish the miracle of Christ walking on water.
I think your question on defining miracles weighs heavily on who you're talking to and their general faith structure. From people I've met and talked with, it seems to me that miracles, to those folks who have no belief/no strong belief in God are "black boxes" which they don't know the answer to at present, but are most certain that there is a rational explanation to what happened. Since they are certain they can find an answer to it, they can continue to tell themselves, "that if they can only understand everything then, therefore, God cannot exist."For somebody like myself, or someone who has a belief in a higher being, I would say that very astounding ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Computers are rather easy to assemble, takes an hour or so of plugging things together. Lego sets are more complicated.... But yes, computers aren't black boxes, some people (like me) have a reasonable idea of how they work.
"How do you define miracle?"
A fortuitous or unexpected event, which may or may not seem to defy "natural law". For example, you are on a ledge and start to fall, a gust of wind pushes you back enough to regain your balance. Miraculous?
Many atheists seem to think that if they can only understand everything then, therefore, God cannot exist.
I thought that the atheist position is that if we have explanations for everything, then we don't need God. Basically, if science can explain how everything has happened since the beginning of time and can do so without ever once invoking God, then God would be (for them) a superfluous assumption, i.e. He is no longer necessary and therefore does not exist.
Reply
...kind of like that little piece of skin that hangs down in the back of your throat, huh?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I would agree. I am nowhere claiming that we shall ever come remotely close to understanding God.
However, God has allowed us to understand much of what He has done or set-up through science. To what extent we shall be able to understand His world is not yet known. Regardless, understanding His artwork does not imply understanding why He did anything. (That would be like claiming that knowing what paintbrush an artist used gave you some sort of insight into his emotional state at the time of the painting.)Sure, nature is comprehensible, because God chooses to make sensible things that He fully comprehends. We can never fully comprehend nature, because we are ourselves part of nature. As "part" of nature, we can never comprehend it any more than a man can swallow his own face. The inside of something can never be bigger than the outside. For every atom in the universe, there's a fact to be known, and it takes billions of atoms working together ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment