A Review of The Magic of Reality

[firstfloor]

Could you show where this was done in the OT and the NT?

Your question is a little vague but I think you are asking about earthquakes in the Bible. I am not an expert on the Bible and will happily concede any point you wish to make about it, about what it says that is, not necessarily that I agree that in every case it is true. Where truth is concerned I prefer to look over a broad spectrum of different sources – and will try to think critically about them. Inevitably one has to rely on the advice of trusted experts to know anything at all – to which you would no doubt add that God is the greatest expert of all.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Your question is a little vague but I think you are asking about earthquakes in the Bible.

Nothing vague. You said the ancients attributed earthquakes to God. I asked where this was done in the Bible.

I am not an expert on the Bible and will happily concede any point you wish to make about it, about what it says that is, not necessarily that I agree that in every case it is true.

So you claimed something about the Bible without knowing about the Bible?

Where truth is concerned I prefer to look over a broad spectrum of different sources – and will try to think critically about them. Inevitably one has to rely on the advice of trusted experts to know anything at all –

Agreed.

to which you would no doubt add that God is the greatest expert of all.

No. Sorry. God doesn't do my research for me. He doesn't appreciate sloth.

[firstfloor]

Nothing vague. You said the ancients attributed earthquakes to God.

If you read it again (below), I hope you will see that I am not referring to God or the Bible. I had in mind earlier traditions.
Post 2:
The fact that many of our ancestors thought that there was and wrote stories about gods and angels is unconvincing in this scientific age.
Post 22:
It is more the case that things like earthquakes, for example, which in ancient times were attributed to gods and the like, have better modern explanations.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yes. I understand that. The others did. The Bible didn't. Therefore, you need another reason to reject the Bible. Earthquakes won't work.

[firstfloor]

Yes. I understand that. The others did. The Bible didn't. Therefore, you need another reason to reject the Bible. Earthquakes won't work.

The most obvious problem, for me, is claims of miracles. There are arguements for and against. I think that the better ones are against.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

That's an interesting claim. What are your best arguments against?

[firstfloor]

That's an interesting claim. What are your best arguments against?

Miracles would indicate that physical laws can be violated. Under laboratory conditions, physical laws are not violated. Miracles are never observed under conditions such that the events can be accurately recorded. Natural explanations of reports of miracles are both possible in every case and more likely to be true.

[Rational Gaze]

Looks as if we've got a Humean on our hands.

[Xru]

If the claim is absurd in its own terms it can be disregarded without resort to logic.

No. That's for historians, not scientists.
Do you really not know the answers to these questions? Are you trying to wind me up?

Wait a minute! If history is not for science then what is historical science like Evolutionary Theory or archeology?

[Xru]

Miracles would indicate that physical laws can be violated. Under laboratory conditions, physical laws are not violated. Miracles are never observed under conditions such that the events can be accurately recorded. Natural explanations of reports of miracles are both possible in every case and more likely to be true.

Eh . . . LPOT . . . you want to take a shot?

[Jedidiah]

Miracles would indicate that physical laws can be violated. Under laboratory conditions, physical laws are not violated. Miracles are never observed under conditions such that the events can be accurately recorded. Natural explanations of reports of miracles are both possible in every case and more likely to be true.

What you are talking about are not miracles, but putting God under the control of a scientist. It will never happen. You do not appear to have a good argument here. Your basic assumption is that miracles are not possible, and your evidence is that they can not be controlled. That is something of an conflict.

As an aside: I appreciate your manner and approach in terms of behavior. I have a sense that you are working around to something. Is that true? What do you really want to talk about?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Miracles would indicate that physical laws can be violated.

Would they? For starters, I'm not convinced physical laws really exist. I believe nature works in expected ways, but this is not because of physical laws. Second, physical laws as understood are what would happen provided there is no interference. That there is interference says nothing about the laws themselves being broken.

Under laboratory conditions, physical laws are not violated.

So what?

Miracles are never observed under conditions such that the events can be accurately recorded.

This is a historical claim however and if i answer that miracles are recorded, then it will just be said "But we know miracles cannot happen." After all, how do you know that they were not accurately reported unless you know they could not be accurate since they contain miracles.

Natural explanations of reports of miracles are both possible in every case and more likely to be true.

On the third day, Jesus rises from the dead. Please provide the natural explanation of the resurrection then.

[firstfloor]

Wait a minute! If history is not for science then what is historical science like Evolutionary Theory or archeology?

I don’t think you need to know much physics, chemistry, etc. to study history, except perhaps for dating some objects. For subjects like geology and evolution, scientific knowledge is applied to understanding the present state of things and for giving insights into what has happened in the past. Archaeology draws on many different disciplines at the same time including science and history (IMO as usual).

The interpretation of past events is really an approximation related to the age of the event but one that tends to get better as facts and research accumulate.

[firstfloor]

I have a sense that you are working around to something. Is that true? What do you really want to talk about?

Thank you for asking. I think I got here by accident, something the browser picked up following an enquiry on a physics topic. There is a thread somewhere here about quantum mechanics. I have followed religion versus evolution and young versus old earth debates for some years, always on the opposite side from the viewpoint prevailing here. I thought that I might make a small contribution to the debate. I am coming to the conclusion that there is so little common ground that the debate is sterile. I am sure that others on both sides have reached the same conclusion and the battle for young minds goes on in our schools and colleges (this is very regrettable but of massive importance in my opinion). I am not interested in aggravating anyone or hurting feelings so I am unlikely to initiate any more discussion.

Before I go, allow me to ask you if you would like my opinion on any topic.

[Jedidiah]

Before I go, allow me to ask you if you would like my opinion on any topic.

No real questions. I just thought that discussion with you would be better than with most atheists on the forum. Sorry to see you go.

I am an old earth creationist, with a generally scientific background. I don't see any conflict between the Bible and science. I see all belief based on faith, either in an eternal creator, or an eternal universe (multiverse or whatever). In my opinion one must fall into one of these two areas to have any solid beliefs. Any thoughts on these two topics? Oh, and you won't aggravate me unless you begin to imitate some of the trollish atheists on the forum.