Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Mallz wrote:
I agree, Phillip. What happens when you inject a more pure fuel into an engine over regular grade? Or what happens to a body when pumped with fluids and antibiotics and other medicines to enhance the bodies ability to heal and go back to homeostasis (as naturally intended)? You call miraculous what I see as Him directly interacting with us. How He does? Again, mechanics. I know thought is involved. What He does to exist that thought, is mechanics. Of course we can't duplicate it in our current state, and if ever (in our glorified state) we know as you say, it's still Him. Which should just be a natural dwelling state for us.

Mallz,

None of what you mentioned is miraculous. Christ touching a blind man, and making him see, is a miracle. You do understand the difference, don't you?

Twain..


The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.
- "Official Report to the I.I.A.S," Letters From the Earth

There is nothing more awe-inspiring than a miracle except the credulity that can take it at par.
- Notebook, 1904

We mock what we don't refuse to understand.

This being so, it is not absurd to speculate that God might have arranged everything in harmony with this overall structure, and does not care to use the 'override' switch which could cause 'sudden interruptions in the physical flow.' Note: that is not to deny the possibility of 'supernatural' miracles, merely to suggest that God can, and on the basis of almost everything we observe actually appears to, work within a universe that doesn't need them.

I can agree with that viewpoint, it is logical and reasonable.
Except for the things that can't be explained by how nature is known to work.

This isn't a "miracle-of-the-gap" Argument, that just because we can't explain it it must be a miracle BUT we may be able ot explain it 100 years from now.
No, it isn't that at all.

It is a pure statement about what we know IS the nature of man, which is that NATURALLY when a human dies, he/she does NOT come back to life, healed, days after.
It's not that it rarely happens or that it on occasion MIGHT happen or that 100 years from now we discover that humans CAN do that.
We know by the nature of what it is to be human that it does NOT happen naturally.

People are not healed by blindness and appendages regrown by sheer touch, naturally.
There are no ways to explain this via natural laws.

If God has done these things then God has done them OUTSIDE of the natural laws and natures of THIS creation of His.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Mallz wrote:
I agree, Phillip. What happens when you inject a more pure fuel into an engine over regular grade? Or what happens to a body when pumped with fluids and antibiotics and other medicines to enhance the bodies ability to heal and go back to homeostasis (as naturally intended)? You call miraculous what I see as Him directly interacting with us. How He does? Again, mechanics. I know thought is involved. What He does to exist that thought, is mechanics. Of course we can't duplicate it in our current state, and if ever (in our glorified state) we know as you say, it's still Him. Which should just be a natural dwelling state for us.

Mallz,

None of what you mentioned is miraculous. Christ touching a blind man, and making him see, is a miracle. You do understand the difference, don't you?

Twain..


The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.
- "Official Report to the I.I.A.S," Letters From the Earth

There is nothing more awe-inspiring than a miracle except the credulity that can take it at par.
- Notebook, 1904

We mock what we don't refuse to understand.

Ah, but see, I understand it just fine. I am awed by it, but I do understand it.

The bibleous among us are overmuch fond of the word "mock", for lo,
it imparts unto them the aura of righteousness.

hughfarey wrote:

Byblos wrote:Aaaaand then you lost me.

Sorry. It goes like this. For me "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" and, for the sake of simplicity, I'm opting for the easiest version. That being so, I think it more likely that the Shroud was produced artificially than not, and since there is more or less a dichotomy between 1st century authentic and 14th century artificial, that leads me to the latter as my preferred opinion. I have read a few other options (5th century Gnostic, for example), but the evidence for them is weak indeed.

Hugh, as you know opinions are a dime a dozen. That's not to discount your opinion, it's to discount all opinions. I honestly don't see how you can formulate such an opinion based on the evidence, particularly with respect to the radioactive process needed to produce the image that was not available in the 14th century, and more particularly that in medieval times the prevailing thought on crucifixion was that the nails were through the palms, not the wrists as the shroud actually shows. Why would a 14th century forger go against the prevailing theory of the crucifixion? To form an opinion such as you did is to discount the evidence. The only piece of evidence pointing to the 14th century origin is the C14 carbon dating and that is questionable at best. But if you were to weigh all the evidence, I really don't see how you can come away with a 14th century origin without being prejudicial.

Audie wrote:The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.
- "Official Report to the I.I.A.S," Letters From the Earth

There is nothing more awe-inspiring than a miracle except the credulity that can take it at par.
- Notebook, 1904

Audie, you should really read professor John Lennox's book, 'Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists Are Missing the Target'. Chapter 7 of that book is entitled, "Are Miracles Pure Fantasy?" Professor Lennox tackles and dissects the historical views of atheists David Hume and Anthony Flew who were both advocates that miracles were violations of the laws of nature. If you do not want to read it, then watch Professor Lennox's lecture at Harvard University from a few years ago called, "Miracles: Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kz4OgXsN1w

After you are completed either reading , watching or both, then ask some questions. I'm sure we'll all be delighted to answer.

Audie wrote:

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.

Either Audie is a woman, or she's not... possibility #3? Oh I suppose you could be a man in a woman's body, or woman in a man's body today. Or, or... you could be a hermaphrodite in a woman's body? Poor hermaphrodites of the world, noone seems to ever consider the possibility that their gender might be both! Sorry my brains just running sideways.

Katabole wrote:

Audie wrote:The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.
- "Official Report to the I.I.A.S," Letters From the Earth

There is nothing more awe-inspiring than a miracle except the credulity that can take it at par.
- Notebook, 1904

Audie, you should really read professor John Lennox's book, 'Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists Are Missing the Target'. Chapter 7 of that book is entitled, "Are Miracles Pure Fantasy?" Professor Lennox tackles and dissects the historical views of atheists David Hume and Anthony Flew who were both advocates that miracles were violations of the laws of nature. If you do not want to read it, then watch Professor Lennox's lecture at Harvard University from a few years ago called, "Miracles: Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kz4OgXsN1w

After you are completed either reading , watching or both, then ask some questions. I'm sure we'll all be delighted to answer.

Tnx, I may not do any serious resding till august.
If I am missing something, it is good to know.

Byblos wrote:I honestly don't see how you can formulate such an opinion based on the evidence, particularly with respect to the radioactive process needed to produce the image that was not available in the 14th century, and more particularly that in medieval times the prevailing thought on crucifixion was that the nails were through the palms, not the wrists as the shroud actually shows. Why would a 14th century forger go against the prevailing theory of the crucifixion? To form an opinion such as you did is to discount the evidence. The only piece of evidence pointing to the 14th century origin is the C14 carbon dating and that is questionable at best. But if you were to weigh all the evidence, I really don't see how you can come away with a 14th century origin without being prejudicial.

That's fair enough. You have evaluated all the evidence and come to the conclusion that the shroud is authentic - many people agree with you. I have also evaluated all the evidence and come to the conclusion that the shroud is medieval - and many people agree with me. From this point we could discuss the value of the evidence which persuades us one way or the other. I could ask how you know the image 'needed' a radioactive process, and you could ask me why I tend to accept the radiocarbon dating. I would be cautious of claiming that you discounted evidence, and for balance, you should not tell me I'm discounting evidence. You would be better asking why I seem to discount evidence you consider particularly important.

For example. Look at the palm of your left hand. Visualise a nail piercing it, just in front of the Mount of Venus. Mark with a dot where you guess the exit wound might be. Measure the distance between that dot and the knuckle of your index finger. In my case about 6cm. Now pull up Shroud Scope on your computer and measure the distance between the exit wound and the knuckle of the index finger. I make it about 6cm. The exit wound of the back of the left hand of the shroud is thus wholly compatible with imagining a nail driven through the palm of the hand.

Now. What other evidence do you think I have discounted?

Well I would point out the pantocrator but we have agreed to disagree

RickD wrote: Mallz,

None of what you mentioned is miraculous. Christ touching a blind man, and making him see, is a miracle. You do understand the difference, don't you?

That's my point exactly. You believe in magic, I believe in a mechanic He uses. Do you see what I'm saying? I understand what you and others are saying. Yes, He could have done it magically. I think there's a lot more to it. I could be wrong, of course, but don't see any reason for it. And, yeah, I think you're all doing a 'miracles of the gaps'. And you could be right, it really could have been magic (no mechanic involved beyond His thought and will).

Mallz wrote:

RickD wrote: Mallz,

None of what you mentioned is miraculous. Christ touching a blind man, and making him see, is a miracle. You do understand the difference, don't you?

That's my point exactly. You believe in magic, I believe in a mechanic He uses. Do you see what I'm saying? I understand what you and others are saying. Yes, He could have done it magically. I think there's a lot more to it. I could be wrong, of course, but don't see any reason for it. And, yeah, I think you're all doing a 'miracles of the gaps'. And you could be right, it really could have been magic (no mechanic involved beyond His thought and will).

A mechanic he uses? You mean, like Fonzie from Happy Days?


What do you mean by "mechanic"?

I'm not following what you're getting at here.

I mean mechanism
How He does what He does.

Mallz wrote:I mean mechanism
How He does what He does.

Even if I concede that God uses a mechanism, or a process that is natural to Himself, to do something, how is it still not a miracle, by definition?

You're changing definitions and overthinking.


A miracle is something not explicable by natural or scientific laws.

Even if God has a "mechanism" to make a blind man see, or to turn water into wine, or for Jesus to walk on water, or for Christ to rise after 3 days, or for a virgin birth, etc., they are still miracles by definition.

bippy123 wrote:Well I would point out the pantocrator but we have agreed to disagree

Yes, fair enough. It's true that I don't consider the similarities between the Shroud and the Pantocrator adequate evidence for an ancient origin. But I haven't ignored it, or dismissed it without consideration. In that sense, I don't think I have discounted it. I have counted it - but it isn't enough for me.

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Well I would point out the pantocrator but we have agreed to disagree

Yes, fair enough. It's true that I don't consider the similarities between the Shroud and the Pantocrator adequate evidence for an ancient origin. But I haven't ignored it, or dismissed it without consideration. In that sense, I don't think I have discounted it. I have counted it - but it isn't enough for me.

Fair enough then , I have considered your evidences for a 14th century origin and I have dismissed them with consideration and in that sense I haven't dismissed them and they aren't enough for me .