Shroud of Turin

[PaulSacramento]

We should remember that God didn't create the laws of Physics, we did.
We observed and put names to certain patterns and things that we understand as undeniable.
That said, what is natural for a human is that we die and once we die, we do NOT come back to life.
Are there exceptions?
Yes, NDE that have been recorded show that people can be viewed as dead and return to life after a short period of time.
BUT there is no record a ANY HUMAN being dead for more than 1 hour ( much less over 48 hours) and come back to life.
It simply is NOT within the nature of humanity to come back to life after being dead for days.
So, if it happened, it is OUTSIDE humankind's nature and it would NOT be NATURAL for humans.
The event itself would not have any natural explanation as we know it.
And when an event that happens can not be explained by nature or natural laws, it is by definition, a supernatural event.

[Byblos]

If God created the laws of physics why can't he also break them ?

Bip, follow me for a second here as I think I know where Hugh is coming from.

For starters, to state that God is violating the laws of physics is to imply we know all there is to know about the laws of physics. Clearly that's not the case so we ought to at least refrain from saying that. There could very well be a natural explanation for what we deem to be miracles. Let me explain.

The resurrection: Are there instances in nature where living things that die can be brought back to life? Of course there are. There are many forms of life that remain frozen for centuries then brought back to life. This is particularly true for plant life. The point being God can very well use a natural mechanism that already exists with the resurrection. The 'miracle' is not the act of bringing something or someone back to life but its unique applicability in one instance to one person.

The virginal birth: Same idea. There are many examples of asexual reproduction in nature. Again it is the unique applicability of such in one instance to one person that we consider miraculous but the mechanism is non-controversial.

This idea can be extended to virtually anything we tend to think of as a miracle. It is not that the mechanism of the event is supernatural but 1) its applicability where it doesn't seem to fit, and more importantly (in my opinion), 2) its timing (this latter point having to do with fulfillment of prophesies).

Some time ago I watched a documentary on the miracles of the Exodus (the 10 plagues), it is called The Exodus Decoded. It lays out a case that explains every single event, including the parting of the Red Sea, with a series of natural phenomena that may have occurred at the time (complete with historical/archaeological evidence for such). I don't know if I buy the documented cases but even if we were to assume they are true, the miracles, taken one at a time, are nothing more than phenomena that happened in nature. But when we factor in their timing, their succession, and their prior predictedness, that, in my opinion is the true miracle.

In summary, God may very well bring about (cause, if you will) certain events through naturally-occurring phenomena to accomplish an end, even if we don't currently understand the underlying mechanisms.

[hughfarey]

Gosh, this is tiring!

RickD: your comment "If you don't believe anything exists outside the natural world, how do you explain God?
He isn't outside nature? Do you believe He created the natural world?" is sensible. The character of God is obviously not completely accessible, but I believe that what we can know about him from his creation is a fair reflection of his character. As far as we know, the universe is extremely rational, and follows very precisely a set of immutable laws. That, to my mind, is a reflection of the character of its creator. So, although there is indeed a sense in which he is 'outside nature' (since neither nature nor the laws of nature were necessarily inevitable), there is also a sense in which, as nature reflects his character, he is a sublimely 'natural' being. That being so, and God being all powerful, although it would be rash to say that God cannot break his own rules, it is less rash to say that he chooses not to.

Katabole: "The resurrection still requires the laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics to accomplish but it is of such a supremely advanced level that humans have yet to comprehend how it worked." Your inside knowledge of how the Resurrection was accomplished is impressive. I wonder how you know?

Katabole: "What??? [... et seq.]" Do read what I wrote; that way you'll be able to understand it better.

RickD: "Hugh didn't say the resurrection isn't particularly important for Christianity." Thank you, Rick. You wouldn't like to repeat it in capital letters, would you?

Katabole: "If God created the laws of physics why can't he also break them?" He can. Of course he can. But he doesn't have to, and I don't think he does.

Katabole: "... people saying that God must work a certain way." Which people? I don't know anyone who thinks God must work in a certain way - except those commenters on this thread who insist the Shroud must be miraculous.

Katabole: "Hugh I don't think that the pope means what you think he means when he said that God isn't a magician waving his magic wand." Really? Have you read the context in which he said it?

Katabole: "when natural causes have been exhausted they will use a supernatural explanation." They certainly used to, but they are getting much more circumspect. An interesting record of the Catholic church's understanding of miracles can be found in the citations of the 'miraculous' cures at Lourdes, which, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were clearly assumed to be direct divine interventions outside any possible natural cause. The latest (2013), was "unexplained according to current scientific knowledge."

[Philip]

No, no, no, no, no, Bippy and Philip, you miss the point entirely. You haven't read my post at all! The painter washes off his painting, which looks nothing like the image on the Shroud. The image appears miraculously, together with its pollens and limestone, during the night!

What's wrong with that?

If Jesus actually did what Scripture says He did. And if, His former brutalized dead body, and after multiple days, was resurrected to life, and if His dead body was wrapped in two separate burial coverings - then why would God create some miraculous artifact that was disconnected from what Scripture actually says what happened? Why would such be necessary? Wouldn't that be like some unnecessary advertising for what actually happened? Would people not believe it to be the REAL deal, as opposed to an unconnected but symbolic artifact? Would that not be deliberately deceptive? I mean, fake blood, fake wounds, all that? Even if miraculous, it wouldn't be authentic as a result of Jesus Resurrection. Again, if the Resurrection occurred as stated in Scripture, why would we doubt that such an artifact might well result? That shouldn't even be the question. The real question should be: Is the Shroud the burial garment of the risen Christ or not?

Hugh, this "fake"/miracle artifact speculation, disconnected from the actual event, is a strange thing for you to speculate upon? Do you not believe Jesus physically died, His lifeless body lay in a tomb over those three days, miraculously rising back to life on the third one? What do you precisely believe about the story of this that is recorded in the Gospels? Accurate or not? Answering these would be helpful!

[PaulSacramento]

In summary, God may very well bring about (cause, if you will) certain events through naturally-occurring phenomena to accomplish an end, even if we don't currently understand the underlying mechanisms.

Yes, He could have done that with the resurrection ( including healing the body and giving it the special powers/abilities the Gospels say it had)
You do realize what that would mean though, right?

[Byblos]

In summary, God may very well bring about (cause, if you will) certain events through naturally-occurring phenomena to accomplish an end, even if we don't currently understand the underlying mechanisms.

Yes, He could have done that with the resurrection ( including healing the body and giving it the special powers/abilities the Gospels say it had)
You do realize what that would mean though, right?

I think I know where you may be going with this but I don't want to guess wrong so why don't you just tell me what it would mean.

[PaulSacramento]

In summary, God may very well bring about (cause, if you will) certain events through naturally-occurring phenomena to accomplish an end, even if we don't currently understand the underlying mechanisms.

Yes, He could have done that with the resurrection ( including healing the body and giving it the special powers/abilities the Gospels say it had)
You do realize what that would mean though, right?

I think I know where you may be going with this but I don't want to guess wrong so why don't you just tell me what it would mean.

If the resurrection of Christ was a natural event then why follow Christ?
It would meant that, eventually, another person will also resurrect and that there would be no difference between them and Jesus.
Remember, many people have been crucified and I am sure many of them died for others also BUT onlY ONE resurrected.
BUT if it was a natural, albeit one time event possibly, it means that the person has no special claim to make.

[Byblos]

In summary, God may very well bring about (cause, if you will) certain events through naturally-occurring phenomena to accomplish an end, even if we don't currently understand the underlying mechanisms.

Yes, He could have done that with the resurrection ( including healing the body and giving it the special powers/abilities the Gospels say it had)
You do realize what that would mean though, right?

I think I know where you may be going with this but I don't want to guess wrong so why don't you just tell me what it would mean.

If the resurrection of Christ was a natural event then why follow Christ?
It would meant that, eventually, another person will also resurrect and that there would be no difference between them and Jesus.

Remember, many people have been crucified and I am sure many of them died for others also BUT onlY ONE resurrected.
BUT if it was a natural, albeit one time event possibly, it means that the person has no special claim to make.

I don't follow your reasoning. First I would most certainly hope everyone, not just another person, will eventually resurrect for the resurrection of the body is a basic tenet of Christian Orthodoxy. Second, how exactly do you know that God won't use the same mechanism, albeit for those newly deceased and can be reunited with their bodies in the resurrection of the dead?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
We should remember that God didn't create the laws of Physics, we did.

What?
Are you saying that Sir Isaac Newton didn't discover gravity, he invented it?

[RickD]

Hugh wrote:

RickD: your comment "If you don't believe anything exists outside the natural world, how do you explain God?
He isn't outside nature? Do you believe He created the natural world?" is sensible. The character of God is obviously not completely accessible, but I believe that what we can know about him from his creation is a fair reflection of his character. As far as we know, the universe is extremely rational, and follows very precisely a set of immutable laws. That, to my mind, is a reflection of the character of its creator. So, although there is indeed a sense in which he is 'outside nature' (since neither nature nor the laws of nature were necessarily inevitable), there is also a sense in which, as nature reflects his character, he is a sublimely 'natural' being. That being so, and God being all powerful, although it would be rash to say that God cannot break his own rules, it is less rash to say that he chooses not to.

But Hugh,

How could God create something He's not outside of?

[Philip]

Hugh: That being so, and God being all powerful, although it would be rash to say that God cannot break his own rules, it is less rash to say that he chooses not to.

How is it that the Resurrection doesn't break the normal rules of how all humans die, and unless resuscitated almost immediately, DIE - and STAY dead?

As for God breaking His rules. What He will not do is sin. But, throughout Scripture, God gave one directive to Israel, only to later change it. Polygamy was once the rule with the patriarchs of Israel. Later, one man and one woman was. Think of the many ceremonial laws Israel was to follow - only later to be done away with. Is that God breaking His rules? Or is that not governing His creations as He so sees fit, in whatever specific place and time He does? What I'm starting to get a sense of here, with Hugh - and maybe I am very wrong - but it's that God IS nature - almost like the Einstein or Jeffersonian Deist god - He's mostly a God of the precision clocks that run the universe, except, perhaps, leaning towards a New Age twist, in that, God IS nature.

BTW, God DID create the normative laws of nature - which are merely the set parameters as to how things are designed to function, TYPICALLY.

[Katabole]

Hi Bipp. Not sure if you intended this for me or Hugh. Byblos' response was excellent.

If God created the laws of physics why can't he also break them ?

I do not believe God would break His own laws. The same way that God will not lie, He will not break His covenant, He will not violate His own will and He will not give His glory to another. There are certain things that God will not do. If God works in a certain way, it is the way He has outlined in Scripture.

As He says,

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;...

I do believe however, that there are many laws of Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics that humanity has not discovered and may never discover but God knows those laws and the full extent of what those laws can do and it is evidently some set of highly advanced laws that were required to resurrect the physically dead body of Jesus into a new resurrected body. Evidently, in the heavenly dimension, there must be quite a different set of laws but they would nonetheless be laws, just a lot more advanced that what we are familiar with in this Universe.

It would be some kind of similar set of laws for example, when Jesus healed those who were blind or deaf. In order to heal a blind person, that is, to make a working eye from a blind eye, or to create a working ear from a deaf ear, Jesus would have had to have the ability to manipulate matter on the subatomic and level and then rearrange it and to do so virtually instantaneously. It would still require, chemistry, mathematics and physics of an extremely highly advanced sort. But if you were the person who created those laws and had absolute power to use them, then they would certainly seem miraculous, seeing as the word miracle comes from the Latin, "miraculum", something wondered at.

I do not want to limit God. I believe God has already put limits on Himself. But I do not want to claim something like, "Can God create a rock that not even He can lift?" Or, "Can God force me to love Him without violating my free will?" That type of thinking would come under the Omnipotence Paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

[hughfarey]

I think we're getting towards comprehension, even if not agreement! Yes, RickD, God is "outside" nature, and no, Philip, God is not "nature". However, I believe "nature" is an expression of the character of God, not a random decision on how to make a universe. Omnipotence means the ability to do whatever you want, so our inquiries here are not about what God could or couldn't do, but what he wanted to do, and I think he wanted, and still wants, the universe to be rational. It follows a vast eternal trajectory according to the "laws" he created (no, Philip, man did not create the laws of physics, they were around long before man evolved), and will eventually result in fulfilling its purpose.

[Kurieuo]

Let me place down another boundary, which addresses Paul's concern (both Pauls):

12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Cor 15:12-17)

Who raised Christ from the dead? This can't be natural in any sense of the term. The overriding force is an agent.

Either we believe Christ's resurrection was a purposeful divine act, or else no one will pass from God's righteous judgement but will receive their due condemnation. Christians in fact are to be most pitied (as many Atheists no doubt pity us) because we think we're saved but are lost. Such is just Christianity 101.

Hugh, it is difficult to know where you lie in it all, but I'll simply place down another marker in the other direction and say however you explain the resurrection, it needs to be compatible and coherently paired with the Apostle's words. I once had an Anglican lecturer who wrote his thesis on Christ's resurrection being a spiritual one, not a physical one. This makes Christianity no better than Hinduism, Islam or the many other man-made religions of the world.

[RickD]

I think we're getting towards comprehension, even if not agreement! Yes, RickD, God is "outside" nature, and no, Philip, God is not "nature". However, I believe "nature" is an expression of the character of God, not a random decision on how to make a universe. Omnipotence means the ability to do whatever you want, so our inquiries here are not about what God could or couldn't do, but what he wanted to do, and I think he wanted, and still wants, the universe to be rational. It follows a vast eternal trajectory according to the "laws" he created (no, Philip, man did not create the laws of physics, they were around long before man evolved), and will eventually result in fulfilling its purpose.

If God is outside nature, then you agree that the supernatural does exist?