J
joze
Guest
- (Science hasn’t discovered the reason yet): In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another. If an increase in energy is observed in a system, this increase simply needs to be introduced into the system. Physicists agree that there are vast stores of energy in the universe, God could draw upon these stores of energy if he did not want to introduce new energy (see case B below). If, however, new energy is created to wreak the miracle (see case A below), we should have no problem asserting the miracle was from a cause independent of the laws of nature. It is with these laws scientists are concerned, not with an agency extrinsic to them.
Case A- New Energy introduced into the universe.
The Catholic teaching is that Christ Himself (His body and blood, soul and divinity) is present under the species (appearances) of bread and wine in a real and substantial way, while the properties of the bread and wine remain. If true, this is consistent with the view that the flesh and blood were created out of nothing, with the bread and wine disappearing. The amount of energy required to build the empire state building can be measured and found to require much energy. However, the amount of energy required to create something out of nothing cannot be measured, it is infinite. Only God has the power to do this. He is independent of nature and his power far exceeds that of nature.
Though even if the miracle is only a case of matter transforming, as some believe, what does this prove? Inanimate matter never changes by itself without the action of an outside agent. Nature can not cause bread and wine left out on a dish to turn into flesh and blood. Where does the energy required for this come from? Humankind is unable to reproduce such an event. One should be able to verify where the energy came from to effect the change. According to physicists there are vast stores of energy in the universe; perhaps God draws upon these stores of energy to effect the change. This would account for a use of energy that we can not, either now or at the time of the event, detect the source from which it came. If it is these stores of energy that are used, what other explanation is there for how the energy was used in such a precise way other than God’s action?
So if it is hoped these events will one day be explained by science without God being necessary, where does this leave us? In case A, science must show how the law of conservation of energy was temporarily suspended. But what does this leave us with regards to science and our scientific laws? Without the presence of an Intelligent Lawgiver (God), they are now only relative and not absolute. We must do away with the law of conservation of energy (as an absolute) if God was not the cause of this. What does this say about the validity of other laws of science, such as the law of gravity? Scientific laws are meant to give certainty through being absolute. If gravity were only relative we would not be able to have safe air travel, or jump lest gravity be suspended for a minute for us to ascend high and then come crashing back to earth. We must logically cast most or all of science and its laws into doubt.
In case B, it must show where the energy came from and how it was used with precision for these events, and what is stopping the atmospheric and biological agents from causing the normal decaying process (a normal scientific process) without preservatives. Importantly, if you believe science will one day explain away such a miracle, you are disregarding accepted medical science of blood testing and blood grouping, and of the WHO verifying these findings using the scientific method. Do you trust or believe scientific findings; do you trust or believe medical science? If not, how do you justify trusting in science to one day explain these miracles without God being necessary?
(end Part A)