Are miracles possible or impossible?

[Prodigal_Son]

God ordered him to kill his son. He then rescinded the order. That’s not lying. If God had told Abraham that he would wind up killing his son and that nothing could stop it, that would be lying.

I tend to agree with Kierkegaard - the test for Abraham was not that he was willing to sacrifice even his own son at God’s order, but that Abraham believed, even as the knife started to descend, that God would stop him. It was also, of course, a foreshadowing of another Father who would offer up his own Son for sacrifice in the place of man.

Trust me, I’m not criticizing God.

And I agree that God did not lie. But he did deceive, so far as I can tell – at least using the ordinary sense of “deceive”. Perhaps the Catechism means something else by “deceive”.

 

[snarflemike]

No. As well as the structure having to change, some of the atoms would need to change, and while I’m no expert I think the amount of atomic energy required would leave a large smoking hole.

So this is something an omnipotent God could not do?

And if it’s human heart tissue, it will have human DNA, so we could trace who the tissue came from.

True enough.

In that video the guy claimed the wafer turned into tissue from Jesus’ heart, not realizing that would mean he had a sample of God’s DNA.

Don’t know what video you’re talking about, but yes, one would expect it to be the DNA of Jesus. Why the ? Don’t you think Jesus had DNA?

You haven’t given any good reasons for your assertion that it would be impossible.

 

[inocente]

So this is something an omnipotent God could not do?

There are may be two ways He could.

The first is He could violate the physical law. Trouble is, God is the law maker not the law breaker.

The other way is He could use the physical law in ways we don’t understand. But that’s just saying God has more technical know-how than we have currently. We haven’t yet invented a Star Trek matter replicator do it seems like a miracle to us.

But why would God make miracles? To show off like a magician? Or does He leave the world on auto-pilot but has to intervene and tinker every so often because He didn’t do a good job designing the auto pilot?

Doesn’t seem to give God much glory.

Don’t know what video you’re talking about, but yes, one would expect it to be the DNA of Jesus. Why the ? Don’t you think Jesus had DNA?

The video is the one which started our conversation which I linked to you yesterday in post #45. The roll eyes were because the fraudster claimed the wafer turned into tissue from Jesus’ heart, not realizing that would mean he had a sample of God’s DNA, like I said.

You haven’t given any good reasons for your assertion that it would be impossible.

I said “As well as the structure having to change, some of the atoms would need to change, and while I’m no expert I think the amount of atomic energy required would leave a large smoking hole.”

You don’t think that’s a good reason?

 

[snarflemike]

There are may be two ways He could.

The first is He could violate the physical law. Trouble is, God is the law maker not the law breaker.

So you are saying God CAN make miracles, but he will not? Despite the abundant witness of scripture?

The video is the one which started our conversation which I linked to you yesterday in post #45. The roll eyes were because the fraudster claimed the wafer turned into tissue from Jesus’ heart, not realizing that would mean he had a sample of God’s DNA, like I said.

Ah, I was just using the example of the Miracle of Lanciano. I don’t remember noticing your link or viewing it. And in any case, no amount of hoaxes can prove that everything is a hoax.

I said “As well as the structure having to change, some of the atoms would need to change, and while I’m no expert I think the amount of atomic energy required would leave a large smoking hole.”

You don’t think that’s a good reason?

But you just admitted above that God could do it.

 

[tonyrey]

So he thought that God wouldn’t require him to sacrifice Isaac, after all?

I wonder why he was preparing to do so.

 

[tonyrey]

There has been no response to my remark that the only basis for the irrational

Non sequitur. The issue is whether everything can in principle be explained by science.

 

[inocente]

So you are saying God CAN make miracles, but he will not? Despite the abundant witness of scripture?

God doesn’t change.

The speed at which the Earth spins at the equator is about 1,670 kph, yet in Joshua 10 God managed to stop it without any earthquakes and super tsunamis, apparently without anyone even losing their balance:

*On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on** its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!**

God even reversed the spin in 2 Kings 20:

*Isaiah answered, “This is the Lord’s sign to you that the Lord will do what he has promised: Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or shall it go back ten steps?”

“It is a simple matter for the shadow to go forward ten steps,” said Hezekiah. “Rather, have it go back ten steps.”

Then the prophet Isaiah called on the Lord, and the Lord made the shadow go back the ten steps it had gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.*

You don’t think the explanation might be poetic license rather than miracles?

But you just admitted above that God could do it.

If Star Trek matter replicators and matter transporters are possible.*

 

[inocente]

Non sequitur. The issue is whether everything can in principle be explained by science.

Perhaps on another thread but this one is about miracles.

Do you think a belief in miracles is more credible than a belief in UFOs, alien abductions, ghosts, fairies at the bottom of the garden, etc.?

If so, does that credibility extend to Hindu, etc., miracles or just those you believe in?

 

[tonyrey]

The issue is whether everything

If everything can in principle be explained by science then miracles are impossible.

Do you think a belief in miracles is more credible than a belief in UFOs, alien abductions, ghosts, fairies at the bottom of the garden, etc.?

If so, does that credibility extend to Hindu, etc., miracles or just those you believe in? Perhaps on another thread but this one is about miracles.

I don’t believe Christians have the monopoly of miracles! As for strange phenomena each case has to be considered on its merits without assuming they are all fantasies.

 

[inocente]

If everything can in principle be explained by science then miracles are impossible.

Only according to some on this thread, there’s no requirement for a miracle to be inexplicable when using the normal definition of “a very surprising and unexpected event”.

I don’t believe Christians have the monopoly of miracles! As for strange phenomena each case has to be considered on its merits without assuming they are all fantasies.

So do God, Vishnu and the Buddha all independently make miracles for their own supporters, or does just God exist, and He happily makes miracles to sustain belief in Vishnu and the Buddha, or … ?

 

[john_doran]

Only according to some on this thread, there’s no requirement for a miracle to be inexplicable when using the normal definition of “a very surprising and unexpected event”.

i think care needs to be taken not to elide the ***ontological ***and the epistemological aspects of miracles: i.e. what a miracle is, versus how we know if an event is miraculous.

it seems to me that, for something to be a “miracle” in the traditional sense, it must involve a violation or suspension of the laws of nature by god.

as to whether or not we can ever be justified in believing an event to be miraculous in that sense, it will depend on the context of the belief and the associated evidence.

as an aside, it seems that defining a “miracle” as simply “surprising and unexpected” would be to make many, many things miracles, such as surprise birthday parties or seeing a deer in your backyard.

similarly, if the laws of nature aren’t deterministic, then some events may very well count as both miraculous and natural. which, again, seems to do violence to the traditional definition of “miracle”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

it seems to me that, for something to be a “miracle” in the traditional sense, it must involve a violation or suspension of the laws of nature by god.

But why would God ever do this? God isn’t confined by time, and He could have just arranged the universe’s laws in advance to have Jesus walk on water without violating any of the actual natural laws. Or, in C.S. Lewis’s words, there may be deeper laws of nature at work in the case of miracles.

To say that God makes laws, only to break them, seems to me an offense against the notion of providence.

So yeah, I think that defining “miracle” is extremely difficult. You’re right that it’s not merely a rare event. But consider if Moses had, when talking to Pharaoh, pulled out an IPhone. In what sense would this not be miraculous? In other words, nature’s normals at time A (2013 AD) may be nature’s impossibles at time B (900 BC). Why not say that Jesus walking on water was a normal occurrence for the kingdom of God, but an abnormal occurrence for biblical Palestine? Thus, we might say that a miracle is the manifestation of a reality whose context is not yet known.

Still doesn’t help us identify miracles!

 

[john_doran]

But why would God ever do this? God isn’t confined by time, and He could have just arranged the universe’s laws in advance to have Jesus walk on water without violating any of the actual natural laws. Or, in C.S. Lewis’s words, there may be deeper laws of nature at work in the case of miracles.

but a law of nature involves regularity: it’s a law of nature that objects that are heavier than the water that they displace, sink because all such objects, when placed in water, in fact sink. let’s call that the “law of sinking”.

so how would god “arranging” in advance that “at place *p *and from time t to t+n, the law of sinking shall be subject to an exception such that a certain individual will not sink despite being heavier than his unit-displacement”, involve any more or less of a violation of what you’re calling “providence”, than if god, at the same time and place, bestowed different causal powers on a certain set of elementary particles for a certain period of time?

Prodigal_Son:

To say that God makes laws, only to break them, seems to me an offense against the notion of providence.

ok, i’ll bite: so what? can you explain the disvalue of such an offense? and why an episodic intervention of the laws of nature is more of an offense than god having predetermined the irregularity to occur?

Prodigal_Son:

So yeah, I think that defining “miracle” is extremely difficult. You’re right that it’s not merely a rare event. But consider if Moses had, when talking to Pharaoh, pulled out an IPhone. In what sense would this not be miraculous? In other words, nature’s normals at time A (2013 AD) may be nature’s impossibles at time B (900 BC). Why not say that Jesus walking on water was a normal occurrence for the kingdom of God, but an abnormal occurrence for biblical Palestine? Thus, we might say that a miracle is the manifestation of a reality whose context is not yet known.

Still doesn’t help us identify miracles!

moses pulling out an iPhone would have been miraculous if god had materialized the iPhone in moses’ possession. not, if not.

it has nothing to do with “natural” or “impossible”, but rather with god’s direct intervention in the mechanism of the world such that “event e would not have occurred if god had not altered the causal powers of the set of particles, s.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

so how would god “arranging” in advance that “at place *p *and from time t to t+n, the law of sinking shall be subject to an exception such that a certain individual will not sink despite being heavier than his unit-displacement”, involve any more or less of a violation of what you’re calling “providence”, than if god, at the same time and place, bestowed different causal powers on a certain set of elementary particles for a certain period of time?

The notion of providence is a notion of God arranging things in advance. A tinkering God is not being providential, insofar as He is tinkering. Nor do I understand why an all-powerful God would ever tinker.

I do, however, believe that prayers are efficacious. They are effective because God knew in advance that they would be prayed, and so answered them in advance.

ok, i’ll bite: so what? can you explain the disvalue of such an offense? and why an episodic intervention of the laws of nature is more of an offense than god having predetermined the irregularity to occur?

There is the principle of sufficient reason. If God can do X and Y at time a, why would God only do X at time a, and leave Y until time b? Why not set up the initial conditions of the universe to allow for all “modifications” that God knows will be necessary. This is the very notion of providence. There is no reason for God to procrastinate these things.

 

[john_doran]

The notion of providence is a notion of God arranging things in advance. A tinkering God is not being providential, insofar as He is tinkering. Nor do I understand why an all-powerful God would ever tinker.

I do, however, believe that prayers are efficacious. They are effective because God knew in advance that they would be prayed, and so answered them in advance.

i don’t see how varying the laws of nature in advance isn’t “tinkering” in the relevant and non-providential sense: the laws, if left to themselves, would have consequences not wanted by god, so god interjects special variations in the application of those laws at certain points to guarantee the results he wants.
Prodigal-Son:

There is the principle of sufficient reason. If God can do X and Y at time a, why would God only do X at time a, and leave Y until time b? Why not set up the initial conditions of the universe to allow for all “modifications” that God knows will be necessary. This is the very notion of providence. There is no reason for God to procrastinate these things.

this just sounds like we’re disagreeing on a relatively recondite philosophical point: you seem to be articulating the position described by aquinas, and i the one set forth by molina.

in the end, a miracle is still a result brought about by the special action of god (whether he brought it about in advance, or at the time of the miracle.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

i don’t see how varying the laws of nature in advance isn’t “tinkering” in the relevant and non-providential sense: the laws, if left to themselves, would have consequences not wanted by god, so god interjects special variations in the application of those laws at certain points to guarantee the results he wants.

My point is that it is providential, because providence is just a temporal matter. If a “deep law” is established from the beginning of time, then we’re talking providence. If an intervention occurs in time, this is not providence. So maybe we are splitting hairs.

this just sounds like we’re disagreeing on a relatively recondite philosophical point: you seem to be articulating the position described by aquinas, and i the one set forth by molina.

in the end, a miracle is still a result brought about by the special action of god (whether he brought it about in advance, or at the time of the miracle.)

Yeah, I think I’m OK with that. Although I would rather express it in terms of additional laws of nature, that we just don’t often happen upon. (Think magnetism, which often counteracts gravity – but one could go a long time without encountering magnetism, especially in a pre-modern age). I’m focusing on laws because I think it’s silly to think of God doing anything ad hoc. God always acts regularly, never irregularly.

 

[john_doran]

My point is that it is providential, because providence is just a temporal matter. If a “deep law” is established from the beginning of time, then we’re talking providence. If an intervention occurs in time, this is not providence. So maybe we are splitting hairs.

i would just point out that jesus existed in time, and the miracles performed by jesus were presumably performed by him; if so, then they were performed in time.

the alternative seems to be that god decreed before the world began that there would be a law (concerning the death of biological organisms, say) that would work according to certain regularities, except in the instance that a certain specific person (jesus) at a certain specific time and in a certain specific place perhaps performed a certain set of specific actions and uttered a certain set of specific words (“lazarus come forth”), in which case the certain specific organism that had died (lazarus) would be revivified.

and if that were true, then i would say that the resurrection of lazarus from the dead was not a miracle to the extent that it was a necessary outcome of the initial conditions of the event and the covering laws (i.e. lazarus wasn’t revived by god as a result of his son’s request that he do so, nor by an act of jesus’ power at that time.)

in fact, i would go on to say that this kind of description sounds a lot like magic: the performance of certain somatic and verbal rituals at certain places and times that result in effects that in all other respects defy the regularities of the laws of nature, but do so in a law-like manner (i.e. every time you do X and say Y in place P, those magical effects necessarily result.)

 

[inocente]

i would just point out that jesus existed in time, and the miracles performed by jesus were presumably performed by him; if so, then they were performed in time.

the alternative seems to be that god decreed before the world began that there would be a law (concerning the death of biological organisms, say) that would work according to certain regularities, except in the instance that a certain specific person (jesus) at a certain specific time and in a certain specific place perhaps performed a certain set of specific actions and uttered a certain set of specific words (“lazarus come forth”), in which case the certain specific organism that had died (lazarus) would be revivified.

and if that were true, then i would say that the resurrection of lazarus from the dead was not a miracle to the extent that it was a necessary outcome of the initial conditions of the event and the covering laws (i.e. lazarus wasn’t revived by god as a result of his son’s request that he do so, nor by an act of jesus’ power at that time.)

in fact, i would go on to say that this kind of description sounds a lot like magic: the performance of certain somatic and verbal rituals at certain places and times that result in effects that in all other respects defy the regularities of the laws of nature, but do so in a law-like manner (i.e. every time you do X and say Y in place P, those magical effects necessarily result.)

Hang on. Jesus is God, Jesus doesn’t have to ask God. He said it for the onlookers’ benefit, even saying “I said this for the benefit of the people standing here”.

So your argument from magic doesn’t work, but another problemette is that the story only appears in John. Luke the careful historian omits it, as do Mark and Matthew. And it’s not in the Nicene or Apostles’ Creeds, or any other as far as I know, so believing it as history isn’t universal. For instance it has been interpreted as allegory, Lazarus representing humanity who God calls to a new life.

 

[john_doran]

Hang on. Jesus is God, Jesus doesn’t have to ask God. He said it for the onlookers’ benefit, even saying “I said this for the benefit of the people standing here”.

jesus is also man. and “i said this for the benefit of the people standing here” could (and does, i think) mean something like “i said this out loud for the benefit of those people standing here”, rather than “lazarus would have arisen no matter what i said or did.”

basically, the clear implication of the event is that lazarus was revivified through the action of god at the request of jesus, as an example not only of the special relationship between god and jesus, but also of the power of supplicatory prayer.

inocente:

So your argument from magic doesn’t work, but another problemette is that the story only appears in John. Luke the careful historian omits it, as do Mark and Matthew. And it’s not in the Nicene or Apostles’ Creeds, or any other as far as I know, so believing it as history isn’t universal. For instance it has been interpreted as allegory, Lazarus representing humanity who God calls to a new life.

i’m not sure what the creeds have to do with the historicity of any events in the new testament (they’re expressions of dogmas, not chronologies), but that said, i was using the event as an example - if it never happened, then substitute with any other of the NT miracles: the point remains the same.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

i would just point out that jesus existed in time, and the miracles performed by jesus were presumably performed by him; if so, then they were performed in time.

I think one conventional view is that they were performed by the Father, through the intercession of the Son. Hence Jesus saying things like “I do nothing on my own.”

I agree that Jesus was “born in time”, however, and therefore that – incarnationally – God acts in time. But I don’t think that the miracles are manifestations of this action. Rather, I think that the very actions that make the incarnation so remarkable are ordinary actions, determined by ordinary physical laws: being born in a stable, sneaking off to the temple, washing his disciples feet, being anointed with nard.

I will admit that this is all complete speculation. At the very least it wouldn’t be inelegant or ad hoc for the incarnation to involve special action in time. But other miracles seem to be in a different boat.

the alternative seems to be that god decreed before the world began that there would be a law (concerning the death of biological organisms, say) that would work according to certain regularities, except in the instance that a certain specific person (jesus) at a certain specific time and in a certain specific place perhaps performed a certain set of specific actions and uttered a certain set of specific words (“lazarus come forth”), in which case the certain specific organism that had died (lazarus) would be revivified.

and if that were true, then i would say that the resurrection of lazarus from the dead was not a miracle to the extent that it was a necessary outcome of the initial conditions of the event and the covering laws (i.e. lazarus wasn’t revived by god as a result of his son’s request that he do so, nor by an act of jesus’ power at that time.)

in fact, i would go on to say that this kind of description sounds a lot like magic: the performance of certain somatic and verbal rituals at certain places and times that result in effects that in all other respects defy the regularities of the laws of nature, but do so in a law-like manner (i.e. every time you do X and say Y in place P, those magical effects necessarily result.)

I don’t understand this point at all. What causes a miracle, on your view? Whatever that is, substitute it in, in my view, and it will work. There is no spell-casting here.

You say, “God’s special action causes it”. Well, I agree. But why does this action have to be in time? Do you think that there must be a *temporal *cause to every event? If that’s what you think, then God could never create the universe, at all.