God's influence on the natural world

[Bananana]

here are a few things I’ve been pondering

to what extent can God interfere with the natural world? many Christians hold that God regularly performs miracles. let’s say God wanted to make a basket of fruit appear in front of a hungry man who is praying for food. or God wanted an amputee victim to wake up with a fully grown arm. or perhaps God wanted to deliver the messiah through a girl in Nazareth. what would this process look like and by what means would God do it? most sources have little to say on the matter, but I think these details are of great importance.

if Mary was born in modern times then doctors could document exactly what happened. since there was no male, there must have been no sperm cell. or perhaps God would have to design one himself and made sure that Jesus did not die before birth due to SIDS or congenital malformations, for example. would the developing zygote look like a normal zygote? at what point did Jesus receive his divine powers? as a child, could he perform miracles such as turning water molecules into alcoholic beverages? and if he could perform miracles at a young age then why didn’t he? it seems as though Jesus’ development in the womb was very distinct from that of mortals, and it would be very interesting for me to see what the process would have been like.

so, there must be definite scientific answers to these questions that could have been studied if Jesus had been born in more “modern” times. unfortunately, when I ask these questions, they are typically answered with a combination of faith, speculation, and appeals to the unknowable majesty and nature of God.

many use Scripture as evidence but caution should be taken as to the validity of a particular interpretation of its words. the Bible has already proved its fallibility in the case of creation. only since relatively recently have most Christians abandoned the literal idea of creation in favor of evolution but still regard evolution as the means by which God created humans. but if God must use naturalistic means to achieve his will than what exactly is his role in the creation?

I conclude with why is this question important. if God is not confined by naturalistic means then he could prove his own existence to all of humanity. humans could then go about performing His will without any doubts as to whether his or her efforts are in vain. indeed, the Godless and sinful would not have to spend eternity in Hell for their inability to grasp the intricacies of Christian doctrine.

I hope I have made the gist of my question clear, I do not intend for you to answer each question individually but feel free to do so if you’d like.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

if God is not confined by naturalistic means then he could prove his own existence to all of humanity. humans could then go about performing His will without any doubts as to whether his or her efforts are in vain.

Why yes, that’s right. But what would be the costs of such knowledge? Is free will really possible, when you *know *the consequences, without any doubt? Such a God would be practicing a cosmic “reign of terror”, and no one could ever love God, much less love one another. (Love is not love if one has no choice).

indeed, the Godless and sinful would not have to spend eternity in Hell for their inability to grasp the intricacies of Christian doctrine.

Neither do they have to spend their eternity in hell, as it is. They will have a choice, in the end, and they can pick heaven if they prefer it. The problem is, if they like sin all that much, they might prefer hell to heaven.

 

[Bananana]

Why yes, that’s right. But what would be the costs of such knowledge? Is free will really possible, when you *know *the consequences, without any doubt? Such a God would be practicing a cosmic “reign of terror”, and no one could ever love God, much less love one another. (Love is not love if one has no choice).

Neither do they have to spend their eternity in hell, as it is. They will have a choice, in the end, and they can pick heaven if they prefer it. The problem is, if they like sin all that much, they might prefer hell to heaven.

well, I would argue that free will is a cognitive illusion. but that’s for a different thread xD. however, consider how many people actually really do believe in God and Hell and Heaven. are you saying that God is practicing a “reign of terror” over all devout Christians? certainly many of these believers believe without a doubt that some sort of God exists. but the curious thing is that even religious people who believe in God often commit grave sins. if it is such a clear choice, then why would believers ever give into temptations?

my argument is that if everyone on Earth believed in the Christian God and knew without a doubt that he exists, then people would still commit sins and be challenged by God to love their neighbor because making mistakes is what it means to be human.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

well, I would argue that free will is a cognitive illusion. but that’s for a different thread xD. however, consider how many people actually really do believe in God and Hell and Heaven. are you saying that God is practicing a “reign of terror” over all devout Christians?

No, because the capacity to love frees a person from bondage to fear. Our image of hell becomes quite different as soon as we encounter the love of God – but this would not be the case if God had not created us with free will. A being without free will cannot understand love – all it can understand is consequences.

certainly many of these believers believe without a doubt that some sort of God exists. but the curious thing is that even religious people who believe in God often commit grave sins. if it is such a clear choice, then why would believers ever give into temptations?

Sin is a manifestation of a lack of faith. There is a difference between saying “I believe in God” and actually knowing the tremendous power and majesty of the living God. If we knew Him in all His glory, we would have no choice but to obey Him.

my argument is that if everyone on Earth believed in the Christian God and knew without a doubt that he exists, then people would still commit sins and be challenged by God to love their neighbor because making mistakes is what it means to be human.

In order to know *that *He exists, you would need to know who He is. But, if you knew who He was, from your birth at least, you would be utterly compelled to perpetually worship Him. But then again, it wouldn’t really be “worship”, because you wouldn’t have a choice.

 

[Bananana]

Sin is a manifestation of a lack of faith. There is a difference between saying “I believe in God” and actually knowing the tremendous power and majesty of the living God. If we knew Him in all His glory, we would have no choice but to obey Him.

if sin is a manifestation of a lack of faith, then why do some atheists behave more morally than some Christians?

 

[buffalo]

if sin is a manifestation of a lack of faith, then why do some atheists behave more morally than some Christians?

Atheists are not born in a vacuum. They usurp for themselves the Christian values all around them. One cannot help it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

if sin is a manifestation of a lack of faith, then why do some atheists behave more morally than some Christians?

To be clear…

I am saying: If sin, then lack of faith.

Not: If lack of faith, then sin.

The fact that sin indicates a lack of faith does not mean that all lacks in faith must be manifest themselves in sin. Consider, for comparison:

From “if Chicago, then Illinois” that “if Illinois, then Chicago.”

 

[Bananana]

To be clear…

I am saying: If sin, then lack of faith.

Not: If lack of faith, then sin.

The fact that sin indicates a lack of faith does not mean that all lacks in faith must be manifest themselves in sin. Consider, for comparison:

From “if Chicago, then Illinois” that “if Illinois, then Chicago.”

ah, but this is where you are wrong. sin and morality are cognitive illusions, as it free will. God does not exist, and faith in God leads to neither good nor bad deeds.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

ah, but this is where you are wrong. sin and morality are cognitive illusions, as it free will. God does not exist, and faith in God leads to neither good nor bad deeds.

Thank you for your assertions.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

here are a few things I’ve been pondering

to what extent can God interfere with the natural world? many Christians hold that God regularly performs miracles. let’s say God wanted to make a basket of fruit appear in front of a hungry man who is praying for food. or God wanted an amputee victim to wake up with a fully grown arm. or perhaps God wanted to deliver the messiah through a girl in Nazareth. what would this process look like and by what means would God do it? most sources have little to say on the matter, but I think these details are of great importance.

if Mary was born in modern times then doctors could document exactly what happened. since there was no male, there must have been no sperm cell. or perhaps God would have to design one himself and made sure that Jesus did not die before birth due to SIDS or congenital malformations, for example. would the developing zygote look like a normal zygote? at what point did Jesus receive his divine powers? as a child, could he perform miracles such as turning water molecules into alcoholic beverages? and if he could perform miracles at a young age then why didn’t he? it seems as though Jesus’ development in the womb was very distinct from that of mortals, and it would be very interesting for me to see what the process would have been like.

so, there must be definite scientific answers to these questions that could have been studied if Jesus had been born in more “modern” times. unfortunately, when I ask these questions, they are typically answered with a combination of faith, speculation, and appeals to the unknowable majesty and nature of God.

many use Scripture as evidence but caution should be taken as to the validity of a particular interpretation of its words. the Bible has already proved its fallibility in the case of creation. only since relatively recently have most Christians abandoned the literal idea of creation in favor of evolution but still regard evolution as the means by which God created humans. but if God must use naturalistic means to achieve his will than what exactly is his role in the creation?

I conclude with why is this question important. if God is not confined by naturalistic means then he could prove his own existence to all of humanity. humans could then go about performing His will without any doubts as to whether his or her efforts are in vain. indeed, the Godless and sinful would not have to spend eternity in Hell for their inability to grasp the intricacies of Christian doctrine.

I hope I have made the gist of my question clear, I do not intend for you to answer each question individually but feel free to do so if you’d like.

I suspect God has some sort of working arrangement with the devil, strange as it seems. Otherwise if God were to go around using His super powers on behalf of humans everywhere, then the devil could by legal right demand to do the same thing to harm humanity.

Hence miracles seem to be few and far between. The only time they were commonplace was when He became Man. As such, He had to perform miracles in order to demonstrate who He was. Despite the miracles, we crucified Him. So much for our fondness of God.

On the business of God proving He was there, there are two problems - the first is that He’s so Holy we’d die if we saw Him face to face, at least while we inhabit material bodies. Our spiritual bodies would probably survive however. The second is that the devil and demons know very well He exists, but they disobey Him anyway. So even if we were sure He was there, we’d still disobey. We know the penalty for speeding is a fine and maybe other tougher penalties, but we speed regardless. We may have what we think is a good reason, although usually it’s just sheer habit.

That’s our nature, and more consistent miracles wouldn’t make any difference.

 

[Bananana]

I suspect God has some sort of working arrangement with the devil, strange as it seems. Otherwise if God were to go around using His super powers on behalf of humans everywhere, then the devil could by legal right demand to do the same thing to harm humanity.

Hence miracles seem to be few and far between. The only time they were commonplace was when He became Man. As such, He had to perform miracles in order to demonstrate who He was. Despite the miracles, we crucified Him. So much for our fondness of God.

On the business of God proving He was there, there are two problems - the first is that He’s so Holy we’d die if we saw Him face to face, at least while we inhabit material bodies. Our spiritual bodies would probably survive however. The second is that the devil and demons know very well He exists, but they disobey Him anyway. So even if we were sure He was there, we’d still disobey. We know the penalty for speeding is a fine and maybe other tougher penalties, but we speed regardless. We may have what we think is a good reason, although usually it’s just sheer habit.

That’s our nature, and more consistent miracles wouldn’t make any difference.

my only point is that if God existed and wanted to reveal himself to humanity, then he could.

for the sake of argument, I will concede that if God existed and indecisively revealed himself to all people then that would be a bad thing, as you say. that wasn’t really the point of this thread, and it’s a topic of pure conjecture.

I am more interested in the extent that God can influence the natural world (if he existed). for example, if God miraculously heals people then why do we never see the miraculous regrowth of the arm on an amputee victim. would God have to use naturalistic means to recreate the arm in the same way that God used naturalistic means to create humans (ie. evolution)? what would this look like? these are the questions that are interesting.

 

[fhansen]

here are a few things I’ve been pondering

to what extent can God interfere with the natural world? many Christians hold that God regularly performs miracles. let’s say God wanted to make a basket of fruit appear in front of a hungry man who is praying for food. or God wanted an amputee victim to wake up with a fully grown arm. or perhaps God wanted to deliver the messiah through a girl in Nazareth. what would this process look like and by what means would God do it? most sources have little to say on the matter, but I think these details are of great importance.

if Mary was born in modern times then doctors could document exactly what happened. since there was no male, there must have been no sperm cell. or perhaps God would have to design one himself and made sure that Jesus did not die before birth due to SIDS or congenital malformations, for example. would the developing zygote look like a normal zygote? at what point did Jesus receive his divine powers? as a child, could he perform miracles such as turning water molecules into alcoholic beverages? and if he could perform miracles at a young age then why didn’t he? it seems as though Jesus’ development in the womb was very distinct from that of mortals, and it would be very interesting for me to see what the process would have been like.

so, there must be definite scientific answers to these questions that could have been studied if Jesus had been born in more “modern” times. unfortunately, when I ask these questions, they are typically answered with a combination of faith, speculation, and appeals to the unknowable majesty and nature of God.

many use Scripture as evidence but caution should be taken as to the validity of a particular interpretation of its words. the Bible has already proved its fallibility in the case of creation. only since relatively recently have most Christians abandoned the literal idea of creation in favor of evolution but still regard evolution as the means by which God created humans. but if God must use naturalistic means to achieve his will than what exactly is his role in the creation?

I conclude with why is this question important. if God is not confined by naturalistic means then he could prove his own existence to all of humanity. humans could then go about performing His will without any doubts as to whether his or her efforts are in vain. indeed, the Godless and sinful would not have to spend eternity in Hell for their inability to grasp the intricacies of Christian doctrine.

I hope I have made the gist of my question clear, I do not intend for you to answer each question individually but feel free to do so if you’d like.

Someone once said that “Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one’s looking”. Christianity claims that man preferred to distance himself from God. Man can prove himself only if and when he does the right thing even if no one may be looking.

 

[ricmat]

my only point is that if God existed and wanted to reveal himself to humanity, then he could.

And he has. And God could force us to believe in his existence, but he does not.

for example, if God miraculously heals people then why do we never see the miraculous regrowth of the arm on an amputee victim…

It seems that 3 or 4 times per week somebody joins CAF and asks the same question above. Is there some popular anti-religion website that lists the above as question number 1? It seems like a strange example (and there are certainly better questions to ask).

We were not created “to have 2 fully functional arms.” Nobody has a perfect body, and in any case our bodies are temporary. Our souls are forever. We were created for the purpose of eternally joining God as his children in heaven, in eternal joy, love, beauty, etc.

It seems important to you that everyone have 2 fully functional arms. Does this mean that you have less respect for those who don’t? That seems like a dangerous path to be on.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

my only point is that if God existed and wanted to reveal himself to humanity, then he could.

for the sake of argument, I will concede that if God existed and indecisively revealed himself to all people then that would be a bad thing, as you say. that wasn’t really the point of this thread, and it’s a topic of pure conjecture.

I am more interested in the extent that God can influence the natural world (if he existed). for example, if God miraculously heals people then why do we never see the miraculous regrowth of the arm on an amputee victim. would God have to use naturalistic means to recreate the arm in the same way that God used naturalistic means to create humans (ie. evolution)? what would this look like? these are the questions that are interesting.

If God decides to act miraculously, then He overrides the principles of nature. When He fed the 5000 for example, the creation of all that fish and bread was a direct violation of the mass-energy equation. There was the sudden creation of a large amount of mass, without apparently the withdrawal of the requisite amount of energy from the local system.

When He dried the ground at Fatima in 1917, scientists have calculated the energy to do that in such a short time should have vaporised the 70,000 witnesses who were in the area.

Thus even the laws of nature are subject to Him and He can override them whenever He chooses.

I have wondered myself about the lack of healing of amputees etc., which would give a clear, unarguable illustration of God’s power at work. Nearly all miraculous healings appear to involve hidden diseases or conditions - cancer, bad backs, internal diseases, sensory disabilities (eg. deafness as with the nun at Mary’s appearance at Akita).

In the case of cancer, the body routinely disposes of cancer cells itself, and occasionally heals itself. In the case of bad backs, this is more often than not a degenerative diseases, or due to a weakness somewhere. So in one sense the body is merely “tweaked” so to speak to get rid of the offending disease or disability. But amputation is something the body itself never heals itself from.

If there’s one thing about God’s miracles, it is that they generally follow natural processes, even if He does override Nature. Water was turned into wine, something the grape does every year, but far more slowly. A tree is cursed and dies, yet millions of trees die of natural causes every year. Bread and fish is turned into more fish, something that wheat and fecund nature do every year. The essence of Christian miracles in most cases is speed. Even the spring at Lourdes simply tapped into an existing spring nobody knew was there.

To quote CS Lewis, there is a certain family style.

No doubt God could override this family style, and healing an amputee would be one such incident, since limbs *never *grow back in nature. No doubt we’'ll learn via genetic manipulation to do so in future years, as a result of stem cell research etc. (the church hasn’t got an argument with stem cell research per se - it has got an argument about where the cells are coming from).

I think God may one day heal an amputee to silence all the atheists, but I have no idea when. What you can expect then though is a rash of demonic counterfeits. The devil can do miraculous things himself. For example I suspect the anti-Christ will himself be executed, but the devil will bring him back to life. On a DVD I’ve got, Bishop Fulton Sheen mentioned in one of his sermons an apparent death and resurrection. So for the devil he’ll be a type of Christ.