Awesome.
Awesome.
No.
When you speak of the laws of physics and biology, you are referencing what is generally referred to as the "laws of nature". This term is a generic and broad term which encompasses such things like the laws of physics which you mentioned.
These natural laws are simply descriptions of what happens within the universe i.e, they predict what will happen in a closed system. A closed system is one in which there is no causal input into it from the outside. Nothing outside the system is causing something to happen.
But what if a supernatural agent intervenes and causes something to happen (a miracle) which does not lie within the productive power of the things in the universe?
Are the laws violated in such a case?
Yes. Supernatural literally means "beyond natural". If a supernatural agent causes something to happen in the natural world, then yes, it is violating the laws of the natural realm with something beyond natural. That is what we mean by "supernatural". If it didn't violate the natural realm, it would be "natural".
No. The laws of nature are not violated because they only predict what would happen in the absence of any sort of divine intervention.
That is not something stated in natural la. Divine intervention would certainly violate natural law. Otherwise, the divine would be part of natural law.
The scientific laws have implicit in them ceteris paribus conditions, i.e. they predict what will happen all things being equal. So if there is no causal input into this system from without, these naturals laws are descriptions of how the universe will operate.
If there is causal input from outside of the system, these natural laws are not violated after all, for the the law has built into it these implicit conditions.
Okay. But the natural law depends on "all things being equal". Once supernatural agents make things "unequal" the law is violated.
To conclude, a miracle such as a man rising bodily from the dead or a man walking on water, is not an instance of a violation of the laws of nature. Rather a miracle is an event which does not lie within the productive power of nature, and this points us to a supernatural agent.
As you're trying to convince me that a man has risen from the dead, that's circular.
I would be skeptical and look for evidence that would lend support to your claim, which incidentally, is what one will find if they look for this in Jesus' case.
I don't understand. Why would you be skeptical? Are you saying you don't believe me? I was simply be walking on water. You don't need to look for evidence, I'm telling you.
Your hypothetical and the gospel accounts of the miraculous are not analogous. Your claim is not attended by other miracles. Your claim is not attended by multiple independent eyewitness accounts. You are making the claim on an internet forum, not as a first century Jew whose birth was foretold by prophets long before. Your claim does not come out of a first century Judaistic socio-historical context in which the long awaited messiah was expected to finally come.
They don't need to be analogous. Here, I'll let you in on a secret: I can fly too. Either you accept my claim, or you do not.
There are many things that differentiate you from Jesus and thus, even though you may make the same claims Jesus made, your claims do not carry the same weight as His.
Yes.
I don't understand. You don't believe that I can walk on water, but you show absolutely no skepticism that I've seen the birth of a child? What gives?
Last edited:
Upvote
0