The Science of Miracles

Balstrome · Jun 11, 2011

FutureAndAHope said:
You may never have experience anything to lead you to think any different to that. But my faith is firmly based upon the miraculous. I have seen many time things that convince me of the reality of God, healing, the future predicted in events in my daily life by God's voice, God confirming the bible through signs. To know my experiences visit Know God Personally. Faith is not blind. My faith is firmly based upon what I have. It is not wishful thinking.

What I am asking is can miracles still exist without faith in them, and if so how do they occur. Can you not see that if an event happens, say kettle boiling, there is a process of how it happened, similar if water changed into wine, there must be a process we here in this universe can show how it happened. Where this breaks down, is when there is a need to call in "magic" because there is no other way that the process could be completed.

This is what is unsatisfactory for me. If your God reached into my realm and did stuff, I have to be able to detect that. But that has a very consequence for your God, I think. It lowers your God to the state of being a highly advanced being with better technology that I currently have. So we can use Arthur C. Clarke's quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Note I am not saying either way miracles happen or not, I am just asking that we examine them fully and learn the truth about how they are done. Searching and learning the truth about things is, I think, a worthwhile thing to do and I may even suggest that your God would appreciate this....

skeptonaut · Jun 11, 2011

NNSV said:
Let's treat this like a pseudo-math/science problem. Here is one way it could be scientifically described (especially if you were 50-200 years in the future.)

...

Therefore, Christ, being the Most High God, could have caused a chemical reaction between the ambient CO2 in the air, water in the vessels, and the energy within Himself could have been used to catalyze the reaction, because He would know how to use it (from our definition of a god.)

You were all science up until this point, at which you completely derailed and turned it into a completely non-scientific statement.

You're also making two massive assumptions that you fail to back up scientifically, leaving your argument out of the forum of science to begin with.

There is no more scientific proof for Christianity than there is for Quantum Physics, and as such they are both theories. Islam is another theory. So is Buddhism. Hinduism, etc. They are all conflicting which means either one is true, or they are all false. Until one is scientifically proven over another, they will all be false (logically and rationally).

Quantum Physics has the best head start so far, most likely because the humans working on it are much smarter than ones of the Bronze Age and before. As far as metaphysically, I personally enjoy reading about digital physics. We actually have computers made from DNA (biological material) that can solve square roots (this happened a week ago). Imagine this technology in 200 years, what will we be able to do with computers? Will we make them conscious (since we are creating biological life that can solve computations)? If we make them conscious, that completely suggests the reality that we are just the realization of another species intellect and knowledge. We're just part of a big computer that thinks it's real. Call that "God", but it's way different than the concept of God you believe in.

Pretty wild stuff, and I assume it's false. But it's probably the coolest thought I've heard of so far. Talk about derailing from a topic .

FutureAndAHope · Jun 11, 2011

It lowers your God to the state of being a highly advanced being with better technology that I currently have. So we can use Arthur C. Clarke's quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

There is nothing wrong with that statement in my eyes. It is the scientific opinion that I have of God, I don't know how he heals, all I know is he has done it, I don't know how he communicates, all I know is he has done it.

Spiritlight · Jun 11, 2011

FutureAhope. believe accept love hope and live in peace

oi_antz · Jun 11, 2011

I don't think there needs to be a scientific explanation for miracles to be miracles. I think the point is that sometimes God does things that are extra-ordinary and people witness it. Now if you are going to say that certain specific miracles never happened because you can't make scientific sense of it or even conceive in your mind how it happened then I think you are making a false assumption (that is to assume that the disciples lied). I have witnessed a miracle that science probably can't explain: how does a leg that is 4 inches shorter than the other grow to be the same length in a matter of seconds at the same precise moment we are praying for it to happen? If science can explain that then I'll be impressed.

Traveller and Wiley · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
Now I realise that Christians tend not to want to know how these things where done

Interesting topic, but when you preface it by insulting us, that's probably a good sign that nothing productive will come from discussing this with you.

drich0150 · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
Now I realise that Christians tend not to want to know how these things where done, and I have some idea why that is so. But does the question not make you wonder how these feats where preformed? Lets take the first miracle of Jesus, I believe it was the Water into Wine. How did he do that?

I am not interested in why he did it, just what processes he could have used to do it? Anyone?

And you believe that "science" has all of the answers to the "how things were done" questions?

Want and desire to the nature of how (especially when there is no evidence) something was done, does not mean the answer you have is correct.

For example How did the big bang happen? why? Tangible Evidence only Please.

Balstrome · Jun 11, 2011

To summarize so far, from the theists, we have the basic statement that one should not question how miracles are done, and should just accept that they are real. And the non theists seem to be on the other side, in questioning how things happen.

Seeing that this will not progress further I would like to ask theist's why they do not want to question how miracles, which ever one's they choose, are done? Can they give an answer to that question?

Balstrome · Jun 11, 2011

drich0150 said:
And you believe that "science" has all of the answers to the "how things were done" questions?

Want and desire to the nature of how (especially when there is no evidence) something was done, does not mean the answer you have is correct.

For example How did the big bang happen? why? Tangible Evidence only Please.

Big bang? How much do you actually know about it? Do you want me to go over the whole physics of it? And sorry if this seems rude, but are you capable of understanding the physics behind the theory of the big bang? I could spew a wall of text and I KNOW that you will not read it, let alone understand what it is all about. Because your question is not an honest one, you really do not want to know about the Big Bang, or you would have found out about it, for yourself already and would not have had the need to ask that question. But I guess that I am going to be called rude for saying this.

Science may still have a small few questions left to answer, but it has the ability and will to actually answer these questions, not like some other fields, which make unfounded statements about knowing things that they could not possibly know.

mandyangel · Jun 11, 2011

There is no science in a miracle. A miracle is a work of God, a magical doing that only God has the power to preform. Science only measures what is measurable and God's love and power reach such depths that no science on Earth could ever measure.

drich0150 · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
Big bang? How much do you actually know about it? Do you want me to go over the whole physics of it? And sorry if this seems rude, but are you capable of understanding the physics behind the theory of the big bang? I could spew a wall of text and I KNOW that you will not read it, let alone understand what it is all about. Because your question is not an honest one, you really do not want to know about the Big Bang, or you would have found out about it, for yourself already and would not have had the need to ask that question. But I guess that I am going to be called rude for saying this.

Click to expand...

If you think a flourish of you best and brightest knowledge will dazzle me away from the fact that despite your mastery of the THEORITICAL "physics" you have no actual tangible proof. Then do your worst, please.. just know at the end of your efforts i will still be demanding real tangible proof, not a page full of equations that might be considered proof if you follow this one guy's work, but not this guy, or that guys work to a point and then supplement that with...
-Proof! You have it or you don't.

At the end of the day my good man you don't!
Heck we have more "proof" of God than you do of the theory that you have been dared to produce.
Know that no matter your efforts, equations and theory is not the proof that you have required from us, nor will it be good enough to satisfy the cross examination that is pointing to this gaping double standard that has escaped your opening "observations." (So no plagiarism please)

Science may still have a small few questions left to answer, but it has the ability and will to actually answer these questions, not like some other fields, which make unfounded statements about knowing things that they could not possibly know.

Click to expand...

Again, I point to the fact you still have and always will have unanswered questions. So tell me again how is it your faith differs from mine?

(hope I wasn't too rude.. I was going for unsettling, or quite possibly looking to stir you peace, but not rude.)

Balstrome · Jun 11, 2011

mandyangel said:
There is no science in a miracle. A miracle is a work of God, a magical doing that only God has the power to preform. Science only measures what is measurable and God's love and power reach such depths that no science on Earth could ever measure.

I am sorry to say that you are talking nonsense here. If the miracle occurs in this world, then we would see it's effects and we should be able to determine how those effects came about. What your statement actually means is that your God does stuff in this world, that no one can detect.

The basis of my question is that miracles being detectable and testable, would provide real evidence for the existence of your God. But the opposite seems to be true, in that most supplied miracles almost always turn out to be of mundane origin.

Balstrome · Jun 11, 2011

drich0150 said:
Balstrome said:

If you think a flourish of you best and brightest knowledge will dazzle me away from the fact that despite your mastery of the THEORITICAL "physics" you have no actual tangible proof.

Click to expand...

So you are suggesting that 1 +1 = 2 is incorrect because it is theoretical? Yes, 1 + 1 = 2 is a theoretical statement, but you accept it without tangible proof. The reason why you accept this statement, is because you actually understand what it means and this allows you to accept it without tangible proof.

Now the theory of the Big Bang is similar, just that you do not understand the theory behind it. If you did you would see how you are mistaken. The Big Bang theory requires more calculations because it's more complex, and the best thing about it, is that these equations are totally unbiased, a Christian Fundamentalist will get the same answers from them as a Hindu guru. All it takes it the ability to understand what the equations are about.

As to real tangible proof, I would also suggest that you have not idea what this would be. So why not tell me what you consider to be real tangible proof for the Big Bang, and I will see if I can provide it for you.

Science by definition does not allow faith, if one person's idea is shown to be incorrect, then it is discarded and a better idea is developed. Science has no dogma, it improves itself as new evidence becomes available.

Anyway, you will not hurt yourself if you actually took some time to read and understand what the Big Bang theory or any of the other "hot" theories where all about. No one learned anything by only reading one book, you know.

I am never upset about these types of debates, because it only about the ideas each of us have, and has nothing to do with us a person, at least that is the way I behave.

drich0150 · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
So you are suggesting that 1 +1 = 2 is incorrect because it is theoretical? Yes, 1 + 1 = 2 is a theoretical statement, but you accept it without tangible proof. The reason why you accept this statement, is because you actually understand what it means and this allows you to accept it without tangible proof.

You are loosing credibility points with this one. Even if the simple equation is theoretical by it nature, it's premise can be proven with tangible proof. For instance if Johnny's mother gave him and apple, and if I gave Johnny an apple that would mean he has two apples.(1+1=2) Even if you want to consider the equation in this argument "theoretical." The underlining principle could be tangibly proven.

Now the theory of the Big Bang is similar, just that you do not understand the theory behind it. If you did you would see how you are mistaken. The Big Bang theory requires more calculations because it's more complex, and the best thing about it, is that these equations are totally unbiased, a Christian Fundamentalist will get the same answers from them as a Hindu guru. All it takes it the ability to understand what the equations are about.

Nice try but no. Why can I simply dismiss your belief, your faith so quickly without having any more knowledge that every science channel/Discovery channel documentary on the subject can provide me? Simply because on the better documentaries they always offer several Different accounts, siting different physicists and or different scientists that give a (yes you guessed it) DIFFERENT take on all of the same evidence.. Which makes which every version of "proofieness" you choose to believe in, an exercise of the very same faith, we use to believe in God.

Faith that your science or math guy is right, faith that the other top ten competing theories are not. Faith that your guy doesn't have a alliterative motive that is fueling his work which causes him to fudge the numbers or whatever it is you are banking on.. Let's face it, if You Were Smart Enough To Figure This All Out On Your Own, We would be having a completely different conversation. Which again points to your faith that the horse you bet on will come in before mine.

(Remember not rude, just trying to stir your joy a little.)

As to real tangible proof, I would also suggest that you have not idea what this would be. So why not tell me what you consider to be real tangible proof for the Big Bang, and I will see if I can provide it for you.

Lol so.. Let me see if I got this straight.. "Science" doesn't know what tangible proof would look like 100 trillion years or what ever, after said event would look like (Otherwise I would be looking at in my documentaries) So you ask that I do your research for you..

Tell you what, if you come up with "tangible proof" as to how Christ turned water to wine i will promise to spend all of my free time(till I get bored with it) googling for the proof you are looking for...

Science by definition does not allow faith, if one person's idea is shown to be incorrect, then it is discarded and a better idea is developed. Science has no dogma, it improves itself as new evidence becomes available.

Two things:
sci·ence

   /ˈsaɪ əns/

Show Spelled[sahy-uh ns]

Show IPA
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

1)The definition neither includes or excludes faith in it's definition

2)I did not say "science had faith." I said YOU HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE.

Anyway, you will not hurt yourself if you actually took some time to read and understand what the Big Bang theory or any of the other "hot" theories where all about. No one learned anything by only reading one book, you know.

The 'ol insult and dismiss the intelligence(of the one you are arguing with) in a desperate attempt to regain the illusion of control of this conversation.. Trick.

Just FYI it is usually better to lead with this particular desperate act, rather than spend time and energy defending and justifying yourself before the "mental defective" just to dismiss him?? (that is if you want to sacrifice integrity for credibility.) However as it is your explanations coupled with this statement has robbed you of both.

I am never upset about these types of debates, because it only about the ideas each of us have, and has nothing to do with us a person, at least that is the way I behave.

Says the new guy just after he implied the Jesus freak was ignorant, and tried to dismiss all of his work.

razeontherock · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
You do realise that you have just made a claim and as such need to back it up with evidence if you want me to accept that what you say is correct. Where in today's world, lets say the last 200 years, are there any unnatural events that defy explanation by science? Lets make it easy, show just one such event.

And you would like to verify this online? How silly. It comes down to personal testimony, which is not yours. Until you have such for yourself, it is meaningless to you because you cannot overcome without it.

"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony" (Rev 12:11)

You are surrounded by those with personal testimony. and if you'd go back just a bit longer than 200 years, you'd see our Founding Fathers crediting G-d with miracles, enabling victory in their revolutionary war. Which makes the modern claim that they were Deists quite foolish. Yet your acceptance of (our own, personal) miracles is not our goal here:

Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

razeontherock · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
The only disciple that I respect is Thomas.

You are aware that the whole point of that story is that it was not any physical act the he believed, but that he came to recognize just like Peter did, that Jesus was the Promised Christ?

razeontherock · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
If your Boss does not pay you, you still can take the photocopy machine in lieu of payment. Or seek other means to get your coin.

Or be left with nothing. Yes, faith is required to go to work for an employer.

razeontherock · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
To summarize so far, from the theists, we have the basic statement that one should not question how miracles are done, and should just accept that they are real. And the non theists seem to be on the other side, in questioning how things happen.

Seeing that this will not progress further I would like to ask theist's why they do not want to question how miracles, which ever one's they choose, are done? Can they give an answer to that question?

Strawman.

razeontherock · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
Because your question is not an honest one, you really do not want to know about G-d's miraculous Power, or you would have found out about it, for yourself already and would not have had the need to ask that question.

Shoe fits, eh?

razeontherock · Jun 11, 2011

Balstrome said:
If the miracle occurs in this world, then we would see it's effects and we should be able to determine how those effects came about. What your statement actually means is that your God does stuff in this world, that no one can detect.

Sir, you are the one being nonsensical. Part of what makes a miracle a miracle, is that it is not repeatable. Thus, it is beyond the realm of science. That you cannot comprehend it would be, you know, your problem ...

If there was "something" that no one can detect, that would, by definition, be "nothing."

Balstrome said:
The basis of my question is that miracles being detectable and testable, would provide real evidence for the existence of your God. But the opposite seems to be true, in that most supplied miracles almost always turn out to be of mundane origin.

More nonsense! Doctors testify of miracles all the time. This doesn't make the testable, nor repeatable. Tested, as in cancerous tumors are found, but gone without a trace before surgery can be performed. You can't explain it so you pout?

The Science of Miracles

Newbie

Newbie

Just me

✰•.¸¸★•*´¨`*•.¸.✰

Opposed to Untruth.

Active Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

✰•.¸¸★•´¨`•.¸.✰