Miracles versus Science

[JFJK]

In the Bible we read about many miracles.
For example: Sun stopping its movement, water starting to pour from a rock, Turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, Peter walking on water, resurrection of Lazarus …

The proof that these miracles happened is only through oral and written tradition. I have no photographs or videos of Peter walking on water. Even if I had the videos these could be fake. Very clearly these miracles go totally against common sense and against all recorded experiments at least few hundred years back.

Don’t you think that believing in these miracles makes us catholics very foolish in other people’s eyes?

How do we explain these miracles? If they really happened, does it mean that all existing theories in today’s physics are only valid temporarily (that they are only valid until God decides so?) I mean, if somebody demonstrated an experiment like changing water to wine in few hours I think he’d receive the Nobel prize…

 

[Della]

In the Bible we read about many miracles.
For example: Sun stopping its movement, water starting to pour from a rock, Turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, Peter walking on water, resurrection of Lazarus …

The proof that these miracles happened is only through oral and written tradition. I have no photographs or videos of Peter walking on water. Even if I had the videos these could be fake. Very clearly these miracles go totally against common sense and against all recorded experiments at least few hundred years back.

Materialism goes against common sense, not miracles. Materialism tells us nothing exists apart from the physical world we see around us, but we know that’s not true. Many things cannot be explained by mere physics, and physics makes no pretense to explaining everything–or it shouldn’t–because it can’t. The resurrection of Christ is the proof that God created all we see and is the master of all there is, not humans groping to understand the mysteries of reality.

Don’t you think that believing in these miracles makes us catholics very foolish in other people’s eyes?

What makes us foolish is pretending to understand what cannot be understood using the wrong things. If you plant vegetables you use soil, water, sun, etc. to get the produce you want. If you want to understand the supernatural you need the proper things to understand how that operates, as well, and it isn’t a test tube–it’s faith in a Person, one who has no limitations but creates what he wants when he wants as he wants.

How do we explain these miracles? If they really happened, does it mean that all existing theories in today’s physics are only valid temporarily (that they are only valid until God decides so?) I mean, if somebody demonstrated an experiment like changing water to wine in few hours I think he’d receive the Nobel prize…

The very definition of a miracle is that which cannot be explained through natural means. Jesus turned water into wine because he could not because he found some forumla. As God he created wine because it pleased him to do so. He healed people who could instantly walk who had never walked before, without any physical therapy or reliance upon anything other than the Spirit of God. It was the Spirit of God who created the universe, turning water into wine was nothing compared with that. Science cannot even tell us how life begins, what it is or why it ceases to exist when a living being dies. And you want it to explain miracles?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the Bible we read about many miracles.
For example: Sun stopping its movement, water starting to pour from a rock, Turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, Peter walking on water, resurrection of Lazarus …

The proof that these miracles happened is only through oral and written tradition. I have no photographs or videos of Peter walking on water. Even if I had the videos these could be fake. Very clearly these miracles go totally against common sense and against all recorded experiments at least few hundred years back.

Don’t you think that believing in these miracles makes us catholics very foolish in other people’s eyes?

How do we explain these miracles? If they really happened, does it mean that all existing theories in today’s physics are only valid temporarily (that they are only valid until God decides so?) I mean, if somebody demonstrated an experiment like changing water to wine in few hours I think he’d receive the Nobel prize…

The Catholic Church isn’t running in a " Popularity " contest. The Church teaches the authenticity of the miracles in the Scriptures, even those in the Old Testament. You can’t be a Catholic in good standing and deny the authenticity of these miracles.

If your friends think it is foolishness, just remind them that Christ said, " …I thank you Father for revealing these things to the little ones…"
And oh by the way, you will be no more " popular " with them if you deny the teachings and beliefs of you Faith. They will just chalk you down as an example of a " cafateria Catholic " and use that as statistic to wave in the face of other Catholics. You will never be able to please the secular mind.

 

[Richca]

In the Bible we read about many miracles.
For example: Sun stopping its movement, water starting to pour from a rock, Turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, Peter walking on water, resurrection of Lazarus …

The proof that these miracles happened is only through oral and written tradition. I have no photographs or videos of Peter walking on water. Even if I had the videos these could be fake. Very clearly these miracles go totally against common sense and against all recorded experiments at least few hundred years back.

Don’t you think that believing in these miracles makes us catholics very foolish in other people’s eyes?

How do we explain these miracles? If they really happened, does it mean that all existing theories in today’s physics are only valid temporarily (that they are only valid until God decides so?) I mean, if somebody demonstrated an experiment like changing water to wine in few hours I think he’d receive the Nobel prize…

The proof that the miracles you mention happened is not just through oral and written tradition, but they are in Sacred Scripture which we believe to be the inspired word of God. If somebody doesn’t want to believe that Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God, I suppose that is there business, however I would not call that a reasonable position.

Miracles prove the existence of God and that he is the master of his creation. Miracles cannot be explained by natural science for they can only be observed by us and only God can perform them. If one did not believe in the miracles Jesus performed as recorded in the gospels and witnessed by the apostles, I don’t know how one could call himself a christian.

Whether some people might think I’m foolish for believing in the miracles recorded in Holy Scripture means little to me. I think it’s foolish to not believe in them as the miracles were witnessed by real people and then put down into writting and I don’t believe they were lying.

 

[JerryZ]

In the Bible we read about many miracles.
For example: Sun stopping its movement, water starting to pour from a rock, Turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, Peter walking on water, resurrection of Lazarus …

The proof that these miracles happened is only through oral and written tradition. I have no photographs or videos of Peter walking on water. Even if I had the videos these could be fake. Very clearly these miracles go totally against common sense and against all recorded experiments at least few hundred years back.

Don’t you think that believing in these miracles makes us catholics very foolish in other people’s eyes?

How do we explain these miracles? If they really happened, does it mean that all existing theories in today’s physics are only valid temporarily (that they are only valid until God decides so?) I mean, if somebody demonstrated an experiment like changing water to wine in few hours I think he’d receive the Nobel prize…

The physical world obbeys the natural laws that govern it. That does not preclude that God that is supranatural cannot temporarily halt or modifiy them. After all we as christans believe that the whole universe together with it’s laws were created by Him.
By the way miracles still happen today and yes now science studies them. As a matter of fact the Church first allows the sciences to look at an event claimed as “miracle” and after they declare that they have no reasonable explanation for the event then the Church goes ahead and declares it to be a valid miracle.

 

[Della]

The physical world obbeys the natural laws that govern it, that does not preclude that God that is supranatural cannot temporarily halt or modifiy them after all we as christans believe that the whole universe together with it’s laws created it.
By the way miracles still happen today and yes now science studies them as a matter of fact the Church first allows the sciences to look at an event claimed as “miracle” and after they declare that they have no reasonable explanation for the even then the Church goes ahead and declares it to be a valid miracle.

Yes, we can only observe what the universe does, but we cannot explain it all. The laws we see governing it are only observable phenonema, they are not set “rules” that the One who set it in motion and keeps it in motion cannot change–rather they are how things appear to work.

At one time scientists were sure the sound barrier could not be broken, then the speed of light was the “rule” that couldn’t be broken, but we now know that it can. If we cannot make final statements about the misnamed “laws of the universe”, then how can we possibly say that God cannot do things we human cannot understand? If only we understood how finite we are compared to him. We can see how finite we are compared to the universe in which we live, how much more finite are we than the God who created it all? :yup:

 

[sophion]

The proof that these miracles happened is only through oral and written tradition.

gossip is not considered ‘proof’.

 

[Della]

gossip is not considered ‘proof’.

Indeed, it isn’t. The Gospels were written by eye witnesses or those who had access to eye witnesses. They are reports written from various perspectives by people writing to particular audiences. The Early Church Fathers wrote what was happening in their time, as have all Church leaders down through the centuries. Gossip indeed would have been and should be rejected, but our Catholic faith is not based on gossip but on history.

 

[JFJK]

Thank you all for the replies. You gave me some food for thought.
One challenging thing for me is this: How do I distinguish between the signs that really happened and between the fake miracles (like Book of Mormon or the claims of Joseph Smith and his witnesses…) At this stage it’s only based on my unconditional personal trust that no other scripture than the Bible is the infallible word of God. And I’ve had lots of bad experiences trusting other people. It takes a lot effort for me keep believing. Other Christians base their trust in God’s Word on deep personal experience, they observed a sudden change in their life. In my case I don’t remember experiencing such a sudden change. Possibly that’s why my faith [believing in things I don’t see] is weak now. But that would be for a different discussion…

 

[sophion]

Indeed, it isn’t. The Gospels were written by eye witnesses or those who had access to eye witnesses. They are reports written from various perspectives by people writing to particular audiences. The Early Church Fathers wrote what was happening in their time, as have all Church leaders down through the centuries. Gossip indeed would have been and should be rejected, but our Catholic faith is not based on gossip but on history.

you dont know for sure who really wrote those ‘gospels’. you dont have the originals, of they existed. what you have are alleged copies that contradict each other. like one said the color of the robe was red while another said it was purple.

 

[CaptFun]

Miracles are miracles to US.

But they are not so impossible to almighty God. Easy for him.

Miracles are not the usual way God does things. But they get our attention.

As St. Thomas found out, God prefers our faith in Him without seeing proof.

Even that “science” which denies God … believes in miracles. Such as “somethings” coming from “nothing” via a “Big Bang” which somehow created as much order as it did chaos not to mention ever-more-complicated creatures and beings which accidentally and randomly evolved through inter-species transformations without a smidgen of “intelligent design,” effort on their own part, or exercise of their brains*.

• even those organisms that HAD brains.

Some of the greatest scientists the world has ever known had no problem believing in God. They’d seek and find and recorded and filed and compared and theorized and tested
and learned about the worlds God created without the need to prop up a dubious atheism
with every fiber in their beings.

On a lower level “miracles” can be nothing more than creative entertainments.
You can watch parlor tricks on Youtube all day. Some of them pretty amazing. Some of them using anomalies of science to do things that make the casual watcher say “Well I’ll be …”

There is also a school of thought that tries to explain each miracle in the Bible “scientifically” because they are more comfortable with that.

And I’ve seen unusual places on earth where things (seem to) roll uphill against gravity.
Where tides go out and come back in so quickly that had Moses crossed the channel on a sunny windy day there (Dundalk Ireland) you could see people on foot and unburdened animals getting across while pursuing chariots with armored soldiers could get stuck in the muck and drowned when the tide came back in. But it doesn’t mean it’s how the Red Sea
escape took place. Or especially that God can’t work miracles (because He doesn’t exist you see ).

I think my favorite of Jesus’ miracles was the one where he made mud out of dirt and his spit and “remade the eye” of a blind man. It recalled the making of Adam from Genesis.
And obedience to Jesus was part of the miracle. Jesus said to him, “Go wash in the Pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed, and came back able to see." John 9:7.

John chapter 9 looks at this question. HOW was this done? Angry people wanted to know. A man born blind from birth was healed - and they were angry about how it was done and WHO did it. They weren’t REALLY interested in the science of the thing.
WHAT was done was not to their liking. WHEN was a problem to them too. It happened on a Sabbath! WHERE was this Jesus that they might question Him (and exercise their authority over Him)?

The formerly blind beggar was now afraid of nothing and told the Pharisees that Jesus must have come from God (or he would not be able to do anything). He was excommunicated from the Temple.

Jesus found him, reveals himself to this healed blind man (and NOT the Temple leaders) that He is the Son of Man and asks him if he believes in Him. The man said “I do” and called him “Lord.”

Science didn’t work the miracle and couldn’t explain it. Science has no personality and wouldn’t know if you believed in it or not … let alone worshipped it. It cannot save one.

It IS a useful thing given to us by previous generations who have learned about the worlds that God has made and set in order. And even “errors of science” can be part of the learning process of elimination.

And as mankind begins to learn “science” that is not earthbound as it sends satellites into space and discovers “laws” different those that apply on the third rock from the sun … it does not change the immutable truth of any of it. But it may reveal factors that cause some “taught as truth” scientific theories of our day to be “corrected” (to put it positively).

 

[sophion]

religions - christianity, islam, hinduism, etc - are full of miracle stories. but so far there are no actual recorded evidences of them. all you have are stories. nothing but stories.

 

[Della]

you dont know for sure who really wrote those ‘gospels’. you dont have the originals, of they existed. what you have are alleged copies that contradict each other. like one said the color of the robe was red while another said it was purple.

Let’s keep this for another thread.

 

[sophion]

If they really happened, does it mean that

if they really happened there would ba a dramatic reduction in the number of atheists and agnostics. there would also be a huge migration of converts from other religions into the one that was able to produce the miracle.

the important question is: why arent there any real miracles around?

 

[FaithInTheSon]

In the Bible we read about many miracles.
For example: Sun stopping its movement, water starting to pour from a rock, Turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, Peter walking on water, resurrection of Lazarus …

The proof that these miracles happened is only through oral and written tradition. I have no photographs or videos of Peter walking on water. Even if I had the videos these could be fake. Very clearly these miracles go totally against common sense and against all recorded experiments at least few hundred years back.

Don’t you think that believing in these miracles makes us catholics very foolish in other people’s eyes?

How do we explain these miracles? If they really happened, does it mean that all existing theories in today’s physics are only valid temporarily (that they are only valid until God decides so?) I mean, if somebody demonstrated an experiment like changing water to wine in few hours I think he’d receive the Nobel prize…

Yes almost all existing theories in today’s physics are applicable and also wrong (which makes them, by nature, temporary). Ask anyone in that field you will get the same answer. If it is not a law it is probably wrong and will eventually change (I am certain there will be exceptions, but not many history would show us).

Also, being Catholics in general makes us “look foolish”. There are athiests who happen to be scientists that try to discredit religion with science. Everything in the Bible is true (not metaphorical in this instance, although there are some).

There are Christians who happen to be scientists who have indeed proved the existence of God through science.

Trust God before you trust the guy who was born just 50 years ago.

 

[fnr]

How do we explain these miracles? If they really happened, does it mean that all existing theories in today’s physics are only valid temporarily (that they are only valid until God decides so?) I mean, if somebody demonstrated an experiment like changing water to wine in few hours I think he’d receive the Nobel prize…

Science is one method of finding truths about the universe. Religion teaches truths, some of which pertain to the purpose of existence and human life. Two truths cannot contradict one another. So, there can be no conflict between religion and science.

What is science? It is a method of hypothesis testing. Hypotheses are proved or disproved, and so our understanding of the universe grows. A hypothesis can be based on a priori reasoning (generally a pretty poor way of doing it), observations of the world, or based on past experimental trials. A key element of proving a hypothesis true is the ability to replicate in the laboratory (or in the natural world, under careful conditions) observations that the hypothesis would predict as occurring.

Is a miracle a testable hypothesis? No. Simply because a miracle is not the action of human will, but of divine will. Do we have any hypotheses to explain God’s will? No.

Physics (the most fundamental of all sciences) is a series of theories that explain the observations available to us. We cannot observe God.

So miracles themselves are not amenable to scientific inquiry. However, peoples’ claims to miracles may be.

You might statistically evaluate miracle claims to see if there are any factors that explain them other than supernatural action. That’s a long and arduous process. You might statistically compare people who claim to have experienced a miracle and compare them to a set of people from similar backgrounds, economic status, religion, etc. If you see any marked differences, such as a family history of schizophrenia, you may find that other explanations better account for their miracle claims. However, none of these methods actually tells you whether or not miracles occur, especially individual miraculous occurrences.

One such evaluation of people claiming miraculous occurrences are people who speak in tongues in the modern era. Based on what I’ve seen (for example, in, there have been linguistic evaluations of what people have said while speaking in tongues, and in general, there is no evidence to suggest that the tongues involved are real languages, current or ancient. From what I’ve seen, the phonemes (the phonetic pronunciations) produced by people speaking in tongues tend to reflect the underlying languages that the speaker knows. As such, rather than the gift of an actual ancient language, modern speakers in tongues might be seen as moved to ecstatic proclamations that take them beyond their ability to put into words in the languages they normally use. Whether there is a miracle or not is unclear, though a miracle is not required for ecstatic experience.

 

[Della]

Thank you all for the replies. You gave me some food for thought.
One challenging thing for me is this: How do I distinguish between the signs that really happened and between the fake miracles (like Book of Mormon or the claims of Joseph Smith and his witnesses…) At this stage it’s only based on my unconditional personal trust that no other scripture than the Bible is the infallible word of God. And I’ve had lots of bad experiences trusting other people. It takes a lot effort for me keep believing. Other Christians base their trust in God’s Word on deep personal experience, they observed a sudden change in their life. In my case I don’t remember experiencing such a sudden change. Possibly that’s why my faith [believing in things I don’t see] is weak now. But that would be for a different discussion…

As for miracles outside of Christianity, God is not bound by anyone’s beliefs. He does good for all people because he loves all people. In this time when so many have no faith, anything good received through prayer is the work of God, IMHO.

We don’t believe merely because God sometimes performs miracles, no matter how great or small they may be. We believe what we believe because we have a living Church, founded on Christ who rose from the dead as well as the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition to draw from. We don’t need any particular feeling to believe in God. In Catholicism we call these feelings “consolations”, and they’re fine, but they aren’t the basis for belief, either. The truths Christ preached and the Church passes on to us is why we believe what we believe.

When we are baptized we are made members of God’s household. Most of us were baptized as infants and so have no memory of it or feelings to relate to it, but baptism still does what it intends to do just the same. An awakening to faith is good, but really, just practicing our faith, day in and day out is more pleasing to God than a multitude of experiences.

 

[sophion]

Is a miracle a testable?

miracles are testable. like if the sun stands still, people around the world should be able to detect & record the sudden freeze in the heavenly movements.

 

[sophion]

As for miracles outside of Christianity, God is not bound by anyone’s beliefs.

so what about those so called miracles which allegedly proves Mohammad as a true prophet of Allah? in their stories he was able to split the moon in half.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Very clearly these miracles go totally against common sense and against all recorded experiments at least few hundred years back.

Yes indeed, this is why they’re called miracles. I’ve never understood the argument I run into from some atheists along the lines of “don’t be silly, that’s impossible.” Of course it’s impossible. If we thought that walking on water was a normal, possible thing, then we a) would actually be silly, and b) wouldn’t have been impressed when Jesus did it.

One of the whole points of miracles is that they demonstrate God’s total mastery over any aspect of creation that He wishes to control. This mastery normally manifests in the universe following set laws, but because we see the laws all the time they begin to seem normal and we begin to think of them independently of God. This is just not how things work.

Frankly, everything (up to and including our continued existence from one instance to another) is a miracle. Those that we actually call miracles we call such because they remind us that the universe does have a master. But really, what is the sun spinning in the sky for a few minutes compared to all the laws by which various celestial bodies orbit each other, stars burn, and planets form anyway? Someone who can make that happen can surely walk on water if He so chooses.

Don’t you think that believing in these miracles makes us catholics very foolish in other people’s eyes?

Not unless they come to the rather silly conclusion that we think these things are somehow normal, as though we just aren’t bright enough to notice that most people can’t turn water into wine. But if they do come to such a conclusion it’s because of a lack of thought on their part, not because of anything we believe.

How do we explain these miracles? If they really happened, does it mean that all existing theories in today’s physics are only valid temporarily (that they are only valid until God decides so?) I mean, if somebody demonstrated an experiment like changing water to wine in few hours I think he’d receive the Nobel prize…

Generally, we don’t explain them, because we simply don’t know how God brings them about. It could be that He accomplishes some by acting completely within the laws He created, just in ways that would normally be unlikely, or it could be that He just sets the laws aside. It’s His universe. He can do with it as He likes. Remember that physical laws were made by Him, and the universe follows them (as it does anything else) at His pleasure.