intel2000

Everyone here has probably heard Christinas offer some type of scientific explanation for a biblical miracle. An example is the "water canopy" theory for the Noah's Ark flood story. Any miracle of nature in the bible, the flood, Joshua's extra day, Jonah and the whale, etc.,all have 2 possible explanations: (1) as a result of nature that can be explained by natural processes only, or (2) just saying "god suspended the laws of naurure and made this miracle happen." I would say that no matter how hard you try to explain a biblical miracle using only natural means, it is not possible if god is to be given credit for doing anything at all.

Example: Water Canopy(this theory has been disproven, but it is fine as an example)
If there were a water canopy above the earth that broke sending copiuos amounts of rain to the Earth flooding it, this could be a natural explanation for where the extra water for Noah's flood came from. But, the question is why did it break in the first place? Was it a result of nature alone? If so, god had nothing to do with it. Did god cause the canopy to break? If so, then there is a miracle to get the whole thing started and trying to explain it in only natural terms is futile because the question "what caused the canopy to break?" would have no natural answer. Again if the WHOLE process was nature, what did god do? If god miraculously caused the canopy to break, when it wouldnt have otherwise, THAT is a miracle. So why even follow that miracle up with trying to explain the rest in terms of nature? The miracle has already happened.

This will serve for ANY miracle of natue that happens in the bible. If God CAUSED it, then there is no need even explaining HOW it happened, because the first event was a miracle. If it was solely nature, there was no miracle....

What this means is that a miracle can NEVER be explained in terms of science. I belive that this principle applies to ALL miracles actually. Investing how god perfirms miracles is useless it will never be proven. If it can be proven with science, it is NOT a miracle.....

S.C.Carlson

IIRC, David Hume had a similar insight back in 1748. See this short overview.

intel2000

I wonder why there are so many theories about how these things can be explained

Toto

All these theories are highly speculative.

The people who wrote the original manuscripts did not need any theories or consistency, since they did not know much about modern science, and were probably not trying to be accurate.

After the Enlightenment, there was a movement known as Protestant Rationalism, a sort of Deism. The Rationalists believed that God created the universe, and it was perfect - so there would be no need for God to intervene later on with a miracle to correct something that needed to be fixed. But they also believed in the inerrancy (more or less) of the Biblical accounts, so they spent their time constructing naturalistic explanations for what appeared to be miracles.

Modern day rationalists are more likely to see the Biblical texts as reporting myths or moralistic accounts, not as phenomenon that need a scientific explanation.

But fundamentalists have inherited the earlier Protestant Rationalist explanations (although they avoid the rationalist attempts to explain the Resurrection), although I suspect that they use them more as a debating tactic than as real explanations.

sweetiepie

i agree, expaining miracles with science is definitely an argument for the other side of the fence. Ofcourse, scientific explainations don't prove that god wasn't involved...

Godless Dave

If the supreme creator God were involved, I'd think he would be involved at all times in all things, not stepping in from time to time to change things around. If God created the universe in the first place he shouldn't need to tinker with it to get it to do what he wants.

Malintent

Don't forget the most probable option:
(3) None of the "miracles" in "the" bible actually happened at all.

Do we wonder how all those animals are able to talk in Esop's Fables? Is it a miracle? Highly evolved forest critters? No. Its a story used to illustrate a point, just like a bible.

Malintent

Isn't that like saying if you accept science has accurately described Gravity, then you MUST accept Evolutionary Theory as completely accurate? If so, then by dismissing any single line of literal biblical direction (pre-marital sex anyone?), you dismiss it all and are not a "believer"?

This is called a false dichotomy (I believe)

intel2000

I dont believe it is a false dichotomy at all. Let's say an event has happened, there was 12 hours extra daylight in SanFrancisco on June 26, 2005 (hypothetical example.) Say this is a proven FACT, not the least in dispute. Now, this is not a normal occurance and it either has a (1) natural or (2) supernatural explanation. Now if the explanation is NATURAL then this means by definition that GOD, who is supernatural, had no hand in it. If it is supernatural then NO amount of explanation appealing to the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. will ever be able to explain it. If we admit a MIRACLE happened, i.e. NATURAL law was superceeded, then there is no need to try to devise how the event could naturally occur.

If Noah's flood happened and if it were a natural event, then God didnt cause it. Just his CAUSING it would be supernatural, and hence make the whole event a miracle, and no amount of speculation could devise a suitable mechanism by which it was achieved.

Malintent

We can say whatever we want - it dosen't make it so - or valid

Why? This god you describe allegedly created what we call 'natural', so 'his' 'hand' is all there really is to anything, now isn't it?

I'm with you there

So you are saying that anything that a God does, if a god really did it, and it breaks the laws of physics, it is a miracle. I think we can agree on that definition of a miracle. So what is the point? Just because we have a word for something dosen't make it exist. Here is another word for you: Unicorn.

OK, based on the false premise that some particular miracle actually happened, and in addition to that falsehood you throw on that there exists this god as described in this book you've been reading.. then yeah, sure...whatever... IF there existed this ring of power that ruled them all, then Bilbo MUST be only 3.5 feet tall.