sullster

Yo, Long winded fool,

If the "laws of nature" in JC's time allowed for miracles then how could they be called "laws" if they would allow for obvious contradictions. I also dare say that the average goat herder back then didn't think too deeply about such things.

Secondly, if laws back then allowed for miracles, then what would be the big deal about performing one? If a miracle was just a part of the "laws" then no one would be amazed and suddenly start worshippiing JC.

As for the guy on the knife edge, well, Penn and Teller could explain that.

Amos

Perhaps, but these people are talking about the miracles that can't be explained.

SmartBlonde57

OK, then please give me an example of a miracle that has not been explained (by Joe Nickell, Isaac Asimov, or any other credible scientific source). (First, of course, make sure that it has not been credibly explained.)

Amos

Oh sorry, I am not into miracles but just tripped over you qualifier "virtually."

Mad Kally

Quote:

posted by Amie: Can I please get some marshmallows to roast over the flames that may be coming my way

Seeking attention?

long winded fool

My point was "empirically proven laws of nature" have never been enough to explain nature in its entirety. While I personally believe that the "supernatural" can't exist, science is not always enough to immediately explain miracles. Some miracles are understood after several days of study, some miracles are only understood after thousands of years. The laws of nature at this time don't allow for certain things, yet these things have been seen to exist. So either these things are supernatural, or our empirical laws need some work. I subscribe to the latter because I believe that logic is ultimately the tool we use when judging truth or falsity, or existence versus non-existence.

And as for the goat herding ignoramuses, I'm sure in two thousand years when humanity has mastered its population problems, fully embraced theism and absolute morality, unified universal fields, and achieved faster-than-light travel, someone in a discussion about scientific skepticism of the supernatural will say, "I'm sure the average atheistic scientist of the twenty first century didn't think too deeply about such things."

cricket

No, surely not.

cricket

I mean, what's not to like about roaming UFO sites looking for conclusive evidence: a video which will prove aliens are here and they aren't following our laws of physics.

Who would ever consider that you're looking at a faked video or an optical illusion or something about which you are mistaken?

cricket

I'm suspicious about everything, particularly anything that's been seen to exist.

It's not unreasonable to question the laws of physics but you'll get further by shifting the blame to the witnesses and their faulty eyes, brains, and reasoning skills.

Baidarka

mir·a·cle (m¹r"…-k…l) n. 1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

I would say that this means that a miracle must defy the laws of nature. We live in a real world in which the laws of nature are inviolable. Therefore all miracles are either delusions or hoaxes.

This means that the Miracle of the loaves and the fishes was,

a) a total fiction invented by the Gospel writers (or at least one gospel writer who was copied by the others).

b) a magic trick used to entertain the crowd.

c) a magic trick used to trick the crowd into believing the Jesus had super powers.

d) a mistaken memory which exaggerated a very unremarkable event.

I should add that the common place things that we have today (cars, light bulbs, computers) would all have been considered Miracles in the Past. All of these things would have been considered violations of the laws of nature. These inventions and the expansion of our knowledge have forced us to rewrite what we believe the laws of nature to be.

None the less the Biblical miracles are examples of a,b,c,or d.