Natural causes for miracles = no God?

[shunyadragon]

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?

Actually no one is changing the rules for the gospels, well at least the more objective historians, none of these ancient documents are given any sense of absolute accuracy that Christianity attirbutes to the Bible.

How do ancient documents compare, Well they vary, but like the texts in the Bible they vary and show an obvious evolution and changes in the text over time. Miraculous events in different ancient texts are shown the same skepticism as those in the Bible. It is recognized that ancient authors often added miraulous events to the lives of Great figures in history to exemplify their stature.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

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.

But they are not natural. Natural causes are what happens provided nothing else interferes. If you left the patient alone, he would die. The ancients would know that also now wouldn't they?

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.

Okay. Let's take the biblical accounts. What if we assumed that they happened.

Jesus was born of a virgin.
Jesus walked on water.
Jesus fed 5,000 with a few loaves of bread.
Jesus rose from the dead.

Don't you think the people knew enough about science to see a reason why those would be considered miracles?

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.

I'm talking about specific events though. Not what many did. The thread is mainly about the resurrection. What law of science were the ancients ignorant of in that regards?

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.

So what if they haven't? I see no reason to not trust the testimony of the writers. Unlike most moderns, I don't believe scientists hold all the doors to truth about the universe. It is only a bias against miracles that makes people automatically discount them.

Actually no one is changing the rules for the gospels, well at least the more objective historians, none of these ancient documents are given any sense of absolute accuracy that Christianity attirbutes to the Bible.

Yep. That explains why the gnostic gospels and the gospel of Judas were given ready acceptance, but the ones we have the evidence for were not.

How do ancient documents compare, Well they vary, but like the texts in the Bible they vary and show an obvious evolution and changes in the text over time. Miraculous events in different ancient texts are shown the same skepticism as those in the Bible. It is recognized that ancient authors often added miraulous events to the lives of Great figures in history to exemplify their stature.

They do? Give some examples. Also, because others add miraculous events over time does not mean that the biblical writers did necessarily.

[shunyadragon]

But they are not natural. Natural causes are what happens provided nothing else interferes. If you left the patient alone, he would die. The ancients would know that also now wouldn't they?

Yes, they are natural, particularly in terms of the intent of how miracles are described in this thread. Please reread the first post, emphasis mine. My experience did indeed be a natural phenomenon. Longer recovery periods for dead and near-death experiences have been observed under natural conditions in the modern world and are explainable as natural phenomenon, such conditions where the body experienced conditions of extreme cold, or near-death experiences where pulse and breath were not easily discernable, as by a layman. Today these experiences are understood as natural causes, because the body is capable of a state of reduced metabolism similar to hibernation, and extreme cold has not been necessary for these near-death or hibernation experiences to take place.

I may do some checking, because as I remember some of these instances were for a considerable period of time, possibly days.

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?

Okay. Let's take the biblical accounts. What if we assumed that they happened.

Jesus was born of a virgin.
Jesus walked on water.
Jesus fed 5,000 with a few loaves of bread.
Jesus rose from the dead.

Don't you think the people knew enough about science to see a reason why those would be considered miracles?

Some knowledge of science did exist among a select few, mostly a very few Greeks and Romans, but not the level of what we call science today. Most definitely not among those who witnessed the miracles in Christ's life. By the way, variations of virgin birth are possible today. According to the science at the time, they would be definitely miracles. Today there are possible natural explanations for some of these. Deception and a magician's slight of hand would all that would be needed to convince the average person that they would indeed be miracles.

I'm talking about specific events though. Not what many did. The thread is mainly about the resurrection. What law of science were the ancients ignorant of in that regards?

Reread the initial statement in the thread. Even though resurrection is given as the primary example it is not necessarily dealing with that miracle only.

The ancients were indeed ignorant of most of what we call science today. Because of near-death states that humans may experience that are better known today, the burial of people who were not really dead could have occurred and in reality did at times occur before modern science and medicine has been able to fully understand the human body.

So what if they haven't? I see no reason to not trust the testimony of the writers. Unlike most moderns, I don't believe scientists hold all the doors to truth about the universe. It is only a bias against miracles that makes people automatically discount them.

Given the track record of ancient writers, it is well known that they mixed fact and fiction when testifying to history. Well, your slam of science aside, it really does not reflect the reality of how ALL scientists view the nature of existence, nor does it reflect the layman's general view, which is unfortunately more a kin to general ignorance of science.

Yep. That explains why the gnostic gospels and the gospel of Judas were given ready acceptance, but the ones we have the evidence for were not.

We lack any evidence for anything within the lifetime of Jesus.

They do? Give some examples. Also, because others add miraculous events over time does not mean that the biblical writers did necessarily.

Oh my! Yes they do. The biographies of Roman Emperor's, Augustus, and Oriental historical figures are well known for the insertion of miraculous events into their lives. It is not hard to find examples. It did not necessarily mean they did, but it provides a historical basis for them to do so.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

That is a poor definition of death.

So when people are described as dying on the operating table then they're doing no such thing? Interesting. I always thought of death as an absolute. Either you were or you weren't.

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.

This suggests that you are reluctant to accept the notion that something can be beyond the capacity of the human brain to comprehend. Godel, incidentally, was a perfectly sane mathematician until he tried to wrap his intellect around the Continuum Hypothesis. (For those interested, this subject was covered in the BBC documentary "Dangerous Knowledge" which also gave interesting insights into how radical and freethinking scientists were hounded by their peers for not conforming to the established scientific thinking of the time).

[shunyadragon]

That is a poor definition of death.

So when people are described as dying on the operating table then they're doing no such thing? Interesting. I always thought of death as an absolute. Either you were or you weren't.

Actually being dead is not that clear as some believe particulary on the short term. Near death states, such as those similar to hybernation, are better known today, but not all is known yet concerning the potential humans may have to live in these states. People can in reality appear dead and not be, particularly in the past.

[Rushing Jaws]

If all alleged miracles could be accounted for without referring to God, that would not mean that God was not their Author - it would mean that they could be accounted for without referring to God; which is not the same as saying He is not responsible. The only sort of God affected by the finding of a complete explanation for everything is the "god-of-the-gaps", the god whose function is to explain the (so far) inexplicable - & that God is not the transcendent Creator-God of the Bible, but an idol.

It would be as necessary to have faith in God as it is now, because God is not related to the universe as one object in it to another - He is "Wholly Other" than it is; He cannot be known, except by faith, because faith is His gift to those within the universe, so that they can be within it yet not be imprisoned within it.

[shunyadragon]

If all alleged miracles could be accounted for without referring to God, that would not mean that God was not their Author - it would mean that they could be accounted for without referring to God; which is not the same as saying He is not responsible. The only sort of God affected by the finding of a complete explanation for everything is the "god-of-the-gaps", the god whose function is to explain the (so far) inexplicable - & that God is not the transcendent Creator-God of the Bible, but an idol.

It would be as necessary to have faith in God as it is now, because God is not related to the universe as one object in it to another - He is "Wholly Other" than it is; He cannot be known, except by faith, because faith is His gift to those within the universe, so that they can be within it yet not be imprisoned within it.

True. The foundation of any religion is in belief, as is the existence of a 'Source' some call God. 'He?' Another questionable beief. The 'Source' cannot be seen or even demonstrated by reasonable evidence.

But, what of the ancient scripture that forms the foundation of the Christian, Moslem and yours? Is it even reliable for a witness in today's world. Are a compilation of ancient tribal myths, and cut and past history of tribal turf wars and conflicts for a region drying out over millenia leaving a few habiable fertile valleys. Is this past sufficient for a belief today that world take into consideration the relationship of all humanity and the 'Source' some call God?

Do turf wars based on ancient tribal and empire conflicts justify belief today?

[Rushing Jaws]

Originally posted by Rushing Jaws

If all alleged miracles could be accounted for without referring to God, that would not mean that God was not their Author - it would mean that they could be accounted for without referring to God; which is not the same as saying He is not responsible. The only sort of God affected by the finding of a complete explanation for everything is the "god-of-the-gaps", the god whose function is to explain the (so far) inexplicable - & that God is not the transcendent Creator-God of the Bible, but an idol.

It would be as necessary to have faith in God as it is now, because God is not related to the universe as one object in it to another - He is "Wholly Other" than it is; He cannot be known, except by faith, because faith is His gift to those within the universe, so that they can be within it yet not be imprisoned within it.

True. The foundation of any religion is in belief, as is the existence of a 'Source' some call God. 'He?' Another questionable beief. The 'Source' cannot be seen or even demonstrated by reasonable evidence.

## That depends on what evidence one regards as "reasonable" - an apple is reasonable evidence of the existence & nature of an apple-tree - it's worthless as evidence of the existence of the planet Jupiter. God cannot be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid, because God is not that sort of being. But this is getting away from the question in the title...

But, what of the ancient scripture that forms the foundation of the Christian, Moslem and yours? Is it even reliable for a witness in today's world.

## Again - reliable as what ? Reliable for what ? It's not a guidebook to future geo-politics - though it has been used that way, especially in the USA by Dispensationalists. ##

Are a compilation of ancient tribal myths, and cut and past history of tribal turf wars and conflicts for a region drying out over millenia leaving a few habiable fertile valleys.

## There are myths in it, but a lot more too - apart from that, I'm not sure what the question is

Is this past sufficient for a belief today that world take into consideration the relationship of all humanity and the 'Source' some call God?

## Could you elaborate ? Thanks

Do turf wars based on ancient tribal and empire conflicts justify belief today?

## That depends on whether those beliefs - there are a great variety of them, so this habit that some people have of treating all "belief" or "faith" as though it were made up of identical parts should not be encouraged; it's like saying that arsenic, orange juice, Scotch Whisky & milk are all the same thing because all of them can be drunken. "All-the-same-ism" has nothing to recommend it - are founded on those conflicts. Christianity is not. "All-the-same-ism" is epidemic among politicians - in the UK at least

[Griggsy]

So far no one has found any real miralcles: they are just natural phenomena!

Vatican-approved miralcles are just remissions and such. See the thread Hume on miralcles!

[MrManNo1]

shunya, just stop. Your arguments are nonsense, and barely pertain to the topic at hand.

You seem to have some superiority complex in which you think you are more intelligent than the ancients. Just because you have more knowledge doesn't mean that they were morons, and if you think that is the case, then you need to look in a mirror for a long, long time.

[shunyadragon]

[quote=Rushing Jaws;2072286]If all alleged miracles could be accounted for without referring to God, that would not mean that God was not their Author - it would mean that they could be accounted for without referring to God; which is not the same as saying He is not responsible. The only sort of God affected by the finding of a complete explanation for everything is the "god-of-the-gaps", the god whose function is to explain the (so far) inexplicable - & that God is not the transcendent Creator-God of the Bible, but an idol.

It would be as necessary to have faith in God as it is now, because God is not related to the universe as one object in it to another - He is "Wholly Other" than it is; He cannot be known, except by faith, because faith is His gift to those within the universe, so that they can be within it yet not be imprisoned within it.

I will respond to your other post, but this caught my eye. What scriptural basis is there for believing that 'God is "Wholly Other". All the Jewish and Christian scriptures that I have read show God is deeply and intimately involved in our universe, planet and humanity.

It is not that i in part agree with this concept, but it represents a more Buddhist view of the nature of a 'Source.'

Is faith all there is than? Why bother with the scripture?

[nopaniers]

In my view God is not distant from the world, but constantly engaged with it. That means that even "natural" events have God's hand in them. I think dividing the world into events from which God is absent, and miracles which God acts is an artificial distinction.

I didn't always have such a rosy view of miracles, but this lecture got me thinking:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/CiS/...eys/index.html

This is not particularly useful for arguing for the existence of God. So much the better if I can point to miracles and say - look. You can't explain that, therefore God must have done it. The real God, who led Israel out of Egypt and who sent his son to the world is one who is in control of the universe, not absent from it.

[shunyadragon]

In my view God is not distant from the world, but constantly engaged with it. That means that even "natural" events have God's hand in them. I think dividing the world into events from which God is absent, and miracles which God acts is an artificial distinction.

I didn't always have such a rosy view of miracles, but this lecture got me thinking:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/CiS/...eys/index.html

This is not particularly useful for arguing for the existence of God. So much the better if I can point to miracles and say - look. You can't explain that, therefore God must have done it. The real God, who led Israel out of Egypt and who sent his son to the world is one who is in control of the universe, not absent from it.

The lecture generates more smog than communication. Selectively quoting an Oxford Dictionary to justify everything is supernatural, does not address the difference in the debate whether Natural Causes for claims of specifically supernatural miraculous events effects the Divine claims of religions.

The metaphysical naturalist, as well as the Methodological naturalist will shrug their shoulders and say, "There is nothing in this argument that addresses the issues at hand."

The claims of Christianity do not rest on the claim that everything is supernatural, but on the specific supernatural miraculous claims of events in the Bible.

[zorathruster]

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?

The assertion by one of the phoenix entities was that the gospels need to be believed because they come from the period they describe and therefore are legitimate. My point was this assertion is not correct because the oldest versions of the works come from several centuries after the time supposedly described by the gospels and therefore using these sources is illegitimate on that basis. The works had plenty of time to be rewritten, which if you are familiar with some of the oldest now discovered book of John, was done to the text. Additions were put in that totally change the meaning of some of the text. The first writings, of Paul, do not even ascribe validation to a bodily resurection but speak of a spiritual resurection. He didn't think that Jesus and a bunch of saints and stuff were seen walking around the neighborhood.

Therefore, using the present gospels as legitimate sources for verifying resurection or the history of the jesus character is falacious.

My POV on bodily resurection is - it doesn't happen, it never happend and even those who were around 2000 years ago alude to that fact. If in the distant future we could be resurected, which is a stretch, why would you put up with the original body and brain anyway. If you had the ability to revive the dead, why not revive them in a better state than they started? Why not add qualities that are beneficial? Why not improve on the product instead of rehash the same ole meat? After all, if you can revive dead flesh, making it legitimately better wouldn't be out of the range of possibility.

[Griggsy]

Zorathruster shows here the essentials of doubting the Gospel accounts of Yeshua and his miralcles.When skeptics look at the miracles of the saints and Lourdes, they find natural causes. Furthermore, why does God pick favorites and does small miralcles rather than help all and avert holocausts?
T his becomes the hiddenness of God argument that J.L.. Schellenberg shows means God is nothing. That is the ignostic argument.
Theists have to overcome the presumption of naturalism, show that the Bible is more than a made up hodge-podge of evil and mumbo-jumbo,and that God means something.That is a tall order that they never will fulfill!