The resurrection and a talking rabbit

[TenDimensions]

In a conversation with a born again I put forth the argument - why stop believing that a resurrection is possible? Christ could have come back as a talking rabbit.

During the conversation it became clear to me that (at least this person) was making a distinction of some sort between the resurrection and a talking rabbit.

The discussion turned to the "suspension of natural laws". I say there is no logic that can dictate what is possible and what isn't once "natural laws" are suspended.

I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks about this. Once natural laws are suspended is anything possible?

[Pate]

No, anything is not possible if natural laws are suspended. It's impossible to create a square circle, be a married bachelor, or exist and not exist at the same time and context. This has nothing to do with laws of nature.

Also, the issue is not just whether or not resurrection or talking rabbit is possible. (I see no reason to think that they are not, and probably even every atheist philosopher would agree that they are possible, in the sense of logical possibility.) Another question to be asked is, whether we have any reason to believe that some such event has actually happened. I think that there's sufficient evidence for the resurrection when viewed at the context of theistic worldview. I doubt the existence of sufficient evidence for talking rabbits. (Or, hmm... wait a minute... I may need to take that back... after all, I have seen Bugs Bunny on TV. :brow:)

[Solly]

03-09-2003 @ 11:26 PM
TenDimensions:
The discussion turned to the "suspension of natural laws". I say there is no logic that can dictate what is possible and what isn't once "natural laws" are suspended.

I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks about this. Once natural laws are suspended is anything possible?

There is a whole can of worms waiting to be opened about the idea of "natural laws". Where is the enforcement agency that ensure s "natural laws" are obeyed? At most, all we have are observed regularities (And I got that from Nietzsche) based on existing structures - some of which we cannot pin down, such as gravity, so what is to stop a greater influence "suspending" them by a new unrepeatable event? The logic comes from the fact of a good and benevolent God who continues to uphold the order of everything, rather than let it run riot. His interventions are also based on that good and benevolent nature, rather than capriciousness. If there was to be a talking rabbit, there would be a very good reason for it.

If you look in the bible, there was a talking donkey.

[TenDimensions]

03-10-2003 @ 11:17 AM
Solly:
If you look in the bible, there was a talking donkey.

That's interesting. I was going to ask you if you knew the passage, but then I remembered that awesome resource, http://www.blueletterbible.org on the web. It took a couple of searches because I searched for donkey, then mule, and finally ass. But eventually I found it:

Num 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

Interesting. Now, what I'm a little vague about is whether this is presumed to be a parable or if it should be literally understood that there was actually a talking donkey.

[TenDimensions]

03-10-2003 @ 11:09 AM
Pate:

No, anything is not possible if natural laws are suspended. It's impossible to create a square circle, be a married bachelor, or exist and not exist at the same time and context. This has nothing to do with laws of nature.


Actually, physicists have discovered through the "laws" of quantum mechanics that something can be two things at once (a photon is a wave and a particle) until it's observed by someone. And this is within "natural" law on a microscopic level forget about what may be possible once laws are completely suspended. I'm not sure logic can be universally applied to everything - I mean as an absolute. Surely numerous principles behind quantum mechanics break all sorts of logical laws. It doesn't mean it's supernatural.

However, once you suspend the laws that we witness around us then anything is possible - including things that may not seem logical or be some kind of paradox.

That's why I'm not sure how one can accept the supernatural as real and then apply some kind of system of logical thinking to it as if you could logically deduce what is "valid" supernatural" and just plain silly.

[TenDimensions]

03-10-2003 @ 11:17 AM
Solly:
There is a whole can of worms waiting to be opened about the idea of "natural laws". Where is the enforcement agency that ensures "natural laws" are obeyed?

That's a great question. I suppose the question is really asking - what makes up the very fabric of what we call physical reality? Is there even such a thing? And if there is, why is it consistent? I could see why you would think there must be a God making it just "so". But then again, it's well known that if the sub-atomic properties of quarks, muons, and gluons were just slightly different matter wouldn't be able to form at all and we wouldn't be having this conversation wondering about whether or not God causes those properties to be "just so".


At most, all we have are observed regularities (And I got that from Nietzsche) based on existing structures - some of which we cannot pin down, such as gravity, so what is to stop a greater influence "suspending" them by a new unrepeatable event?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke. But if it exists in the physical world and it's going to effect it then it should be measurable and testable. If it exists outside the physical reality then it can not effect it because it can not interact with it. A force can not exist outside the physical world and simultaneously interact with it in such a way as to affect change on it. So will God ever be scientifically measurable or not?


The logic comes from the fact of a good and benevolent God who continues to uphold the order of everything, rather than let it run riot.

But isn't this just a variation on the idea that God is responsible for making the sun come up? Now we know all about how the Earth rotates around the Sun and how some catastrophic cosmic event could prevent the Sun from coming up tomorrow (figuratively of course). All your statement is doing is pushing back the existence of God into deeper and deeper "laws" that we witness around us.

[Pate]

03-11-2003 @ 01:38 AM
TenDimensions:
Actually, physicists have discovered through the "laws" of quantum mechanics that something can be two things at once (a photon is a wave and a particle) until it's observed by someone.

But a dual nature of photon is not a logical contradiction, strictly speaking. If it were the case that a photon would and would not be a wave at the same time and in the same sense, that would be a little different.

And anyway, phenomena like this appears only at micro-level.


However, once you suspend the laws that we witness around us then anything is possible - including things that may not seem logical or be some kind of paradox.

That may be true. A paradox means just that - apparent contradiction, not actual.



That's why I'm not sure how one can accept the supernatural as real and then apply some kind of system of logical thinking to it as if you could logically deduce what is "valid" supernatural" and just plain silly.

I don't see any reason to think that supernaturalism requires rejection of logic.

[Jaltus]

Actually, physicists have discovered through the "laws" of quantum mechanics that something can be two things at once (a photon is a wave and a particle) until it's observed by someone. And this is within "natural" law on a microscopic level forget about what may be possible once laws are completely suspended. I'm not sure logic can be universally applied to everything - I mean as an absolute. Surely numerous principles behind quantum mechanics break all sorts of logical laws. It doesn't mean it's supernatural. Actually, even when observed it is still two things at once. A photon displays wave behavior will being a particle, and it can display particle behavior when being a wave.

And no, you really do not want to go into it.

If you think that is weird, what about electron tunneling? A solid object can go through another solid object because electrons "know" how to tunnel.

What about Quantum diffration, when a particle decides to go through something that nearly always deflects it?

Err, you should not have gotten me started on QM.

[TenDimensions]

03-11-2003 @ 11:35 AM
Jaltus:

Err, you should not have gotten me started on QM.

QM's is a hobby and passion of mine. The book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku really rocked my perception of the universe.

The reason I brought it up was to try and show that logic isn't some objective quality inherent in all things "natural". Would you agree with this based on what you know about QM?