Evidence for Miracles?

[miamited]

hi mark,

You responed with a rather lengthy post recounting miracles of the Scriptures. That's all well and good but when defining a word we can't just use examples and expect that everyone understands the responder's definition. If definitions are your bug-a-boo, as they are also mine, I would ask you to just give us your definition. Now, you are free to give your definition and then post some exemplar evidence, but without the initial definition the exemplar may be misunderstood.

You posted regarding 'dunamas': This word was used to speak of the power of God in the LXX.

Great, but we're not discussing the power of God. I'm seeking to understand how you define the word 'miracle'.

Then you responded: There are sufficient resources available to any serious person wanting to know how a miracle is defined.

Yes, of course. I'm not that dense, but whether or not you understand or define miracle according to the basic dictionary definition is what is at issue here. (Or whoever the original post was intended for. Keep that in mind) And, whether or not the basic dictionary definition is really how God's miracles are defined is also at issue.

The rest of what you wrote is pretty worthless in a response to me. I agree with you! I'm a YEC! I fully and confidently know and believe that some 6,000 years ago there was not a star or any other physical body in all the universe from one end of its inky blackness to another. I know and believe this because I understand what it means when God creates or performs a miracle.

God bless you and I hope you don't take this too hard.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

hi chilehead,

You asked: To what end would you have me provide a definition of miracle when the subject of my comment was the term scientific evidence?

Because your response is given in answer to another's post regarding the definition and understanding of a 'miracle'.

You copied and pasted this portion of calminian's post: there can't be scientific evidence for miracles which are by nature, violations of science...

You responded: That's absolute, complete and utter nonsense.

Since you took the time to copy only the part of his response that offered a definition of a miracle, it is understood that your response is only to the part of his post that you copied and pasted. Agreed?

So, I will ask once more. How do you define a 'miracle'? Calminian has given his definition and you quite obviously disagree so that would call into question for everyone's benefit and understanding what your definition is, and so I asked the question. It's really pretty basic discussion technique.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Assyrian]

Are you saying that no one had taken an x-ray of a spring and had seen the effects before Rosalind took the DNA x-ray?

Rosalind's x-ray diffraction pattern for a DNA crystal looked nothing like an x-ray photograph of a spring.
An x-ray of a spring would look like:

​

Here is Rosalind Franklin's x-ray diffraction of a DNA crystal:

 

[Assyrian]

hi chilehead,

You asked: To what end would you have me provide a definition of miracle when the subject of my comment was the term scientific evidence?

Because your response is given in answer to another's post regarding the definition and understanding of a 'miracle'.

You copied and pasted this portion of calminian's post: there can't be scientific evidence for miracles which are by nature, violations of science...

You responded: That's absolute, complete and utter nonsense.

Since you took the time to copy only the part of his response that offered a definition of a miracle, it is understood that your response is only to the part of his post that you copied and pasted. Agreed?

So, I will ask once more. How do you define a 'miracle'? Calminian has given his definition and you quite obviously disagree so that would call into question for everyone's benefit and understanding what your definition is, and so I asked the question. It's really pretty basic discussion technique.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Chilehed never disagreed with Cal's definition or understanding of a miracle. The issue is what science can tell us about the event.

 

[Greg1234]

Rosalind's x-ray diffraction pattern for a DNA crystal looked nothing like an x-ray photograph of a spring.
An x-ray of a spring would look like:

​

Here is Rosalind Franklin's x-ray diffraction of a DNA crystal:

This is the diffraction pattern of a cube using X-rays. This is the diffraction pattern of a spring using a laser pointer.

 

[mark kennedy]

hi mark,

You responed with a rather lengthy post recounting miracles of the Scriptures. That's all well and good but when defining a word we can't just use examples and expect that everyone understands the responder's definition. If definitions are your bug-a-boo, as they are also mine, I would ask you to just give us your definition. Now, you are free to give your definition and then post some exemplar evidence, but without the initial definition the exemplar may be misunderstood.

There are various New Testament words translated miracles, I'm not chasing this around the mulberry so you'll have to take the New Testament definitions and go with that.

You posted regarding 'dunamas': This word was used to speak of the power of God in the LXX.

This is what I posted and the Hebrew word for specific miracles, including creation, was translated dunamis in the LXX. Jesus referred to it as the 'power of God'. Now either you don't know the 'power of God' or you don't believe in it. Otherwise, where are you trying to take me with this?

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Mt 22:29)

That word is transliterated 'Dunamis', from which we get the word dynamite. There are others so if you need a definition for a miracle then decide what kind of a miracle you mean. This is one of my personal favorites.

And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? (Mark 5:30)

Great, but we're not discussing the power of God. I'm seeking to understand how you define the word 'miracle'.

That is how I define the word, so you want me to make up a definition other then the New Testament word for miracle? Are you serious?

Then you responded: There are sufficient resources available to any serious person wanting to know how a miracle is defined.

Yes, of course. I'm not that dense, but whether or not you understand or define miracle according to the basic dictionary definition is what is at issue here. (Or whoever the original post was intended for. Keep that in mind) And, whether or not the basic dictionary definition is really how God's miracles are defined is also at issue.

That's not a dictionary definition, that's from a Lexicon of New Testament words. There are other kinds of miracles. If you don't like the New Testament word used for miracles like the Creation then tell me what you are really interested in doing here.

The rest of what you wrote is pretty worthless in a response to me. I agree with you! I'm a YEC! I fully and confidently know and believe that some 6,000 years ago there was not a star or any other physical body in all the universe from one end of its inky blackness to another. I know and believe this because I understand what it means when God creates or performs a miracle.

God bless you and I hope you don't take this too hard.
In Christ, Ted

Hang on, your YEC and you want to run me in circles about a Lexicon definition for a New Testament word used with regards to Creation?

There are plenty of resources available to fully determine the expressed meaning of New Testament words. What I know about miracles is simply this, God does things that only God can do. If you believe that God raised Christ from the dead, you are indwelled by the Holy Spirit of promise and walking in our common faith that is the power of God, that is a miracle. Other then that I really don't know why the New Testament expression of the power of God would be insufficient.

 

[Assyrian]

This is the diffraction pattern of a cube using X-rays. This is the diffraction pattern of a spring using a laser pointer.

Cool pictures. Thanks. But they were taken with coherent light, lasers. These weren't invented until after Watson and Crick published their paper. The diffraction pattern for the spring was taken with an optical laser, specifically a laser pointer which was only available in the 1980s. Reference 4 at the bottom of the APS link tells us how Watson and Crick knew what Franklin's picture meant. They had worked out mathematically, what the diffraction pattern of a helix should look like.

 

[chilehed]

...So, I will ask once more. How do you define a 'miracle'? Calminian has given his definition and you quite obviously disagree so that would call into question for everyone's benefit and understanding what your definition is, and so I asked the question. It's really pretty basic discussion technique...

I said nothing about his definition of miracle, so it's not at all obvious that I disagree with it (except perhaps to someone who didn't bother to think about what I actually said, which is the most basic discussion technique of all).

 

[miamited]

hi assyrian and chilehead,

You really must both be kidding. A post explaining that by definition a miracle cannot be substantiated by science, is answered with 'that's complete and utter nonsense', and no one sees this as disagreement with the statement.

Well, I guess you guys are just way to smart for me and way over my head.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Assyrian]

hi assyrian and chilehead,

You really must both be kidding. A post explaining that by definition a miracle cannot be substantiated by science, is answered with 'that's complete and utter nonsense', and no one sees this as disagreement with the statement.

Well, I guess you guys are just way to smart for me and way over my head.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You have two very different issues here.

(1) Science is unable to study the supernatural, it cannot say an event is a miracle or that God cannot work miracles or that he does not exist.

Where the confusion come in is that:
(2) miracles are real events producing changes in the real world. Science can study the real world. In the example earlier, science would be able to show the man Jesus healed really could see, if there had been medical records they would have show he was blind before. So there is no reason you can't have scientific evidence for the miracle, what science can't do is say that it was miracle.

But studying the real events means science can rule out supposed miracles that didn't happen if the reality doesn't fit what what the miracle says it is supposed to be. If an optician showed the man was still blind, then Jesus hadn't healed him. The Pharisees came at it from the other side by trying to find out if he really had been born blind. He had. But if they could have shown he could see before he met Jesus that would have meant there wasn't a miracle.

Which brings us back to Phil's point. If the earth was just 6000 years old scientific evidence should support that. There should be evidence life on earth is made up of distinct created kinds. There isn't. What the evidence shows us is that the earth is billions of year old and that life evolve. Which shows us their idea of God's creating the world 6000 years ago is simply wrong.

Here is what Phil said

All I'm doing is explaining why TEs ask for evidence for creationism and why it is not reasonable to say "but we can't have evidence because it's a miracle".
​

The creationist response is relying on (1) science cannot study the supernatural, but that does no get them out of the problem that (2) reality should fit what they claim occurred.

 

[chilehed]

hi assyrian and chilehead,

You really must both be kidding. A post explaining that by definition a miracle cannot be substantiated by science...

If you look closely you'll see that that's not exactly what he said, and that it's not what I responded to.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Having not read the entire thread up to the end here, just a couple pennies of thought:

I would assume that, say, if someone were cured of cancer that it would be possible to ask the healed person if they had ever had cancer and they'd say, "Yes." That perhaps there were brain scans showing where the tumor had been. Medical records showing what sorts of treatment were received.

That sort of thing.

If someone told me that were miraculously cured of cancer, but never saw a doctor about it, didn't receive any treatment of any kind, and--most importantly--had no memory of having cancer. I'd probably conclude that this person's claim should, at the very least, be taken with a grain of salt.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by philadiddle I'm seeing a theme here lately where the YECs are pointing out that we don't see evidence of other miracles in the bible, so why do the TEs have the double standard of demanding evidence for the creation miracle?

It seems like a legitimate question, so I'll clarify what we are asking for. (Officially I'm only speaking for myself, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the other TEs will agree with what I'm saying.)

Since water turning to wine is a common example, I'll start with that. If Jesus performed the miracle of turning water into wine then we would have no evidence of it. That's right, I'm admitting we would have not scientific evidence that Jesus performed that miracle, because miracles by definition defy the laws that govern our scientific models.

Before we get too far into this can you please define what you mean by evidence? Are you talking about scientific evidence?

Good point.....


....

 

[Calminian]

...Where the confusion come in is that:
(2) miracles are real events producing changes in the real world. Science can study the real world. In the example earlier, science would be able to show the man Jesus healed really could see, if there had been medical records they would have show he was blind before. So there is no reason you can't have scientific evidence for the miracle, what science can't do is say that it was miracle.

Bit what if people doubt these records or worse, try to reinterpret them so they're more line with modern science? What then? Because that's exactly what's happening now. What if some theologians came along and said, "well, he wasn't really blind, they were just speaking metaphorically when they wrote those records. After all, the scientific evidence shows that men don't just get cured instantaneously like that!"

Sound familiar?

In fact, these same theologians can then argue that scientifically there is a much better more viable explanation. The guy was never blind at all! That fits the evidence as well, and since it's a natural explanation it should be preferred. After all, were not going to just listen to some story and believe it to be literal.

Such is the folly of god of the gaps theology.

 

[Assyrian]

Bit what if people doubt these records or worse, try to reinterpret them so they're more line with modern science? What then? Because that's exactly what's happening now. What if some theologians came along and said, "well, he wasn't really blind, they were just speaking metaphorically when they wrote those records. After all, the scientific evidence shows that men don't just get cured instantaneously like that!"

Sound familiar?

In fact, these same theologians can then argue that scientifically there is a much better more viable explanation. The guy was never blind at all! That fits the evidence as well, and since it's a natural explanation it should be preferred. After all, were not going to just listen to some story and believe it to be literal.

So, when has science show us there is no God, or that if there is a God he could not or would not perform an act like that? These theologians of yours are not basing their argument on science, but on scepticism. There was no shortage of that in the first century long before modern science.

There is a huge difference between doubting a miracle occurred because 'that sort of thing doesn't happen', and the evidence telling us it didn't happen. Everybody back then knew 'that sort of thing doesn't happen' John 9:32 Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. But if the Pharisees stood up and displayed the man's optician record and his trophies as captain of the local darts team, or they show him still walking into trees, then evidence, not scepticism, would have shown everybody, the disciple included, that the man had not been healed.

It isn't scepticism, a 'that sort of thing doesn't happen', that says the earth wasn't created 6000 years ago. It is evidence that the earth is vastly older than that, evidence that its rocks and mountains slowly formed and reformed over millions and billions of years and that life evolved on earth over this time, that tells us the earth isn't 6000 years old.

Such is the folly of god of the gaps theology.

It has nothing to do with God of the Gaps.

 

[Calminian]

So, when has science show us there is no God, or that if there is a God he could not or would not perform an act like that? These theologians of yours are not basing their argument on science, but on scepticism. There was no shortage of that in the first century long before modern science.

You're ignoring the example analogy I give which was based on your analogy. The above a a non-sequitor. Where was my analogy flawed?

There is a huge difference between doubting a miracle occurred because 'that sort of thing doesn't happen', and the evidence telling us it didn't happen.

No difference at all. The analogy was very fair. You use the very same tactics as the hypothetical person in the analogy. You say there's a big difference, but there is none.

The same methodology you use to prove the earth isn't young, is the same methodology used in the analogy to show that the man wasn't young in his ability to see. They are virtually identical.

Similar analogies could be drawn using Christ's creation of wine and bread and fish. You just want to trust the testimony in one case, and dismiss it in the other.

You just want to apply the method differently.

 

[philadiddle]

You just want to apply the method differently.

You clearly aren't taking the time to understand what your opponents are saying. In fact, I don't even think you addressed the points in the OP. Do you even know what the point I was trying to make in the OP?

 

[Calminian]

You clearly aren't taking the time to understand what your opponents are saying. In fact, I don't even think you addressed the points in the OP. Do you even know what the point I was trying to make in the OP?

Sorry you feel that way. I can assure you I'm doing the best I can.

i'm just wondering why you guys wont respond to any points I make. Seems to me you're guilty of what you accuse me of.

 

[philadiddle]

Sorry you feel that way. I can assure you I'm doing the best I can.

i'm just wondering why you guys wont respond to any points I make. Seems to me you're guilty of what you accuse me of.

I haven't read through every post since I've been away for a while. If you could refer me to the post that you want me to respond to I will do that. In the meantime, please respond to what was said in the OP.

 

[Calminian]

I haven't read through every post since I've been away for a while. If you could refer me to the post that you want me to respond to I will do that. In the meantime, please respond to what was said in the OP.

Well if you haven't read every post how to you know I haven't responded to the OP? Why not just take the time and read the thread. Then you complaints might be more legit.