Evidence for God from Science

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

bippy123 wrote: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[/quote
It was intended for Hugh , but I didn't mean God would break a promise or covenant .
Perhaps I should have worded it better .

What I mean is that God can most certainly temporarily interrupt or suspend the laws of physics . Isn't that what the supernatural means anyways ?

bippy123 wrote:What I mean is that God can most certainly temporarily interrupt or suspend the laws of physics .

Yes, I fully agree.

When people say that God doesn't change, they need to be careful about what they are saying that truly means. His Holy Character, Divine Nature, Perfection, All knowingness, eternalness - all of these type of things will NEVER change with God. But does God forever take the same approach in whatever He might do or create - FOREVER, without change. Clearly, that is not what is meant by God's unchangeableness. And such would limit God from doing whatever He wants to, and whenever He wants to do it - unless it is sinful. Saying there are limits upon God, excepting sin, well, that's just ridiculous. Like Bip said, God can interrupt whatever normalacy He has established, in any moment He so desires. Really, I'm not getting this debate - is it to say that certain things (like the Shroud) are impossible because they would appear to transcend what is commonly observed in human death?

Philip wrote: Really, I'm not getting this debate - is it to say that certain things (like the Shroud) are impossible because they would appear to transcend what is commonly observed in human death?

No, I don't think so.
I think one side - mine - thinks that it is probably not necessary to invoke an explanation beyond the laws of physics to account for the image on the Shroud, and the other side - yours - thinks that this means I am attempting to constrict the abilities of God.
I think that the difficulties of producing the image 'naturally' from a dead body are, according to current experiment, greater than the difficulties of producing it by artificial means, which encourages me think that it is more likely to have been produced in the 14th century. You think that this is denying the power of God.
I say I don't know what exactly happened at the Resurrection, or the formation of the Shroud. You think I'm an obstinate bigot.
Actually, I don't think I'm getting this debate either...

I'm not sure why y'all are debating over the mechanics, either. It started with Him and progressed from His will. How did He do it? Does it really matter? At all? And I'm more of the camp of rejecting the supernatural because I reject the notion of it. There is no illusive separation between natural and 'supernatural'. We know reason comes from Him (and inseparable from His 'other qualities') and is always 'used' by Him. Anyways, not trying to jump in here, just my .02c.

Am quite curious though, how is it still thought the shroud is a medieval fake (or created then?). From what I've read from the scientists involved it's apparent the part of the shroud tested at that time was part of a repair and not the actual shroud. Wasn't it re-tested to BC-AD period (or early AD?)?

Debating mechanics? DEBATING MECHANICS!!!?
You're just trying to join in now methinks!

Mallz wrote:I'm not sure why y'all are debating over the mechanics, either.

Hi, Mallz, good of you to drop in. The mechanics of what, precisely? We are not debating the mechanics because:

a) I don't know what the mechanics of the Resurrection are, and don't think it matters very much. There's not enough evidence to pursue anyway. I'm interested in the mechanics of how the Turin Shroud image was made, but we seem to have drifted away from that...
b) My interlocutors think the EXACT (their capitals) nature of the Resurrection is VITAL (their capitals), but they don't seem to want to investigate it. They think the word 'miracle' or 'divine' covers it.

From what I've read from the scientists involved ...

Have you in fact read anything from the scientists involved? I recommend my own modest offering, at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n78part9.pdf, The Mystery of the Invisible Patch, which gives all the 'scientists involved' paper in the references at the end, or even http://shroud.com/pdfs/n82part4.pdf, Invisible Weaving, which is illustrated by actual examples.

Wasn't it re-tested to BC-AD period (or early AD?)?

No.

Supernatural:

The supernatural is defined as events or things that cannot be explained by nature or science and that are assumed to come from beyond or to originate from otherworldly forces.

How can anyone reject this? Could someone please explain what I'm missing? Seems simply obvious.

RickD wrote:

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?

No, sorry.
I meant that we create what we call the Laws of Physics, we put them into words.
Create is probably the wrong word.
Newton discovered gravity but he formulated/created the law of gravity.

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?

So all those that will be resurrected will be the same as Jesus?
No, of course not, that is why the NATURE of the resurrection is important.

hughfarey wrote:I think that the difficulties of producing the image 'naturally' from a dead body are, according to current experiment, greater than the difficulties of producing it by artificial means,

I'm with you so far (assuming the statement is true, which it may or may not be).

hughfarey wrote: which encourages me think that it is more likely to have been produced in the 14th century.

Aaaaand then you lost me. But why this leap? There's a fallacy in your logic somewhere but I can't pinpoint it. Is there such a thing as the unconnected middle fallacy? Too lazy to look it up.

Well, if God can't/won't break the Laws of Physics that the universe seems to have to "obey", then where did the universe come from?
God as sustainer AND creator of the universe caused the universe to come into being from nothing, which, according to the laws of this universe, can't happen since something CANNOT come from nothing.

The Laws of this universe are statement of observation of how things work in this universe,nothing more and nothing less.

The argument is really simple:
Either one accepts the possibility of the supernatural being an option or one doesn't.

Hugh obviously doesn't and that is why he holds fast to the view that it must be a 14th century "whateveritis" ( since he hasn't actually told us what he thinks it may be).

PaulSacramento wrote:The argument is really simple:
Either one accepts the possibility of the supernatural being an option or one doesn't.

Hugh obviously doesn't and that is why he holds fast to the view that it must be a 14th century "whateveritis" ( since he hasn't actually told us what he thinks it may be).

Either there are only two possibilities, or else there are more.