How many different schools of thought are there on Scientific Method?

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

I understand that there are several doctrines so to speak.

In a thread over at the Apologetics Forum I was recently told that this chart is in fact, wrong.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ChetSinger]

I earned a BA in physics (long ago) and I think your diagram is just fine, if a bit wordy. In my experience, you'll never find people arguing more vociferously about the scientific method than on crevo forums.

We all use the scientific method regularly in our daily lives, we just don't recognize it as such. It's no big deal. Basically it's just Observe, Hypothesize, Experiment, and Repeat.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

I earned a BA in physics (long ago) and I think your diagram is just fine, if a bit wordy. In my experience, you'll never find people arguing more vociferously about the scientific method than on crevo forums.

We all use the scientific method regularly in our daily lives, we just don't recognize it as such. It's no big deal. Basically it's just Observe, Hypothesize, Experiment, and Repeat.

Chet - I'm sure you know which threads I'm speaking of. Do you think there is a possible argument against this model of the scientific method?

 

[gluadys]

I understand that there are several doctrines so to speak.

In a thread over at the Apologetics Forum I was recently told that this chart is in fact, wrong.

What are your thoughts?

The only thing I would quibble with is "test with an experiment". Some fields of science cannot use experiment as the method of testing. Astronomy, for example. How would one experiment with a galaxy?

Testing a hypothesis is certainly necessary, but "with an experiment" is not always a feasible mode of testing.

 

[Resha Caner]

There were attempts in the early 19th century to formalize the idea of a "scientific method" (Peirce, etc.), but after the failure of positivism, those attempts faded away. The problem was the same bootstrap problem that all such attempts have - there is no way for something to justify itself.

As such, there is no universally accepted formal scientific method. If you read what the international standards organizations say about it, my paraphrase would be: Document what you do thoroughly enough that someone else can critique and repeat your work.

Other than that, to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, "the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."

So, your chart is fine for a general discussion. Quibbling with it is a pointless semantics argument until specific details come to light. As such, I would ask: What was the focus of the discussion that brought this about?

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

There were attempts in the early 19th century to formalize the idea of a "scientific method" (Peirce, etc.), but after the failure of positivism, those attempts faded away. The problem was the same bootstrap problem that all such attempts have - there is no way for something to justify itself.

As such, there is no universally accepted formal scientific method. If you read what the international standards organizations say about it, my paraphrase would be: Document what you do thoroughly enough that someone else can critique and repeat your work.

Other than that, to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, "the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."

So, your chart is fine for a general discussion. Quibbling with it is a pointless semantics argument until specific details come to light. As such, I would ask: What was the focus of the discussion that brought this about?

The discussion was regarding another posters assertion that he could irrefutably prove God's existence using scientifically validated evidence.

I then created a thread with a OP request asking if anyone could and if so to, prove God's existence using empirical evidence and the scientific method.

We have spent quite some time trying to nail down definitions. Right now I am trying to set up a model for scientific method - he tells me the chart is wrong and refuses to articulate his method.

He refuses to bring his argument into this sub-forum.

 

[Resha Caner]

The discussion was regarding another posters assertion that he could irrefutably prove God's existence using scientifically validated evidence.

Once someone becomes dogmatic it is no longer a conversation but a lecture. In other words, I suspect this person is not listening, so you shouldn't waste your time.

There is no such thing as an irrefutable proof - not for God - not for anything. Since the time of Popper science no longer speaks in terms of what it can "prove". So, someone who says they can prove God's existence through science is speaking nonsense.

We have spent quite some time trying to nail down definitions. Right now I am trying to set up a model for scientific method - he tells me the chart is wrong and refuses to articulate his method.

Aside from the difficulties of conversing with some people, even an attempt to rigorously define the scientific method is a waste of time. If you're really interested in that topic, I recommend you start here:

Charles Sanders Peirce (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[miamited]

Hi the CSG,

Just to add my belief about the scientific method and what we can actually trust about it.

I believe that science is a valuable tool, but as with any tool, it must be used properly to do the job for which it was intended. For me, the basic determinant for whether or not a 'scientific formulary' can be proved is by using repeatable testing that shows that the formulary is true.

A simple example would be water changing into ice. We can take a volume of water and apply different temperatures to the water and see that every time water molecules reach 32 degrees, the result is that the water freezes and becomes a solid. We can do this over and over.

Scientific studies in astronomy and evolution are always based on some assumptions.

A simple example is how we determine that one creature must have come from another. We look at bone structure and see similarities and then assume that these similarities indicate that the one must have come from the other. That's a big assumption in my mind. I believe that God 'reused', or 'copied' structures as He created the different creatures that He made. Secondly, much of what our textbooks show as 'proof' of how a creature looked in ages past is often based on no more than a fragment or two of actual material from which someone takes it upon themselves to 'design' a creature from very, very little actual evidence. Lastly, science has been proven, or called into question many, many times as to its veracity.

For example, just today I was reading about melting icebergs. So, I decided to google some information. It's quite eye opening. There is no agreement on whether or how much melting icebergs might raise see levels. One site states that icebergs are floating and have already displaced as much area as would be filled if the ice returns to water. Ice expands of course, and as it reverts back to water the expanded area beneath the surface is not more than the total water volume of the iceberg. Causes one to go, 'Hmmm'.

Now, it is also pointed out that Antarica is a land mass covered with water and so if the continent of Antartica melted, which is very, very unlikely as the average temperature is -37 degrees and even a global change of several degrees is not going to affect the entire continent, water levels would rise because that is not displacing water but rather on land. The North Pole is different. It is a floating body of ice and if the North Pole were to melt, which again is very, very unlikely because of the very, very low temperature, it would not appreciably raise the ocean's water level. This can pretty well be proven by anyone who takes a glass and fills it to the top with as much ice as they can put in it and then filling it with water. As the ice melts the level of the water does not change. If I fill the glass completely to the brim, the water will not run out of the glass as the ice melts.

Yet, we have some sites telling us that global warming is going to change all of our beaches because of the rising water levels. Water levels are actually more likely to change based on the temperature of the water, because temperature changes density, but even changes due to temperature are fairly miniscule.

So, who is one to believe? What is the truth? Will sea water overrun our beaches if a few thousand icebergs melt? Further, one site even proposes that this is not some new anomaly, but that in fact, there was a period a few thousand years ago that the earth experienced a major meltdown of icebergs. Who is one to believe.

Now, don't misunderstand that I may be one who doesn't think additional carbon in the air from manmade emissions has no effect on the earth, but rather I'm not sure what those changes will be and also not sure that God hasn't made our planet so perfectly as to be able to adjust to those changes. After all, God did know when He made the earth what man was going to do to it.

So, bottom line, I trust science to explain to me the things which it can, through duplication, prove to me about the here and now, but I am much less convinced about the things that it cannot actually replicate and that are based on ages past for which we really don't have much information of the attending variables that may also be needed to make right decisions.

I apply this to the studies on the speed of light. Yes, we can prove through repeatable testing that light waves travel at 'x' speed and based on that we can prove how far light will travel today in a given timeframe, but...

We don't really have any idea of whether or not when God said, "Let there be stars in the heavens to denote seasons and times", that He didn't work outside of the natural speed of light. The God I know, if he wants me to be able to see a star in order that I can navigate the earth and know seasons and times; if he has given me that star for my benefit, He can make it's light shine upon the earth the very moment that He spoke it into existence. I don't know how He did it, and can't explain through the scientific method how He did it, but I certainly know that He can do it!

According to the Scriptures, when the nation of Israel passed through the Red Sea there was a wall of water on both their right and their left. That's impossible according to all scientific methodology, but God's word says He did it! Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin woman, a woman who had never laid with a man. That's impossible according to any scientific methodology that we know of. Yet I fully and firmly believe that God did it!

It is my considered understanding that a miracle is some event that cannot be explained by any understanding that we have. If someone can explain any event by following out a naturally occurring phenomenon of natural processes, then that event is not, by definition, a miracle. My God performs miracles! So, when I consider that God's creating this realm in which we exist, from everything upon the earth to the most distant star of the universe, I know that it was a miracle of His creation and handiwork and therefore, by definition, know that there is no scientific explanation for the how, why or when it happened. We're just fumbling in the dark and proving once again God's word that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

The God I know, if he wants me to be able to see a star in order that I can navigate the earth and know seasons and times; if he has given me that star for my benefit, He can make it's light shine upon the earth the very moment that He spoke it into existence. I don't know how He did it, and can't explain through the scientific method how He did it, but I certainly know that He can do it!

I think this is a perfectly acceptable reply. It falls into the category of, "I don't know and I don't need to because I trust God." I think that's fine, but ...

If someone else feels differently ... if they want to study the matter, do you feel there is something wrong with that? I ask because of the statement that follows.

It is my considered understanding that a miracle is some event that cannot be explained by any understanding that we have. If someone can explain any event by following out a naturally occurring phenomenon of natural processes, then that event is not, by definition, a miracle. My God performs miracles!

I happen to define "miracle" differently. In one sense it doesn't really matter how we define the word, unless it gets in our way, and sometimes I think defining "miracle" as you have gets in the way.

For example, Jesus (who is God) walks from Nazareth to Cana. OK. A pretty common thing. We know how walking works. Does it diminish God's power that He did something we understand? No.

I think that is sometimes a hangup for Christians - if we know how God did it, it's no longer miraculous. It feels as if God's power is diminished - as if we are knocking Him from His throne. So, we don't want to know how He did it, and don't you dare claim you know how He did it. There's that old medieval tendency to amend the story and claim that flowers were springing up from every footprint in the dust as he walked from Nazareth to Cana in order to make Jesus' walking different from ours - to make it miraculous.

But what about those people who are curious and whom it helps for them to study these things? Are we doing them a disservice?

If I knew how God made the stars and how their light reached earth, that wouldn't make it any less miraculous for me. Even if I knew that, my God still performs miracles.

 

[miamited]

I think this is a perfectly acceptable reply. It falls into the category of, "I don't know and I don't need to because I trust God." I think that's fine, but ...

If someone else feels differently ... if they want to study the matter, do you feel there is something wrong with that? I ask because of the statement that follows.

No, I have no problem with anyone studying the matter, but I have a problem when 'facts' are supposedly determined when there is still so many variables yet to be accounted for. Further, if my definition of miracle is correct, and God is the God who works miracles, and I believe that something is a miracle of God, then how would I expect to ever be able to give a naturalistic explanation for 'how' that miracle came about other than from the hand of God?

That would either mean that a) my definition is wrong, or b) or my natural explanation is wrong. Personally, I choose b. Now, I'm not nearly wise enough to necessarily be able to explain why some well studied and researched 'fact' is wrong, but since a or b are the only possibilities in the field of possibilities, then I must choose a or b and hold to it.



I happen to define "miracle" differently. In one sense it doesn't really matter how we define the word, unless it gets in our way, and sometimes I think defining "miracle" as you have gets in the way.

Oh, friend, yes it does matter how one defines a miracle. I agree that many people choose to define 'miracle' as just anything that has the slimmest possibility of occurring, but that doesn't qualify as a miracle as I define it. If something has even the slimmest possibility of occurring, and the variables that would make that possibility come about, then it isn't a miracle at all. It is exactly what one would expect given the data.

Here's an example: A soldier in the civil war fired his musket downfield at another soldier. The bullet hit the other soldier in the scrotum and passed on downfield, as that did not provide enough solid matter to stop the bullet. Standing downfield a ways was a young woman hanging out laundry. Nine months later she gave birth to a healthy young boy. That's a miracle!

Well, is it? You see, when the bullet passed through the man's scrotum it collected at least one healthy sperm from the man's body. The bullet then traveled down field and lodged in the womb of the young woman and the sperm impregnated an egg. Isn't that what happens nearly every time a sperm impregnates an egg? Yes, the lay out of events was certainly phenomenal and wouldn't ever be expected, but once broken down into all the variable parts, the pregnancy was nearly a given.

For example, Jesus (who is God) walks from Nazareth to Cana. OK. A pretty common thing. We know how walking works. Does it diminish God's power that He did something we understand? No.

Of course the natural doesn't diminish God's ability to perform miracles, but honestly I don't see the correlation. I have never claimed that every single thing that God does is a miracle. Just that He does do miracles.

I think that is sometimes a hangup for Christians - if we know how God did it, it's no longer miraculous. It feels as if God's power is diminished - as if we are knocking Him from His throne. So, we don't want to know how He did it, and don't you dare claim you know how He did it. There's that old medieval tendency to amend the story and claim that flowers were springing up from every footprint in the dust as he walked from Nazareth to Cana in order to make Jesus' walking different from ours - to make it miraculous.

But what about those people who are curious and whom it helps for them to study these things? Are we doing them a disservice?

If the conclusions we reach are not true, then yes, we are technically and truly a liar if we tell someone else that what we know is true.

If I knew how God made the stars and how their light reached earth, that wouldn't make it any less miraculous for me. Even if I knew that, my God still performs miracles.

Well, I can answer that for you. God spoke the stars into existence. Out of absolutely nothing He merely said let there be stars and within an instant our universe was covered in stars just as when He spoke our planet into existence there were uncounted grains of sand within the make up of our planet.

So, you see, it really does hinge on how one defines a miracle. Is it just the fruition of a slim circumstance or is it rather something that only God can do by His power and wisdom and abilities as the God who is the only one who can create something out of nothing? I'm going with the later.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Resha,

Let's deal with this on a smaller scale. I mentioned the crossing of the Red Sea. Do you believe that there was a wall of water on the left and on the right of them as they passed over the dry sea bed?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ChetSinger]

Chet - I'm sure you know which threads I'm speaking of.

Yep.

Do you think there is a possible argument against this model of the scientific method?

No. If anything, that diagram is more comprehensive than what I was taught, at least regarding the "procedure working" section.

One possible thought experiment is to choose a subject area that is not controversial and see what happens if you use that diagram as a framework for experimentation. I tried that (in musical acoustics) and I think the diagram is just fine.

 

[Papias]

Resha wrote:

If I knew how God made the stars and how their light reached earth, that wouldn't make it any less miraculous for me. Even if I knew that, my God still performs miracles.

Our God is an awesome God!

 

[miamited]

Hi Resha,

You wrote:

Originally Posted by Resha Caner
I think that is sometimes a hangup for Christians - if we know how God did it, it's no longer miraculous. It feels as if God's power is diminished - as if we are knocking Him from His throne. So, we don't want to know how He did it, and don't you dare claim you know how He did it. There's that old medieval tendency to amend the story and claim that flowers were springing up from every footprint in the dust as he walked from Nazareth to Cana in order to make Jesus' walking different from ours - to make it miraculous.

I'd like to take a moment and break that down into smaller bites.

I think that is sometimes a hangup for Christians...

First, yes, when viewed from the world's perspective, I believe that Christians will seem to have a lot of 'hang-ups'. After all, to me, the Scriptures seem pretty clear that we are to live differently. To them, these differences of a stricter morality and different belief system, are explained as 'hang-ups'. I actually take a certain amount of comfort in knowing that I have some of these 'hang-ups' so long as they come about because I am following a different path.

Consider the picture of Jesus' explanation of the broad and narrow ways. Those on the broad way are looking over at those on the narrow and laughing and mocking at their 'hang-ups' that keep them from coming over and enjoying all the fun and freedom that they have. Just as the Scriptures say, sin has its pleasure for a season. When I consider Jesus' words I think to myself, "Well, I should be living differently than them." Peter writes that knowing our great salvation how should we then live? He writes: Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. Then adds in his second letter: Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives.

So, I'm not too concerned with anyone claiming I have 'hang-ups' if those 'hang-ups' come from godly differences.

I always scratch my head when I hear people say this. One represents a God who created everything in this realm, just as you and I see it today as far its physical characteristics. All the stars of the universe perfectly ordered and aligned in a fashion that allows for the universe to revolve and spin and move about for thousands and thousands of years without ever crashing into the earth. It allows for every living creature to be perfectly formed in exactly the manner that God created it and every living plant to be perfectly suited for its purpose and that the whole of all of this creating was just and only in preparation for the life of mankind.

The other allows that God may have set some speck of something in the universe and then a lot of lucky consequences of nature got us to where we are today. You'd say that both of those Gods are the same, huh? OK.

Also in this matter, we still have to consider what does 'truth' mean to God? For the sake of this argument let's just suppose that God did create this realm just exactly as He has told us. That yes, at some point, in a totally black and void space, God spoke, in a matter of literally six rotations of the first heavenly body that He created absolutely everything that exists in the same form and substance as we see everything in the universe today. All the stars of the universe and the plants and animals of the earth and finally man. Does that God see someone as being truthful if he tells people that it just isn't so. Can't possibly be. We have proven that's an impossibility! What do you think? Does it matter to God that we tell others the truth?

So, we don't want to know how He did it, and don't you dare claim you know how He did it.

No, I don't have any problem telling anyone how God did it. As a matter of fact, I just told you in my last post how God did it. I would never tell anyone to not dare to tell me how God did it, so long as they could also prove that there explanation is the truth. Unfortunately, for me, no one has ever been able to provide that level of explanation about the various and sundry explanations of the beginning of this realm. The Scriptures tell us quite clearly and repeatedly 'how' God did it. And God said, let there be light... And God said, let there be an expanse... And God said, let the water under the sky... And God said, let the land produce vegetation... And God said, let there be lights in the expanse,... And God said, let the water teem... And God said, let the land produce living creatures... From what I gather, God spoke, and it happened. All things became into existence merely by the power of God's speaking it to be so.

So, how did that star get there? Well, the answer is quite simple. God told it to be and it became.

There's that old medieval tendency to amend the story and claim that flowers were springing up from every footprint in the dust as he walked from Nazareth to Cana in order to make Jesus' walking different from ours - to make it miraculous.

First question, why is this medieval? I would never claim that flowers sprang up from Jesus' footsteps. I could certainly never prove such a premise from the Scriptures. No, Jesus walked just like you and I do. One foot in front of the other, propelling his body forward in the space that was in front of him. However, the very fact that Jesus lived is a miracle and because of that, yes, his walking was a miracle. But that is only if we make that statement in consideration of the first cause of Jesus. We could similarly say that the house that I live in is a miracle because it is made of the materials that God miraculously created in the beginning of His creating this realm. However, I fully understand that that is not the point you are striving to drive home.

All I can assure you is that some point in the future, you and I will know the truth. You and I will know whether or not God created just as He has caused to be written to us or that He rather created as science has tried so diligently to prove to us. We will also know how important it is to God whether what we believe about Him and what we teach about Him is the truth - to Him. We will know whether it was right for those who He calls His children to have 'hang-ups' or not.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

Let's deal with this on a smaller scale. I mentioned the crossing of the Red Sea. Do you believe that there was a wall of water on the left and on the right of them as they passed over the dry sea bed?

I assume you are referring to Exodus 14:21-22. Yes, I believe that what is recorded in those verses happened.

This example differs from discussing the stars. I know of no extant archaeological evidence of that event (though there have been some embarassing attempts to fabricate evidence). Any "scientific" discussion of the matter is not scientific at all. It is mere speculation. And so, for this example, I am satisifed to trust God and say I don't know how it happened. Since I haven't seen any credible evidence of the event, I'm also willing to push back against those who think it can be a scientific discussion.

Discussing the stars is different, given we have some accessible evidence.

No, I have no problem with anyone studying the matter ...

Good. From what I know of you, that is the answer I expected. I don't think we're that far apart on this issue, but it appears you may be assuming things about my position that are not correct. Hopefully that will be clarified as we move forward.

... Further, if my definition of miracle is correct, and God is the God who works miracles, and I believe that something is a miracle of God, then how would I expect to ever be able to give a naturalistic explanation for 'how' that miracle came about other than from the hand of God?

I meant only an explanation, not a "naturalistic explanation". I happen to have a strong aversion to naturalism - to the extent that I would say naturalistic explanations are never proper. I will add the caveat that God promises us, to some extent, an ordered universe. Therefore, if by "naturalistic" someone means an explanation based on the assumption that past order will continue into the future, then yes, I can agree with that. But if someone is using "Nature" in a pantheistic sense, or as a vague, undefined secular replacement for God, then I will object.

Further, let me clarify what I meant when I said the definition of miracle doesn't matter. Once I understand your definition, I can work with it. Words are only tools for communication. It's not as if we'll disrupt the fabric of the universe if we don't properly define "miracle".

Per your definition, miracle means "things done by God that we don't understand." I'm OK with that. I use the word differently, but knowing how you use it allows us to communicate. As long as that's what you mean, I can use that definition for this conversation.

However, I was further stating that your definition will become an issue if you mean "things done by God that we can't understand." That completely changes this conversation. Whether you realize it or not, what I then hear is a declaration that people should not study the matter - that it is impossible and pointless to ask questions about the conclusions you're drawing. That is where we will have an issue.

Now, I fully believe there are some things we will never understand. But I think it is silly to say we know where the line is between understanding and not understanding - between what we can investigate and what we can't. Even in the case of the parting of the Reed Sea, if people want to speculate about how it happened, they have my blessing to go at it. I'm just saying I'll not participate until there is some attendant evidence of the event because I don't see the point - I don't see how anyone can call it scientific.

Of course the natural doesn't diminish God's ability to perform miracles, but honestly I don't see the correlation. I have never claimed that every single thing that God does is a miracle. Just that He does do miracles.

I was pointing out that some people are offended by attempts to explain miracles. They seem to think it somehow tarnishes God's majesty. I don't see it that way. I enjoy investigating such things, and it only increases my awe of God's power.

For those made uncomfortable by a discussion of miracles, it further seems they begin to go to ridiculous lengths to deny what simply comes down to matter of observing the very things God has given us.

I'm hoping you're not to that point.

Well, I can answer that for you. God spoke the stars into existence. Out of absolutely nothing He merely said let there be stars and within an instant our universe was covered in stars just as when He spoke our planet into existence there were uncounted grains of sand within the make up of our planet.

Here we need to put the brakes on. I'm familiar with the doctrine of ex nihilo, and I basically agree in the sense that God created everything. He didn't take existing material that was not of His making and form a universe from that. However, people always have to add ridiculous extremes to these ideas. Why is that?

So, do not assume a Bible verse is a complete explanation of everything. The verses (Genesis 1:14-19) are:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Do I believe that? Yes.

Do I believe those verses completely encapsulate everything that happened as God created stars? No.

Do I believe there are things we can learn from observing the stars? Yes.

But in the end, I am like you. IMO Genesis is history. If the "scientific" explanation leads people to tell me Genesis is not history, then I am willing to explain why I think they are wrong.

I'm just trying to avoid a message of, "It's a miracle. You'll never figure it out. Give up." For some people that doesn't work, and I am one of those people.

 

[Resha Caner]

First, yes, when viewed from the world's perspective, I believe that Christians will seem to have a lot of 'hang-ups'.

I'm sorry you went to all the trouble to type this out, because I think you are operating under a misunderstanding of what I was saying. Hopefully my previous post will help.

I am a Christian, so this isn't me calling your baby ugly. This is two Christians discussing how we sometimes show an ugly face to the world. But let me be clear. This is not unique to Christians. We're all fallen creatures and we all have our problems. It's just that in this case, as two Christian brothers, I was sharing a concern about how we sometimes present ourselves to the world.

So, I'm not too concerned with anyone claiming I have 'hang-ups' if those 'hang-ups' come from godly differences.

I wouldn't be either, and I'm not even sure yet whether you are the type to do what I was describing. Again, I was just sharing a concern. I assume you would agree that if it is not godly, it is a practice that should be changed.

No, I don't have any problem telling anyone how God did it. As a matter of fact, I just told you in my last post how God did it.

Well, no you didn't. That's the point. You referred (without really quoting it) to a passage in Scripture. I'm trying to say that if that is sufficient for you, I'm OK with that. But don't try to tell me that should be sufficient for me as well.

Now, if I were questioning the truth of Scripture, I can understand why you would challenge me. But I'm not, as my previous post said. Rather, I'm raising the challenge that I think people are adding to Scripture things that it doesn't say.

First question, why is this medieval? I would never claim that flowers sprang up from Jesus' footsteps.

It was an example. I wasn't accusing you of doing exactly this. Apparently you aren't familiar with some of the ridiculous stories that were invented about Jesus and Mary during Medieval times. To correct myself, it was Mary, not Jesus, whose footsteps supposedly produced flowers:

DCR August 31, 2011 :: Marian flowers and their legends

People don't seem to understand that unbelievers have no reason to accept our canonical distinctions. They lump these silly stories in with Scripture and laugh. It frustrates me.

 

[Smidlee]

Hi Resha,

Let's deal with this on a smaller scale. I mentioned the crossing of the Red Sea. Do you believe that there was a wall of water on the left and on the right of them as they passed over the dry sea bed?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I also disagree how you define a miracle. I believe Jesus virgin birth was a miracle yet man has learn how a virgin could give birth today.
A miracle to us is something as simple as man creating a video game to God. ( I believe God spoke the universe into existence as as man type on a keyboard bought the "World of Warcraft" into existence. ) How did Jesus walk on the water and turn water to wine? The movie Matrix gives us an idea, Jesus is the Word so He can change the "code" at will. God who create gravity wouldn't have any trouble holding back water with an anti-gravity force field.

Another example is life itself. Even though we know a lot more about the mechanics of a living cell doesn't make it less of a miracle.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Yep.


No. If anything, that diagram is more comprehensive than what I was taught, at least regarding the "procedure working" section.

One possible thought experiment is to choose a subject area that is not controversial and see what happens if you use that diagram as a framework for experimentation. I tried that (in musical acoustics) and I think the diagram is just fine.

I don't believe that is an option with that poster. I would very much like to try this, but I think I'm the only dog left in the fight.

 

[gluadys]

I happen to define "miracle" differently. In one sense it doesn't really matter how we define the word, unless it gets in our way, and sometimes I think defining "miracle" as you have gets in the way.

For example, Jesus (who is God) walks from Nazareth to Cana. OK. A pretty common thing. We know how walking works. Does it diminish God's power that He did something we understand? No.

I think that is sometimes a hangup for Christians - if we know how God did it, it's no longer miraculous. It feels as if God's power is diminished - as if we are knocking Him from His throne. So, we don't want to know how He did it, and don't you dare claim you know how He did it. There's that old medieval tendency to amend the story and claim that flowers were springing up from every footprint in the dust as he walked from Nazareth to Cana in order to make Jesus' walking different from ours - to make it miraculous.

But what about those people who are curious and whom it helps for them to study these things? Are we doing them a disservice?

If I knew how God made the stars and how their light reached earth, that wouldn't make it any less miraculous for me. Even if I knew that, my God still performs miracles.

I would really like to commend this view.

The biblical term equivalent to "miracle" really means "sign" and when you trace that word through scripture you find it really does not distinguish between "natural" and "supernatural". Of course, supernatural events, like the Virgin Birth, are signs, but natural phenomena such as the food called manna that sustained the Israelites in the desert are also signs. The importance is what the sign signifies, not the nature of the sign. Supernatural wonders declare the glory of God, but so does the nightly display of stars.

I also agree that coming to an understanding of how something happens takes nothing away from God. If anything, it often evokes even more amazement and awe than the former ignorance. When the Psalmist declared "I am fearfully and wonderfully made" he knew scarcely the 1000th part of what we know about conception and the development of the embryo. But doesn't knowing just reinforce the Psalmist's declaration?

Another thing to be aware of is that in the space of less than a century, the most common meaning of natural has completely flipped from "not made by human hand" to "not made by God". The biblical writers looked at scenes where there was no human habitation or effect of human skill or art and saw God at work, feeding young lions, helping wild goats to calve, and so on. We still think of places remote from human habitation as "unspoiled nature". From that perspective everything natural is God's work, God's art,an ongoing sign of God whether we understand how it happens or not.

Miami Ted has adopted the more recent meaning of "miracle" as relating only to what we do not, cannot, understand because it is outside the possibility of nature. And the more recent meaning of "nature" as an antonym of "supernatural" instead of the antonym of "artificial". From that perspective, discovering a natural explanation of anything amounts to denying that it is of God.

 

[miamited]

I assume you are referring to Exodus 14:21-22. Yes, I believe that what is recorded in those verses happened.

This example differs from discussing the stars. I know of no extant archaeological evidence of that event (though there have been some embarassing attempts to fabricate evidence). Any "scientific" discussion of the matter is not scientific at all. It is mere speculation. And so, for this example, I am satisifed to trust God and say I don't know how it happened. Since I haven't seen any credible evidence of the event, I'm also willing to push back against those who think it can be a scientific discussion.

Discussing the stars is different, given we have some accessible evidence.

Well, as far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that evidence as it relates to the age of the earth goes like this. Star A is 100 billion light years distant from our earth. Because we know that light travels at X speed, then the universe must be Y years old for us to be able to see the light of star A.

But this 'fact' must be couched with the agreement of one assumption and that is that through all moments of time in this universe light speed has to have been constant.

However, if one allows for miracles, then it can be proposed that at the moment of creation, God expanded the light of star A to immediately fill the entire universe, and then the light waves behind those waves settled to the speed of light that we now know. Unfortunately, this proposition can be neither proven nor disproven except to say that based on what we know today about light, it is an impossible proposition.

Now, let's turn that same scientific reasoning to the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born just as any normal child today is born through the birth canal of a woman. Science has proven that the only way a woman can begin a term of pregnancy is that an egg in her womb is fertilized by human sperm. I am discounting other means of man induced pregnancy as they were not available to the people of Israel 2,000 years ago, but even they require a human sperm to fertilize a human egg. Therefore, based on the scientific knowledge that we have today, Mary's pregnancy is impossible as the Scriptures tell us and the account of her conception must either be a lie in how it happened or just not have happened at all.

So, you see, people are willing to forego scientific evidence to explain the birth of Jesus and just accept on faith that it happened the way it did because God said it did, despite any medical or scientific 'laws' that we know today to be true, yet they are wholly unwilling to accept that that very same principle is at work in God's accounting for us the way He created this realm. Why is that?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted