Natural causes for miracles = no God?

[zorathruster]

My mistake the oldest complete new testament is circa 4th Century

[ApologiaPhoenix]

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!

The oldest copy of Plato?
Of Tacitus?
Of Homer?
Of any ancient writer?

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

[zorathruster]

The oldest copy of Plato?
Of Tacitus?
Of Homer?
Of any ancient writer?

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

I don't hold them as necessarily correct. They are not held as gods, they are not held to have any effect on my daily life other than the philosophical aspects I have chosen to adopt. Therefore, no - I don't have a problem with whether the works attributed to them are exactly correct or a misrepresentation of the facts by interested parties.

On the other hand, most christians hold that the sayings of jesus are exactly his words, his promises and teaching is exactly what he promised and taught, and therefore it is critical that since they have so much riding on those being correct (inspite of vast changes in the most modern renditions) that the renditions are precise. The major point being there are most probably lots of changes, deletions, additions and variances to what was attributed to their character through the 200+ years of verbal and literal compilation.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I don't hold them as necessarily correct. They are not held as gods, they are not held to have any effect on my daily life other than the philosophical aspects I have chosen to adopt. Therefore, no - I don't have a problem with whether the works attributed to them are exactly correct or a misrepresentation of the facts by interested parties.

On the other hand, most christians hold that the sayings of jesus are exactly his words, his promises and teaching is exactly what he promised and taught, and therefore it is critical that since they have so much riding on those being correct (inspite of vast changes in the most modern renditions) that the renditions are precise. The major point being there are most probably lots of changes, deletions, additions and variances to what was attributed to their character through the 200+ years of verbal and literal compilation.

Sure. So here's what we'll do. We'll use textual criticism the same way we do on ancient documents. You want to change the rules for the gospels. It doesn't work that way.

So let's see, how many texts do we have?
What are the earliest copies and how far away are they?
How do all the copies we have compare when they're put together?
How does this compare to ANY other ancient document?
How did the ancients view memory and its usage?

[Genesius]

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."

I'm not sure what the point of this post is, but how would your theological POV change if you found out that it was scientifically possible for Jesus to be resurrected?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Science is already capable of resurrection. For example, people sometimes die on the operating table and are resuscitated using defibrillators, injections, breathing equipment, etc. Given some donated sperm, modern medicine could likely pull off a virgin birth.

Today's 'supernatural' may well be tomorrow's 'natural'. However there may be some things that are simply beyond the human brain's capacity to understand. The Continuum Hypothesis, for example, drove two brilliant mathematicians insane.

[shunyadragon]

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?

Of course, over time the advances of the sciences, arts, hirtorical knowledges and philosophy underminds the foundation of the beliefs in miracles and the ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Islam is more recent and has a better footing in the modern world, but Islam still lacks the relavence in today's modern world.

This is not only true of the belief in miracles (the next word or shortly after in most dictionaries is mirage.), but is also true of the ancient concept of cause and effect. Biblically natural disasters, military defeats, and individual bad fortunes, such as disease, injury and death, are attributed to divine punishment. On the reverse, Good fortunes, crops, good health, military victories are attributed to God being pleased and happy.

Despite these obvious problems, conflicts, and inconsistances with our knowledge of existence today , faith tends to win out when fear, and successful spin doctoring with blue smoke and mirrors by theologians , and well schooled sheep herders in the pulpits people still swallow the party line hook line and sinker leaving quite a wake in the water on the tow line, or bound by the thread firmly tied to the elephant.

The flock will likely continue to obfiscatek duck, bob and weave while blindfolded to avoid reality. From the outside it is quite a circus sideshow with several medicine men, well stocked snake oils wagons

[Genesius]

Of course, over time the advances of the sciences, arts, hirtorical knowledges and philosophy underminds the foundation of the beliefs in miracles and the ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Islam is more recent and has a better footing in the modern world, but Islam still lacks the relavence in today's modern world.

Undermines?

I don't think so, anyway I'm talking about supporting the preposed "miracle" with science not undermining it.

This is not only true of the belief in miracles (the next word or shortly after in most dictionaries is mirage.),

Oh brother.

but is also true of the ancient concept of cause and effect. Biblically natural disasters, military defeats, and individual bad fortunes, such as disease, injury and death, are attributed to divine punishment. On the reverse, Good fortunes, crops, good health, military victories are attributed to God being pleased and happy.

The point of the OP is to ask what if science comes to show that these things are actually quantifiable. Like some pattern in evolution is discovered where ones emotions are tied with the happiness of the tribe or society which in turn affects the weather somehow. Butterfly effect?

Despite these obvious problems, conflicts, and inconsistances with our knowledge of existence today , faith tends to win out when fear, and successful spin doctoring with blue smoke and mirrors by theologians , and well schooled sheep herders in the pulpits people still swallow the party line hook line and sinker leaving quite a wake in the water on the tow line, or bound by the thread firmly tied to the elephant.

The flock will likely continue to obfiscate duck, bob and weave while blindfolded to avoid reality. From the outside it is quite a circus sideshow with several medicine men, well stocked snake oils wagons

Well, you obviously have a issue with religious institutions, but I don't really see the relevance to the topic.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Science is already capable of resurrection. For example, people sometimes die on the operating table and are resuscitated using defibrillators, injections, breathing equipment, etc. Given some donated sperm, modern medicine could likely pull off a virgin birth.

Today's 'supernatural' may well be tomorrow's 'natural'. However there may be some things that are simply beyond the human brain's capacity to understand. The Continuum Hypothesis, for example, drove two brilliant mathematicians insane.

Moose. There are a number of stages of death though. (Some researchers of NDE are even speaking of PDEs now, Post-Death Experiences.) The stage that no one has been brought back from to my knowledge is biological death, excepting the miraculous instances in Scripture.

Just wanted to make that distinction.

[zorathruster]

Science is already capable of resurrection. For example, people sometimes die on the operating table and are resuscitated using defibrillators, injections, breathing equipment, etc. Given some donated sperm, modern medicine could likely pull off a virgin birth.

Today's 'supernatural' may well be tomorrow's 'natural'. However there may be some things that are simply beyond the human brain's capacity to understand. The Continuum Hypothesis, for example, drove two brilliant mathematicians insane.

That is a poor definition of death. Brain death is a more apt description. However, in a few remote instances certain brain death can be restarted. However, that does not verify a dualistic view of the world. It is better to describe it as a computer shut down and then a computer restarted.

Humans think in patterns. Insanity is more often leveled at persons who's chemical or structural make up is abnormal, not someone who thinks too much, too hard or too complex of an idea. The coincidence of superior mathematical ability, Einstein for instance, have been correlated to different brain make up. Einstein had a stunted area of his brain which allowed the section responsible for spacial and mathematical concepts to expand into that area, increase in that sections capacity was cited as a possible explanation for his superior mathematical ability. Since numerous other mathematical savants exist it is possible they too have brain anomalies and would be a more logical explanation for their psychosis than the specific topic they were studying.

[shunyadragon]

Undermines?

I don't think so, anyway I'm talking about supporting the preposed "miracle" with science not undermining it.

This basically is how science operates. The advances of science undermines ancient beliefs in superstition, miraculous, and the supernatural. Science can never truely disprove miraculous beliefs, because science can only objectively test, verify or evaluate natural phenomenon in today's world. Supernatural or miraculous anecdotal testimony of ancients is not disproven, but undermined by the fact that these beliefs are not replicatable by modern scientific methods.

Oh brother.

Yes Oh brother! Where at thou! The closest relationship of miracle to reality is a mirage. It has nothing to with science.

The point of the OP is to ask what if science comes to show that these things are actually quantifiable. Like some pattern in evolution is discovered where ones emotions are tied with the happiness of the tribe or society which in turn affects the weather somehow. Butterfly effect?

Like some pattern in evolution discovered that what!?!?!

Earth to Genesius, let's get back to reality.

Well, you obviously have a issue with religious institutions, but I don't really see the relevance to the topic.

Very relavent. Religious institutions that perpetuate the belief in miricales believed by gullible people who will believe regardless of science, because they believe in ancient books as fact, anecdotal testimony and coincidences regardless of the progress of science.

I worked as a paramedic in West Virginia in the 1970's and recieved the Pheonix award for resusitating an individual that in the past would have been decalared legally dead. If that happened 2000 years ago it would have been called a miraculous resurrection, but not in today's world. Technology changes, and what would have been a miracle fifty years, 100 or 2000 years ago, would be accepted as natural in light of today's silence, Natural causes for miracles is a fact of history, but this would not likely have any bearing on the existence or non-existence of God. Your dealing with people who believe as abaolute fact the testimony of men 2000 years ago who had no knowledge of the natural causes of the nature of existence known today.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Very relavent. Religious institutions that perpetuate the belief in miricales believed by gullible people who will believe regardless of science, because they believe in ancient books as fact, anecdotal testimony and coincidences regardless of the progress of science.

I worked as a paramedic in West Virginia in the 1970's and recieved the Pheonix award for resusitating an individual that in the past would have been decalared legally dead. Technology changes, and what would have been a miracle fifty years, 100 or 2000 years ago, would be accepted as natural in light of today's silence, Natural causes for miracles is a fact of history, but this would not likely have any bearing on the existence or non-existence of God. Your dealing with people who believe as abaolute fact the testimony of men 2000 years ago who had no knowledge of the natural causes of the nature of existence known today.

You know, this might surprise you, but even 2,000 years ago, their science was advanced enough to know that when people died, they stayed that way.

[shunyadragon]

You know, this might surprise you, but even 2,000 years ago, their science was advanced enough to know that when people died, they stayed that way.

But 2000 years ago this man would have stayed dead according to their science, today he was resurrected.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

But 2000 years ago this man would have stayed dead, today he was resurrected.

Correct, but the ancients would have recognized that as an anomaly as well. Even if they didn't know what caused it, they would have known that it didn't happen "naturally." (Nor did it in yours. He had to be brought back.)

People recognized things as miracles in biblical times not for ignorance of science but knowledge of it. They had some idea, although not as large as ours today, of how the natural world worked and they recognized an anomaly.

So I don't see what the science today has to do with the miracles of the past, especially since what they considered miraculous in the NT, I'd still see as miraculous today.

[shunyadragon]

Correct, but the ancients would have recognized that as an anomaly as well. Even if they didn't know what caused it, they would have known that it didn't happen "naturally." (Nor did it in yours. He had to be brought back.)

In the modern natural cause and effect relationships of my experience would most definitely would be considered his death and revival as attributed to natural causes.

People recognized things as miracles in biblical times not for ignorance of science but knowledge of it. They had some idea, although not as large as ours today, of how the natural world worked and they recognized an anomaly.

The recognized anomaly in the Biblical times as miraculous. Today science recognizes anomalies as aspects of nature that increase the knowledge of science and modify existing theories in an evolving body of knowledge.

So I don't see what the science today has to do with the miracles of the past, especially since what they considered miraculous in the NT, I'd still see as miraculous today.

Your presenting a confusing picture of the understanding of miracles and natural causes in this thread. Miraculous causes would be those without a natural explanation. In the ancient biblical world there was indeed a lack of scientific knowledge that lead people to equate natural events, and cause and effect relationships that they did not understand as miracles. The definition for miracles relavent to this thread would be events and cause and effect relationships that could not be explained by scientific methods as having a natural cause. It is also common place in the ancient world and sometimes among laymen today to distort and amplafy reprots of unexplained events into quite imaginative stories, as with UFOs today. Today, more objective investigations tend to give a more obective reporting of events without the imaginative distortions, eventhough not all such events reported in the modern world are adaquately explained.

If the events such as resurrection occured today they would indeed be considered as miraculous, but miracles, like those reported in ancient texts like the Bible such as Christ's resurrection and the resurrected saints wandering the streets of Jeruselum, have not been objectively documented by scientific methods in modern history.