Natural causes for miracles = no God?

[Genesius]

What if over time and through our discoveries in sub-atomic physics and the nature of the universe we find that there are natural i.e. explainable in scientific quantifiable terms, "causes" for miraculous events, does this mean there is no God?

As is often pointed out, in ancient times now explainable natural events were often perceived as miraculous. In the period known as The Enlightment many of these "miracles" were shown to have natural, explainable causes. This perceptably led to many "losing faith".

If there comes a time when it can be scientifically shown how someone could be resurrected, this could either:

A) Cause a significant number of non-believers to have faith,
B) Cause a significant number of believers to lose faith
or
C) Cause no significant change

I personally lean towards B.

What say you? What kind of implications would this have on your Theology?

[zorathruster]

It is still possible for a world to exist and a God to exist and that world not be interfered with from the supernatural realm. Deism was the position embraced by a good number of the founding politicians of the United States. A god could have made the world and then steps back and watches the fun.

Today, we cure the sick (healthcare) we permit the deaf to hear (cochlear implants) we assist the lame to walk (prosthetics and robotics). Those solutions are not supernatural, they are science at work addressing problems with practical solutions. Lets hope humans embrace the challenge to solve problems themselves and become enthusiastically productive. Relying on the supernatural is ineffective and wasteful of what humans are and are capable of.

[Genesius]

It is still possible for a world to exist and a God to exist and that world not be interfered with from the supernatural realm. Deism was the position embraced by a good number of the founding politicians of the United States. A god could have made the world and then steps back and watches the fun.

Today, we cure the sick (healthcare) we permit the deaf to hear (cochlear implants) we assist the lame to walk (prosthetics and robotics). Those solutions are not supernatural, they are science at work addressing problems with practical solutions. Lets hope humans embrace the challenge to solve problems themselves and become enthusiastically productive. Relying on the supernatural is ineffective and wasteful of what humans are and are capable of.

, but if it is shown that it is scientifically possible and quantifiable i.e. "natural" that Jesus rose from the dead. How, if at all, would this change your theological pov?

[Tladatsi]

I believe many believe in the existence of God no matter what. They do not need other people to support their beliefs, nor any outward sign of divine majesty. They know that God, or gods, exist, they know it in their bones. With every breath they feel God's presence. They could no more not believe in the existence of God than not believe in their own existence - miracles matter to them not at all. These people do not need evidence or logical arguments, the have real faith in the existence of God.

Other people do not believe in the existence of God no matter what. It does not compute. They don't feel God around them, He is not in their hearts or bones. He is just another three letter word in the dictionary, no different from dog. For these people even if they saw a real "honest to God" miracle, they still would not believe if God. These people do not need evidence or logical arguments, the have real faith in the non-existence of God.

The trouble is with all of the people in between. Many people do not have any real faith, they more or less go along with what other people think. Under the old Soviet Union in the 1970's, about 30% of the population were regular church goers (i.e. believes) and 70% were atheists. In the US today, almost everyone will tell you they "believe in God" but only about 30% go to church on anything like a regular basis. It is this other population of people who are swayed by others who need evidence and logical arguments. In the US, these are the folks who are terrified of evolution, radionuclide-decay-dating (e.g. carbon-14), the second law of thermodynamics, and the big-bang theory. These are the people who need to covert others as proof that what they believe is really true, which applies to atheists as well. These are the people who cannot believe what they believe is true unless lots of other people believe it too. It this this sort of person who is impressed with miracles or waiver if they turn out to be hoaxes or natural phenomona. They need that sort of constant reinforcement since they do not have any real faith at all.

What if over time and through our discoveries in sub-atomic physics and the nature of the universe we find that there are natural i.e. explainable in scientific quantifiable terms, "causes" for miraculous events, does this mean there is no God?

As is often pointed out, in ancient times now explainable natural events were often perceived as miraculous. In the period known as The Enlightment many of these "miracles" were shown to have natural, explainable causes. This perceptably led to many "losing faith".

If there comes a time when it can be scientifically shown how someone could be resurrected, this could either:

A) Cause a significant number of non-believers to have faith,
B) Cause a significant number of believers to lose faith
or
C) Cause no significant change

I personally lean towards B.

What say you? What kind of implications would this have on your Theology?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Even if they somehow found a naturalistic explanation for Jesus's resurrection, which I doubt they will, I think it would be stunning that this man knew it was coming back then and knew what would happen and it happened to be this guy that fulfilled all these prophecies.

It's not that Jesus rose that makes me believe in him. Lazarus was risen from the dead as well. It's who Jesus was and the fact that he rose that makes me believe in him.

[technomage]

, but if it is shown that it is scientifically possible and quantifiable i.e. "natural" that Jesus rose from the dead.

The point of Christianity is not whether or not it's possible to rise from the dead, but whether or not Jesus did so.

And I was going to say "No skeptic will scoff at the resurrection just because science can duplicate it," but then I remembered that there are a few skeptics out there who come from the shallow end of the gene pool.

[Genesius]

So it seems so far, that most people would maintain their beliefs.

Is it possible that God will be someday understood by observable phenomena?

What does this say about science? And the current definition we hold of God?

[Elegy]

If there comes a time when it can be scientifically shown how someone could be resurrected, this could either:

A) Cause a significant number of non-believers to have faith,
B) Cause a significant number of believers to lose faith
or
C) Cause no significant change

I personally lean towards B.

What say you? What kind of implications would this have on your Theology?

It wouldn't shake my faith at all--mainly because I already believe that God is responsible for the existence of science. God is the one who implemented all the physical laws in this world. Why wouldn't he make use of them?

[ScottM]

So it seems so far, that most people would maintain their beliefs.

Is it possible that God will be someday understood by observable phenomena?

What does this say about science? And the current definition we hold of God?

Genesius:
I don't think it's possible to understand God through any means available to humans now, not just through observable phenomena. But if we could, the effects of being able to understand God would be profound.

Let's say for a moment that there really is only one God, as any adherent to a monotheistic religion would believe. As more than one such religion exists today, and given that adherents to each monotheistic religion either believe differently about the same god or they believe in different gods, I think it's fair to say that either all believers will be proven wrong in their beliefs, or one group might emerge as correct and the others wrong. This would upset the apple cart in a serious way.

Let's say that there is more than one god, as many cultures have believed and still believe today. If we could understand gods through scientific study, then we'd know that more than one god exists. Certainly would be a shock to monotheists. Then we might see the argument of "My God can whip your God."

This is the case of "Be careful what you ask for, since you might get it."
This causes me to consider this proposal, offered to all adherents to monotheist religions: What would you choose if you had to choose one of the following options:
1. Remain scientifically ignorant about the god you serve and continue to believe in your god in the way that you do now.
2. Choose the scientific path to understanding God, even though that path could potentially prove that your beliefs in your god are wrong.

If they understood their beliefs could be proven wrong, I think most monotheists would prefer to remain scientifically ignorant about God.

If we could understand God through scientific methods, it would underscore the power of the scientific method, the scientific way of knowing. It would also fundamentally alter our concept of God. I think this would take away the majesty most people assign to deities. If science allows us to understand God, then we would be able to predict when and how God would act in our world. If we could know when and how God acts, is there any reason to pray to God and seriously hope that God will answer our prayers? Would there be any point in asking God to heal a sick person or bring rain to a drought-stricken land? Would there be any reason to preach messages of hope and redemption?

I think understanding God scientifically would defeat the purpose in believing in God. Perhaps it's best to leave it alone.

Scott

[Zero1]

It seems to me that even if things like the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ were possible, the chances of such an event occurring would probably be so miniscule that it would most likely be considered a miracle anyway (especially with several such events being centered around one person, as they were with Jesus). However I do not believe that will ever happen, primarily because proving such a thing to any degree of certainty would most likely be problematic at best. I'm sure theoretical physicists could come up with some mathematical model to explain miracles. Anyone who has read Stephen Hawking' books knows that they can explain virtually anything in theory. But proving it is something entirely different

[zorathruster]

, but if it is shown that it is scientifically possible and quantifiable i.e. "natural" that Jesus rose from the dead. How, if at all, would this change your theological pov?

Supposedly jesus flew up into heaven. Today people fly all the time. Therefore should that remove the miraculous event described in the jesus story? No because at that particular time people didn't fly all the time.

The event was described by writers to illicit certain responses from the population who were the target of their stories. It was common for populations to be told their emperor was born of the gods, walked on water, defeated great armies, would live forever, then decided to fly off to the heavens. In a primative population these stories held weight and kept them from revolution. Therefore, to give credence to the jesus story within that context would necessitate giving credence to the Ceasar story, the Colligula story, and the hundreds of other stories of virgin birth, devine abilities, resurection and assention into the heavens.

Those who believe in the jesus miracles would rather say, "All those other stories are false, but this one is really true, trust me."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Supposedly jesus flew up into heaven. Today people fly all the time. Therefore should that remove the miraculous event described in the jesus story? No because at that particular time people didn't fly all the time.

The event was described by writers to illicit certain responses from the population who were the target of their stories. It was common for populations to be told their emperor was born of the gods, walked on water, defeated great armies, would live forever, then decided to fly off to the heavens. In a primative population these stories held weight and kept them from revolution. Therefore, to give credence to the jesus story within that context would necessitate giving credence to the Ceasar story, the Colligula story, and the hundreds of other stories of virgin birth, devine abilities, resurection and assention into the heavens.

Those who believe in the jesus miracles would rather say, "All those other stories are false, but this one is really true, trust me."

It couldn't be that we actually consider the date of the gospels, look for consistencies in the gospels, consider that there is a whole worldview being taught, and then decide that the Christian story is true when we don't find the same accounting for the stories of Caesar being a god. It couldn't be something like that....

By the way, I'm willing to accept miracles outside of Christianity. They pose no problem for me.

[Jimmy Higgins]

What if over time and through our discoveries in sub-atomic physics and the nature of the universe we find that there are natural i.e. explainable in scientific quantifiable terms, "causes" for miraculous events, does this mean there is no God?

As is often pointed out, in ancient times now explainable natural events were often perceived as miraculous. In the period known as The Enlightment many of these "miracles" were shown to have natural, explainable causes. This perceptably led to many "losing faith".

If there comes a time when it can be scientifically shown how someone could be resurrected, this could either:

A) Cause a significant number of non-believers to have faith,
B) Cause a significant number of believers to lose faith
or
C) Cause no significant change

I personally lean towards B.

What say you? What kind of implications would this have on your Theology?

How can A apply? if it can be shown that Jesus "disappeared" naturally, why would that make non-believers think he disappeared supernaturally?

B is flawed in the sense that it neglects the obvious thought... the resurrection... it ain't fact. So people believe in it with faith that it is established fact. Change some detail, people will still have faith.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

How can A apply? if it can be shown that Jesus "disappeared" naturally, why would that make non-believers think he disappeared supernaturally?

B is flawed in the sense that it neglects the obvious thought... the resurrection... it ain't fact. So people believe in it with faith that it is established fact. Change some detail, people will still have faith.

There are some natural miracles. I have no problem with God using a natural catastrophe to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah or the natural blockage of the Jordan when the Israelites crossed. The miracle is these happened when they happened. My earlier post explains why I think it would be extraordinary for Jesus.

However, the question is if natural causes can explain that. As soon as we see a convincing argument that Jesus did not rise from the dead that considers all the data, then yeah, a lot of us will drop our faith.

[zorathruster]

It couldn't be that we actually consider the date of the gospels, look for consistencies in the gospels, consider that there is a whole worldview being taught, and then decide that the Christian story is true when we don't find the same accounting for the stories of Caesar being a god. It couldn't be something like that....

1. What is the oldest full text of the gospels?
2. What is the oldest partial text of any gospel?



3rd century (held in Rome)

about 150 AD...a fragment of the gospel attributed to John.

I can bet you don't see any problem with that!