Evidence for Miracles?

[philadiddle]

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.

I have skimmed through your posts, they are mainly addressed to other people. If you addressed the points I made in the OP simply tell me what post they are in because I missed them. I'm not sure why I'm getting the run around here, why can't you just respond to the OP?

 

[Calminian]

I have skimmed through your posts, they are mainly addressed to other people. If you addressed the points I made in the OP simply tell me what post they are in because I missed them. I'm not sure why I'm getting the run around here, why can't you just respond to the OP?

I think the best thing to do is move forward rather than looking through old posts. If there is something you feel needs to be addressed, by all means bring it up. I'm merely responding to posts. As far as I can tell, they are all on topic.

 

[Assyrian]

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?

I gave an example of how science could disprove a miracle happened, you replied with an example where it didn't. Your analogy was flawed because it didn't address the way science can disprove a miracle.

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. They are virtually identical.

Not sure what you mean by "that man wasn't young in his ability to see" but if you mean he could see before the miracle what has it got to do with your "men don't just get cured instantaneously like that!" example?

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.

Yes you could argue from deism or atheism "that sort of thing doesn't happen" an argument based on incredulity, which is very different from an argument based on evidence showing the order forms for the wine, invoices, shipping forms and import licence matching the wine labels on the jars, and the wine matching the vineyard on the seal.

 

[shernren]

Hey Calminian, I'm sure you believe that Lazarus got old after Jesus resurrected him, and died again, don't you?

And yet, the Bible tells us no such thing. Not only is neither the possibility nor the actuality of Lazarus dying again not mentioned in Scripture, it states quite categorically in Hebrews that it is appointed for man to die once (9:27).

Think carefully about that. You might just find yourself using extra-biblical assumptions to assess the evidence for miracles, just as we do.

 

[philadiddle]

If there is something you feel needs to be addressed, by all means bring it up.

Post #1, does what I say in post 1 make sense to you? Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

 

[Calminian]

I gave an example of how science could disprove a miracle happened,

No you didn't! You gave an example of how testimony could contradict science. Then you called that testimony science. I simply called you on it.

you replied with an example where it didn't.

No again. I gave a reply showing how the testimony of scripture contradicts modern scientific beliefs.

Not sure what you mean by "that man wasn't young in his ability to see" but if you mean he could see before the miracle what has it got to do with your "men don't just get cured instantaneously like that!" example?

I'm not sure what you stumbling on here. It's really quite simple. In you example the man had a new ability to see. Yet, it would have appeared to the uniformitarian thinking that this ability had existed since birth. Again, a very typical consequent of miracles.

Yes you could argue from deism or atheism "that sort of thing doesn't happen" an argument based on incredulity, which is very different from an argument based on evidence showing the order forms for the wine, invoices, shipping forms and import licence matching the wine labels on the jars, and the wine matching the vineyard on the seal.

Again you keep citing testimonial evidence as science. I don't believe you really understand what science is. Printed and written receipts are not science. They are merely written testimony. This is a very bizarre conversation.

 

[philadiddle]

Again you keep citing testimonial evidence as science. I don't believe you really understand what science is. Printed and written receipts are not science. They are merely written testimony. This is a very bizarre conversation.

If Jesus turned water into wine would you expect to see the following:

the order forms for the wine, invoices, shipping forms and import licence matching the wine labels on the jars, and the wine matching the vineyard on the seal

Or would we just have wine? Science works by explaining the facts. If a miracle did indeed occur then we wouldn't expect to see countless facts that contradict it. If we observe all of the above things then the best explanation is that wine was not really miraculously produced. That would be the best explanation of the facts.

Do you understand the difference between having facts that support a miracle and having facts that contradict a miracle?

 

[Calminian]

If Jesus turned water into wine would you expect to see the following:

the order forms for the wine, invoices, shipping forms and import licence matching the wine labels on the jars, and the wine matching the vineyard on the seal

All written testimonial evidence. None of this is scientific evidence.

Or would we just have wine? Science works by explaining the facts.

You don't understand science. Science infers patterns through observation and makes predictions based on those inferences.

If a miracle did indeed occur then we wouldn't expect to see countless facts that contradict it. If we observe all of the above things then the best explanation is that wine was not really miraculously produced. That would be the best explanation of the facts.

Which is exactly why I believe the testimonial evidence in the Bible. It's amazing to me how much more faith you put in a written receipt than the Bible.

 

[philadiddle]

Since you missed it:

Do you understand the difference between having facts that support a miracle and having facts that contradict a miracle?

 

[philadiddle]

All written testimonial evidence. None of this is scientific evidence.

I wasn't asking whether or not you thought that was scientific evidence, I asked if you would expect to see it. You are avoiding the questions.

 

[Calminian]

I wasn't asking whether or not you thought that was scientific evidence, I asked if you would expect to see it. You are avoiding the questions.

So, now you're trying to change the subject of the OP? Why not just admit, you have no scientific evidence for miracles. You're pointing to man's testimonial written evidence.

I never said facts can't supports miracles. I merely said science cannot.

 

[Calminian]

Since you missed it:

Do you understand the difference between having facts that support a miracle and having facts that contradict a miracle?

But the facts you are pointing to are not scientific facts, they are human testimony.

Your "science" says the universe is billions of years old. Testimonial evidence in the Bible says it is not. Why is that?

Let me guess. You say it's not literal. But then why can't we also say those wine receipts were just speaking metaphorically or forged, etc.?

 

[philadiddle]

Calminian you completely miss the point. We would not expect to see those things if wine appeared miraculously. You are getting too hung up on the word "scientific".

So if you ask me to give you evidence of a miracle in the bible such as water being turned into wine, I have no evidence, but I also don't have evidence against it. We do not have those receipts, order forms, etc. If you ask me to give evidence for the resurrection I cannot give direct scientific evidence for it, but there are many facts that support it as christian apologists point out.

When we apply this to the science of the origins of the earth, if the earth was made 6,000 years ago there are things we would not expect to see. We would not expect to see facts that contradict that age. We would not expect to see facts that contradict the seperate creation of different species. The problem for you is that we do have many facts that contradict the YEC view.

You can reply again by nit-picking over "testimony" vs "science" and if that is what you are planning on doing, I encourage you to read through this post a couple more times until you understand the point. Better yet, can you explain to me what point you think I'm trying to make?

 

[Calminian]

Calminian you completely miss the point. We would not expect to see those things if wine appeared miraculously. You are getting too hung up on the word "scientific".

No, I get your point, but I'm trying to help you understand mine. I could make the same argument and say, if the world really is old, we would not expect God's world to say it's young.

So if you ask me to give you evidence of a miracle in the bible such as water being turned into wine, I have no evidence, but I also don't have evidence against it.

Not true. The Bible is a book loaded with corroborating testimony. That is evidence. This was the whole point of Simon Greenleaf's book, the testimony of the evangelists. He was an expert on evidence.

We do not have those receipts, order forms, etc. If you ask me to give evidence for the resurrection I cannot give direct scientific evidence for it, but there are many facts that support it as christian apologists point out.

No, there is actually much evidence Jesus Rose from the dead. There's just no scientific evidence.

When we apply this to the science of the origins of the earth, if the earth was made 6,000 years ago there are things we would not expect to see. We would not expect to see facts that contradict that age. We would not expect to see facts that contradict the seperate creation of different species. The problem for you is that we do have many facts that contradict the YEC view.

But we would expect scientific conjecture to be off in the aftermath of a miracles. And creation was a miracle. And if creation was a miracle we'd expect uniformitarian naturalistic calculations of the age of the earth to be off.

You can reply again by nit-picking over "testimony" vs "science" and if that is what you are planning on doing, I encourage you to read through this post a couple more times until you understand the point. Better yet, can you explain to me what point you think I'm trying to make?

Better yet, why don't you read through my posts 5 o 6 times. You'll have a better chance of following my arguments. Because you've lost this argument badly, you just don't realize it yet.

 

[shernren]

So, now you're trying to change the subject of the OP? Why not just admit, you have no scientific evidence for miracles. You're pointing to man's testimonial written evidence.

I never said facts can't supports miracles. I merely said science cannot.

So now I'm curious about something, Calminian: how much do you support intelligent design?

Because the entire ID movement, from its foundations up, is predicated on there being scientific evidence for a particular miracle: the origin of life (which, according to them and you, must be miraculous).

 

[Calminian]

So now I'm curious about something, Calminian: how much do you support intelligent design?

Because the entire ID movement, from its foundations up, is predicated on there being scientific evidence for a particular miracle: the origin of life (which, according to them and you, must be miraculous).

Actually, I really like the ID movement mainly because of the limitations they put on themselves. They limit their arguments to one subject. Design. Not age of the earth, not the Bible, not even miracles. They simply put forth the idea that design is recognizable through observation, and what we see in the world fits that theory better than random mechanical mindless processes. But they don't touch issues like the age of the earth and cosmos. They don't get into theology at all. Just a very simple thesis. The cosmos has the marks of design.

I have had some correspondence with AIG over the issue however. They think much like I do, but try to make a distinction between operational science and origin science, citing uniformitarianism as the difference. Problem is, I don't think you can ever take uniformitarianism out of science—that is the uniformity of natural laws.

I do admire them greatly, but that's a difference we have. Science can be used to make logical arguments for creation. And I think they do that well. But you can't have actual scientific theories for creation.

 

[shernren]

Actually, I really like the ID movement mainly because of the limitations they put on themselves. They limit their arguments to one subject. Design. Not age of the earth, not the Bible, not even miracles. They simply put forth the idea that design is recognizable through observation, and what we see in the world fits that theory better than random mechanical mindless processes. But they don't touch issues like the age of the earth and cosmos. They don't get into theology at all. Just a very simple thesis. The cosmos has the marks of design.

I have had some correspondence with AIG over the issue however. They think much like I do, but try to make a distinction between operational science and origin science, citing uniformitarianism as the difference. Problem is, I don't think you can ever take uniformitarianism out of science—that is the uniformity of natural laws.

I do admire them greatly, but that's a difference we have. Science can be used to make logical arguments for creation. And I think they do that well. But you can't have actual scientific theories for creation.

But is this "design" they are trying to pin down a naturalistic process? Surely not. In which case it's a miracle, isn't it?

 

[philadiddle]

No, I get your point, but I'm trying to help you understand mine. I could make the same argument and say, if the world really is old, we would not expect God's world to say it's young.

Many theologians disagree that the bible says the earth is young. I'm sure we would go in circles about this theologically, but it can easily be settled by looking at the earth with the scientific tools that God gave us. While the creation of the earth may have been a miracle, the history of the earth can be studied through science.

No, there is actually much evidence Jesus Rose from the dead. There's just no scientific evidence.

How much evidence is there (whether scientific or not) that contradicts the story of Jesus rising from the dead?

But we would expect scientific conjecture to be off in the aftermath of a miracles. And creation was a miracle. And if creation was a miracle we'd expect uniformitarian naturalistic calculations of the age of the earth to be off.

That's right, we would expect them to be off. But strangely a whole bunch of different dating methods all converge on the same conclusion. You'd think they would all give wildly different results. Why do so many independent lines of evidence for the age of the earth all paint the same picture of the earths history?

 

[Calminian]

Many theologians disagree that the bible says the earth is young. I'm sure we would go in circles about this theologically, but it can easily be settled by looking at the earth with the scientific tools that God gave us. While the creation of the earth may have been a miracle, the history of the earth can be studied through science.

They do, but virtually all of them admit they do so because of modern science. I can give you numerous quotes.

How much evidence is there (whether scientific or not) that contradicts the story of Jesus rising from the dead?

Medical science states that people dead for three days cannot under any circumstances be revived, let alone be walking around preaching. If you go and see a doctor, he's going to treat you based on the science they've conducted with all the patients that come before you. That's how medical science works.

...strangely a whole bunch of different dating methods all converge on the same conclusion. You'd think they would all give wildly different results. ...

Actually, I've heard of dating methods varying wildly. Then again, even if there is agreement with some methods that's also be expected, if indeed a miracle happened. If Jesus created wine instantly, there would be several factors that may lead one to a false view of its age. There would also be other anomalies that may suggest it is not old. Perhaps the contain it was in wouldn't show signs of containing wine for a long time. Then skeptics would immediately assert that the wine must have been recently poored into a new container, and the debate would go on and on. Creation scientists, BTW, point to these anomalies all the time:

1. Receding Moon - 750 m.y.a. max
2. Oil Pressure - 5,000 - 10,000 years
3. The Sun - 1,000,000 years max
4. The Oldest Living Thing - 4,900 years max
5. Helium in the Atmosphere- 1,750,000 years max
6. Short Period Comets - 5,000 - 10,000 years
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field - 10,000 years max
8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones - 10,000 - 50,000 years
9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA - 5,000 - 50,000 years
9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones - 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments - 5,000 - 50,000 years
10. Axel Heiberg Island - 5,000 - 10,000 years
11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere - 10,000 years max
12. The Dead Sea - 13,000 years max
13. Niagara Falls - 5,000 - 8,800 years max
14. Historical Records - 5,000 years max
15. The San Andreas Fault - 5,000 - 10,000 years
16. Mitochondrial Eve - 6,500 years
17. Population Growth - 10,000 years max
18. Minerals in the Oceans - Various (mostly young) Ages
19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years
20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources - 10,000 to 50,000 years
21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies -100 - 500 million years (max)
22. Helium and lead in Zircons - 6,000 years

Source

Naturalists then counter with alternative explanations for the anomalies and insist there's must be preferred. I've heard alternative explanations for all of these. That' doesn't mean they are correct.

If the earth really is young via a miracle of God (creation) then we would expect to see data that shows an apparently older than actual age. We would also expect to see anomalies like the ones listed above.

 

[Calminian]

But is this "design" they are trying to pin down a naturalistic process? Surely not. In which case it's a miracle, isn't it?

When walking on the beach and you come across a sand castle or sand sculpture, do you conclude it to be a miracle?