How can we detect miracles of timing and need?

cloudyday2 · Apr 7, 2021

sjastro said:
The 'laws of nature' are defined through repeated observation and experiment and not necessarily an inherent property of the Universe.

Assuming that it is an inherent property, do you think the Creator of the laws of nature would violate them. As Abraham said to God regading Sodom and Gommorah, "Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” ( Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 18:25 - New International Version ) The laws in this case were moral but it seems to me that the same reasoning would apply to natural laws that were part of Creation.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Apr 7, 2021

cloudyday2 said:
I've been trying to think of a way to reconcile belief in this quote from Jesus with my proposal that God limits His activities to the laws of nature. Here is a possibility: Maybe this level of faith in God is accompanied by a reluctance to ask for unncecessary things and a confidence that God will do what is necessary and best regardless of our asking? And God has decided that the best policy is to limit His activity to the wiggle room provided in the laws of nature?

That kind of faith would make the quote redundant. Why dangle a carrot to carnivores?

It has to be metaphorical, i.e. 'Faith can move mountains'.

sjastro · Apr 7, 2021

cloudyday2 said:
Assuming that it is an inherent property, do you think the Creator of the laws of nature would violate them. As Abraham said to God regading Sodom and Gommorah, "Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” ( Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 18:25 - New International Version ) The laws in this case were moral but it seems to me that the same reasoning would apply to natural laws that were part of Creation.

I think it’s a false equivalence to make comparisons between laws designed to enforce moral behaviour which are fluid and change with time and the laws of nature.

If God can violate the laws of nature then by definition God is omnipotent, yet in post#24 Christian theologians such as Thomas Aquinas questioned whether God is omnipotent, the stone paradox being a good example why God cannot be omnipotent.

An example of a physical law where an omnipotent God can lead to a paradox is the brachistochrome problem described in this thread.

The path taken so the bead falls in the shortest period of time is the red curve known as a cycloid not a straight line as one would intuitively expect.
This is the principle of least action which extends from classical physics to relativity and quantum mechanics.

Can God change the principle of least action so a straight line can be the correct outcome?
The principle of least action is an extension of a theorem which comes from elementary calculus which states a function y = f(x) has an extreme value at x = x₀ if the derivative f '(x₀) = 0.
Can God change this theorem so that f(x₀) is extreme when f '(x₀) ≠ 0.
The answer is no and is analogous to God not being able to make 1+1=3.
Like the stone paradox, the principle of least action suggests God is not omnipotent and cannot change the outcome.
God cannot change the laws of nature.

cloudyday2 · Apr 7, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
That kind of faith would make the quote redundant. Why dangle a carrot to carnivores?

It has to be metaphorical, i.e. 'Faith can move mountains'.

The context of the quote is the cursing of the unfruitful fig tree which is understood by some to be a metaphor for cursing the Temple establishment for their unwillingness to accept Jesus as their Messiah. The "Markan sandwich" structure of Mark seems to support this understanding. So if the fig tree was a metaphor then it seems reasonable to expect the quote saying "this mountain" can be moved into "the sea" was also a metaphor. I suppose the story took place on Mt. Zion, so "this mountain" would have been Mt. Zion. Maybe "this mountain" (i.e. Mt. Zion) was a metaphor for the nation of Israel and "the sea" was a metaphor for the Roman Empire which was built around the Mediterranean Sea? So maybe Jesus was alluding to the defeat and dispersion of the Jews in one of their rebellions against Rome?

One glaring problem is that I can't imagine any Jewish follower of Jesus would be praying for the defeat and dispersion of the Jews. So I guess my metaphor doesn't work.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Apr 7, 2021

cloudyday2 said:
... I suppose the story took place on Mt. Zion, so "this mountain" would have been Mt. Zion. Maybe "this mountain" (i.e. Mt. Zion) was a metaphor for the nation of Israel and "the sea" was a metaphor for the Roman Empire which was built around the Mediterranean Sea? So maybe Jesus was alluding to the defeat and dispersion of the Jews in one of their rebellions against Rome?

One glaring problem is that I can't imagine any Jewish follower of Jesus would be praying for the defeat and dispersion of the Jews. So I guess my metaphor doesn't work.

It works better as a general metaphor - e.g. secular, "you can achieve great things if you believe in yourself".

Rachel20 · Apr 10, 2021

sjastro said:
?????
In 3D Euclidean (flat) space the angles of a triangle add up to 180⁰; in 3D curved space they don't.

Exactly, add just one more dimension and natures rules change. That the flatlanders can't experience, or even grasp, curves is irrelevant - they would still be wrong to claim triangles always have 180 degrees.

sjastro said:
A version of the omnipotence paradox Christian theologians have struggled with for centuries is the Stone paradox; "Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?"

This is a good example of the point . It can be solved by adding just one more dimension - "time". God makes a stone of any weight, then makes himself so weak he cannot lift it, then makes himself strong again and lifts it. He has both made a stone so heavy he could not lift it and he has lifted it. Think of Christ stumbling under the weight of the cross in his carnate form.

cloudyday2 · Apr 10, 2021

This idea that God respects the laws of nature is important to me, because several years ago I saw something happen as a reaction to my behavior towards God that seemed to be physically impossible. Surprisingly, instead of having my faith strengthened by this apparent "miracle", I began to question Christianity and eventually lost faith. It seemed to me that God would never violate the laws of nature, because He created them and is probably pleased with their cleverness.

Psalm 19 "The Law of the Lord is Perfect" speaks about the beauty of nature along with the Torah. The inclusion of nature suggests that the psalmist considered the laws of nature to be perfect along with the laws of the Torah.

sjastro · Apr 10, 2021

Rachel20 said:
Exactly, add just one more dimension and natures rules change. That the flatlanders can't experience, or even grasp, curves is irrelevant - they would still be wrong to claim triangles always have 180 degrees.

We both turned out to making inaccurate statements here.
A triangle is a 2D object even though it can be embedded in the surrounding 3D space.
A triangle that is part of 3D, 4D..... Nd space is no longer a triangle but a simplex.
The angles of a simplex will always exceed 180⁰ as simplest explanation is there are more than 3 angles to add up.

This is a good example of the point . It can be solved by adding just one more dimension - "time". God makes a stone of any weight, then makes himself so weak he cannot lift it, then makes himself strong again and lifts it. He has both made a stone so heavy he could not lift it and he has lifted it. Think of Christ stumbling under the weight of the cross in his carnate form.

Part of the stone paradox is that even if God can alter his strength the weight of the stone can still exceed God's power to lift it.

Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? This question generates a dilemma. God can either create a stone he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone he cannot lift. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent because there is a weight threshold beyond his own power to lift. If God cannot create a stone he cannot lift, then there is something he cannot create, and is therefore not omnipotent. In either case, God is not omnipotent

The omnipotence paradox which has troubled theologians and philosophers over the centuries can take on many formats such as whether God can create a prison he cannot escape from to if God is capable of operating outside the laws of logic.

SelfSim · Apr 10, 2021

sjastro said:
We both turned out to making inaccurate statements here.
A triangle is a 2D object even though it can be embedded in the surrounding 3D space.
A triangle that is part of 3D, 4D..... Nd space is no longer a triangle but a simplex.
The angles of a simplex will always exceed 180⁰ as simplest explanation is there are more than 3 angles to add up.

Very cool ... I'd never heard of 'a simplex' before that post!

:

Screen Shot 2021-04-11 at 9.19.01 am.png

sjastro · Apr 10, 2021

SelfSim said:
Very cool ... I'd never heard of 'a simplex' before that post! :

View attachment 297575

I don't ever recall learning about simplexes as a Pure Maths undergraduate (before I went over to the evil dark side Applied Maths).
What I do recall in Pure Maths was embedded objects in higher dimensional space which was the source of my response to @Rachel20 and not an entirely satisfactory answer.

Rachel20 · Apr 11, 2021

sjastro said:
What I do recall in Pure Maths was embedded objects in higher dimensional space which was the source of my response to @Rachel20 and not an entirely satisfactory answer.

It's great to flesh these ideas out though, even if not entirely satisfied! But regarding simplexes, I would say we narrow the notion of "triangle", in limiting them to 2D, only because we're aware of 3D, 4D, ...Nd. But Flatlanders have no notion of these higher planes. They can't extend the idea of Euclidean lines to great circles. So when they claim "all triangles have 180 degrees" it's not the same as our claim of it.

btw a mathematician is someone who sees 3 people enter a house, then 4 people leave, and concludes the house will be empty if exactly 1 more enters

sjastro · Apr 11, 2021

Rachel20 said:
btw a mathematician is someone who sees 3 people enter a house, then 4 people leave, and concludes the house will be empty if exactly 1 more enters

An in depth study has been made on math jokes.

Freodin · Apr 19, 2021

That seems to be a bit of self-serving sophistery to me.

Question: Does God do miracles?
Observation: we have no way to determine if something, anything, was a miracle from God or something else.
Conclusion: Of course God does miracles... they are just indistinguishable from non-miracles.

Bertrand Russell White · Jun 13, 2021

sjastro said:
?????
In 3D Euclidean (flat) space the angles of a triangle add up to 180⁰; in 3D curved space they don't.
This brings up to the modern version of the omnipotence paradox; can God create a triangle in flat space where the angles do not add up to 180⁰, or make 1+1=3.

A version of the omnipotence paradox Christian theologians have struggled with for centuries is the Stone paradox; "Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?"

Some of these are simply mathematical impossibilities. They don't necessarily exist in the real world. The stone problem is a little different because stones do exist in the real world

Bertrand Russell White · Jun 13, 2021

sjastro said:
I think it’s a false equivalence to make comparisons between laws designed to enforce moral behaviour which are fluid and change with time and the laws of nature.

If God can violate the laws of nature then by definition God is omnipotent, yet in post#24 Christian theologians such as Thomas Aquinas questioned whether God is omnipotent, the stone paradox being a good example why God cannot be omnipotent.

An example of a physical law where an omnipotent God can lead to a paradox is the brachistochrome problem described in this thread.

The path taken so the bead falls in the shortest period of time is the red curve known as a cycloid not a straight line as one would intuitively expect.
This is the principle of least action which extends from classical physics to relativity and quantum mechanics.

Can God change the principle of least action so a straight line can be the correct outcome?
The principle of least action is an extension of a theorem which comes from elementary calculus which states a function y = f(x) has an extreme value at x = x₀ if the derivative f '(x₀) = 0.
Can God change this theorem so that f(x₀) is extreme when f '(x₀) ≠ 0.
The answer is no and is analogous to God not being able to make 1+1=3.
Like the stone paradox, the principle of least action suggests God is not omnipotent and cannot change the outcome.
God cannot change the laws of nature.

These are just simply take offs of the general law of non-contradiction

durangodawood · Jun 13, 2021

sjastro said:
...God cannot change the laws of nature.

But can he violate them?

Who would have noticed if the universe gained a few hundred kg when the loaves and fishes appeared? Earths orbit might change a teeny tiny bit. But not enough for anyone to care.

Estrid · Jun 13, 2021

cloudyday2 said:
Imagine that God performs miracles, but imagine the miracles rarely if ever violate the laws of nature. Imagine that God miraculously tweaks nature such that it provides what we need when we need it in response to our prayers.

So, for example, a person with cancer might pray and God might arrange that the cancer go into a long remission. There would be no violation of the laws of nature, because cancers sometimes go into remission, but the timing would seem to convey a message that God heard the prayer and cared.

Another example might be a prayer for guidance followed by some natural event that is interpreted by the Christian as guidance and that ultimately yields the desired results.

So how could we detect these types of miracles? I assume the detection would use statistics but how exactly could we do that?

easy pease. Grow back a missing leg.
Overnight.

Bertrand Russell White · Jun 13, 2021

sjastro said:
We both turned out to making inaccurate statements here.
A triangle is a 2D object even though it can be embedded in the surrounding 3D space.
A triangle that is part of 3D, 4D..... Nd space is no longer a triangle but a simplex.
The angles of a simplex will always exceed 180⁰ as simplest explanation is there are more than 3 angles to add up.

Part of the stone paradox is that even if God can alter his strength the weight of the stone can still exceed God's power to lift it.

The omnipotence paradox which has troubled theologians and philosophers over the centuries can take on many formats such as whether God can create a prison he cannot escape from to if God is capable of operating outside the laws of logic.

Makes you wonder if qualities like omnipotence are even valid. Also, a lot of Christians seem not to realize that "omni" qualities also make it impossible to determine if something is god or just some really big/powerful entity. No way to differentiate.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 13, 2021

Rachel20 said:
Think of Christ stumbling under the weight of the cross in his carnate form.

Interesting word, 'carnate', in that it's synonymous with its apparent opposite 'incarnate'. The same is true of 'flammable' and 'inflammable'... are there any others?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 13, 2021

Bertrand Russell White said:
Makes you wonder if qualities like omnipotence are even valid.

Quite; they seem to cause more problems than they solve; particularly perfection, omnibenevolence, and omniscience...

How can we detect miracles of timing and need?

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Newbie

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads