Supernatural Miracles in relation to creation and te.

[charityagape]

I tried my best to shoehorn myself into any of the alternatives and I thought the last one (before "other") was the easiest to start explaining from.

We don't have any really good reason to doubt that any of the miracles in the Bible happened if there is no reason to find physical evidence today that will contradict them. E.g. Jesus walks on water. We have no idea what physical constants He changed, how He changed them, and how long the effect lasted. In any case, we don't see anybody walking on water today, meaning that whatever physically happened has never happened again since. Therefore it would be really hard to disprove the historicality of Jesus walking on water.

On the other hand, the creation miracles YECs invoke would have left substantial evidence (unless one subscribes to Apparent Age-ism). TEs believe that the substantial evidence necessary to prove those creation miracles cannot be found today, in fact there appears to be substantial evidence against those creation miracles having happened in a detectable manner. Therefore given the existence of plausible alternative theological views we don't fancy YECism.

I think chaoschristian was right. A simple "what do you think about ... ?" question with you making clear that you didn't want debate posts would have done well or better. But I think that yes, you do have the right to know how we think, and I hope the written responses here have helped you there

Thanks, good post. And thanks for generalizing, I know the poll can't specifically address everything, and its not meant too, its simply to determine if there's a general correlation of believing in supernatural miracles and believing in TE or C.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Thanks, good post. And thanks for generalizing, I know the poll can't specifically address everything, and its not meant too, its simply to determine if there's a general correlation of believing in supernatural miracles and believing in TE or C.

Then why didn't you ask that?

Sure, I accept that supernatural miricals can take place.

 

[Deamiter]

Don't really mean to reject the poll by voting "other" but I don't fit with any on a slightly different ground.

I believe that ALL of the miracles in the Bible COULD have had a naturalistic explanation. But as a scientist, I do not use the word "probably" unless I really do think there is a greater than 50% chance of this being true.

Further, you've constructed the poll to address every Biblical miracle BUT creation. In the eyes of a scientist, creation might be the only event that COULD NOT be natural and therefore must have had a supernatural cause.

I was really leaning toward the option where most miracles probably have naturalistic explanations, but my real position is that most miracles COULD have had naturalistic explanations. Further, my position is that the way God performed a particular miracle affects my faith very little so it's not really worth making a true/false judgement in each case.

 

[artybloke]

Sorry - another other otherwise known as not fitting into boxes assigned for me for someone else.

My position's basically chaoschristian's: what difference does it make to my faith? Zilch, frankly.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry to add another "other", but it really is my only option. Reasons:

1. The biblical term for "miracle" literally means "sign" i.e. a sign of God's presence and power and care for his people. Whether that sign is natural or supernatural is irrelevant.

2. We don't have enough information in most cases to decide whether a particular sign is natural or supernatural. It may have seemed supernatural at the time, but, given enough detail, we may consider it natural today.

3. What Deamiter said. Although I hold that most (perhaps all) miracles could have a natural explanation, I can't say they did or probably did. Just because we can speculate on a possible natural cause doesn't mean that is the way it happened.

Conclusion: in terms of natural/supernatural, all we can say is that in some cases we have a natural explanation and in some cases we have no explanation. No explanation does not necessitate a supernatural explanation. It only leaves the door open.

What we do have in every case is a sign of God's presence and power and care for his people. And that is the point of the miracle.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I tried my best to shoehorn myself into any of the alternatives and I thought the last one (before "other") was the easiest to start explaining from.

We don't have any really good reason to doubt that any of the miracles in the Bible happened if there is no reason to find physical evidence today that will contradict them. E.g. Jesus walks on water. We have no idea what physical constants He changed, how He changed them, and how long the effect lasted. In any case, we don't see anybody walking on water today, meaning that whatever physically happened has never happened again since. Therefore it would be really hard to disprove the historicality of Jesus walking on water.

On the other hand, the creation miracles YECs invoke would have left substantial evidence (unless one subscribes to Apparent Age-ism). TEs believe that the substantial evidence necessary to prove those creation miracles cannot be found today, in fact there appears to be substantial evidence against those creation miracles having happened in a detectable manner. Therefore given the existence of plausible alternative theological views we don't fancy YECism.

I think chaoschristian was right. A simple "what do you think about ... ?" question with you making clear that you didn't want debate posts would have done well or better. But I think that yes, you do have the right to know how we think, and I hope the written responses here have helped you there

I don't think we should use the "does not contradict physical evidence" standard. I think an "occurs in a section that intends to relate history" standard is sufficient.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

It's a poll. Edit: Try not to use other, unless your answer is vastly different from any of the options listed.

Sorry, but ...
I assume that unless there is evidence to the contrary, as is the case for much of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, any miracle described may have occured.

Pretty much outside of Christ's resurrection and the creation of humanity (however that occured) whether or not any particular miracle occured is not terribly relevent to me, I am much more interested in what is being taught.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Sorry to add another "other", but it really is my only option. Reasons:

1. The biblical term for "miracle" literally means "sign" i.e. a sign of God's presence and power and care for his people. Whether that sign is natural or supernatural is irrelevant.

2. We don't have enough information in most cases to decide whether a particular sign is natural or supernatural. It may have seemed supernatural at the time, but, given enough detail, we may consider it natural today.

The crossing of the Red Sea has been postulated to be feasable through a sustained wind moving the water to a point where bare lake bottom would be available for walking.

The ceasing of the flow of the river shortly before the fall of the walls of Jericho has been suggested as a sign that an earth quake caused the walls to fall (not withstanding that the dating of that collapse is problematical archeologically)

These would have been natural phenomina, their timing would seem to be ... odd at the least.