Board index ‹ Miracles

[jimwalton]

Some miracles are outside the laws of nature, and some are not, and that's why we can't define miracle strictly as being outside the laws of nature. It's too small and restrictive a definition to cover the category. Resurrection is certainly one of those, as was walking on the water. But, for instance, an earthquake in Jericho, which is built right on a fault line, to break one section of wall, is a matter of timing, not of "outside the laws of nature". It's the definition that's the problem. If we set up a false equation, it's easy to debunk. Working with a proper definition, however, leads us to better dialogue.

[Mayor Maher]

> beings other than God are capable of miracles

But do you really believe this? Where do they get their power? Is it just like saying "magic"? Why did god give other beings the power to alter the laws of the universe, and by what means did he decide to grant this power?

You must see how strange this seems to an atheist. It's beginning to resemble mythology in that there are now several "gods".

[jimwalton]

Yeah, I really believe that God is not the only spiritual being that exists. The Bible speaks of angels, archangels, cherubim, seraphim, Satan, demons, "rulers...authorities...powers of this dark world...spiritual forces of evil" (Eph. 6.12). It's nothing like saying "magic". Magic is sleight of hand, distraction, manipulation of attention, and tricks. Spiritual beings have nothing to do with that realm.

> Why did god give other beings the power to alter the laws of the universe?

We are told nothing about the creation of the other spiritual beings. In Genesis, they already exist. What we do know from Genesis 1 is that they were originally part of the good creation of God. Hints throughout the Bible (though nothing certain or decisive) is that various spiritual beings have been delegate areas of responsibility, such as the winds (Rev. 7.1) or even nations (Dan. 12.1). We're not told much about them, but it's possible that by means of these spiritual entities God regularizes all visible reality—the regularity and order of the universe.

But these beings also have free will, and so the Bible again hints that some chose rebellion against God, just as humans chose rebellion against God. Two warring armies, so to speak, were formed, and they compete on earth for the souls of men. This resembles mythology to you because the mythological tales tap into elements of truth and combine them with elements of fancy to concoct their fables. After millennia of exposure to fables that resemble truth, we now falsely assume that the truth is a mere shadow of the fables. We have turned the tables on account of the fables.

But the Bible would tell us that even in this fallen and rebellious state the working of the Powers is not simply something limitlessly evil. The Powers, despite their fallenness, continue to exercise an ordering function. They can only act within the capacity of their faculty.

But they are not competing "gods". There is only one God, who is sovereign over all. But these are spiritual beings with genuine power, authority, and influence.

[Progedy]

If you build a structure on top of an active fault, should it be considered a miracle if a quake knocks it down? What if the timing is opportune for some? I'm afraid not. Just like it's not a miracle when someone wins the lottery.

Suppose I had knowledge of a solar eclipse that my audience did not. I could then put on some grand production and pretend to ask the heavens a question or for a sign, then sufficiently impress and convince everyone that the eclipse was that sign. Not only is this comparable scenario not a miracle, it's ripped off from actual historical events. Once the trick is revealed, we see that it wasn't actually a miracle at all.

What would be considered a miracle is what happens in Joshua 10. The sun cannot stand still in the sky. Not without the earth's sudden stopping causing massive tectonic upheaval, and people being flung out into space.

[jimwalton]

The problem with your contrivance is that no one, ever, knows that an earthquake is coming, let alone be able to pinpoint the minute. Not even modern day seismologists (I have a good friend who is a professor of seismology in a local university). That God told them that at the exact minute you blow the horns a quake will demolish part of the wall puts the prophecy and fulfillment in the area of "beyond human manipulation". It could not possibly have been the secret knowledge of the leadership. Earthquakes are not predictable.

As far as Joshua 10, the "stopping of the earth" has been totally discredited. What Joshua is asking for is an omen. The text indicates it was a situation of a full moon, of great import for their mythological opponents, the Amorites. Gibson is in the east; Aijalon in the west. Joshua is praying that the cloud cover will lift so that his enemies will see the opposition: sun rising while the full moon is still on the horizon, an omen of terrible consequence for his enemies. If they see that they will be convinced the gods are against them, lose heart, and fight in fear rather than confidence. There is pages and pages to write to make this all clear, and there isn't space for it all. The weather cooperated, according to the text, and considered to be an answer to prayer, but barely qualifies as a miracle.

[Dr. 88]

> You're mistaken to think that miracles are part of the world of scientific inquiry.

Then they don't exist, and therefore I don't care about them.

[jimwalton]

If things don't exist because they're not part of the world of scientific inquiry, than you just threw out jurisprudence, philosophy, art, music, history, and a bucketload of other legitimate scholarly disciplines.

Is the natural, material world the only kind of existence? I would say no. Time exists. Memories. Thoughts. Love. But they're certainly not material, and definitely not part of the world of scientific inquiry. Kant would contend that the moral law within us exists just as much as a chair with structural integrity. Physics cannot and does not cover the whole of reality.

[gmw803]

I think we are taking too simplistic an approach to miracles. To be sure, Jesus is as capable of performing miracles today as He was the day that He walked the earth bodily. But just before His death, He cautioned that only the wicked ask for a sign. He was exiting the miracle business as we know it from the Gospel accounts, and the resurrection would be His last and only remaining miracle.

Today, there is an even better reason why we do not call on God to perform miracles on request. The mere concept of faith requires that God cannot be solved. Were we able to call on God to move the Rocky Mountains into the Pacific Ocean, heal all cancers with no medical intervention (as we perceive medical intervention), or any of a myriad of supernatural events that cross our mind, then you would be in the damnable condition that you believe in God with faith now having become out of your reach. There is no faith, because you have seen. And without faith, it is impossible to please God. I caution strongly that if this point is not understood, then you may as well stop reading here. For the rest of this post will make no sense.

For that reason, I take my cues on modern miracles - not from the New Testament, but from the days when Israel wandered in the wilderness. For 40 years, they had food - a miracle; they had shelter - God Himself; they had clothing - God performed a miracle in assuring that nobody's shoes or garments wore out. It is that last category that should attract our attention today.

As an example, I had a day that I expected to be rather quiet. But that same day, my engine block cracked. Question: When did it really crack? I know the day that I found out that it had cracked. But I do not know the day it actually cracked. I had just come off a very busy run. How do I know that God has not been holding the block together for a month until I had both the time and money to deal with it.

You may accuse me of unfair presentation: You say that such an understanding of miracles is self-fulfilling and unfalsifyable. I have two responses: First, such an understanding is the only way to see miracles happen, yet retain the faith which pleases God.

My second response is a little more complex. We know that the heart of man is so desperately wicked that we can't even comprehend how desperately wicked it is - the heart of every man, with no exceptions. Yet you pipe up: Most of the people are not so bad. We screw up now and then, but I am basically a good person.

Now in addition to just having called God a liar, you are faced with a different problem: How do you know this? For just as God promises (Job 38:11), the heart of man is permitted to stray only so far from the areas where God would have it go. This is why (except in two facets of life), the code of conduct for man is approximately the same as the code of conduct that God would have us observe. Stealing? God: Nay. Man: Nay. Lying: God: Nay. Man: Nay. Honoring your parents: God: Aye. Man: Aye. Man is even squeamish on adultery. Not that man wishes to judge adultery. But we do have an innate sense that the children will be injured more than they deserve.

A man restrained by God according to Job 38:11 will give to charity. The unrestrained will rob from charity. And all gifts to charity are miracles of God who overrode the nature of a desperately wicked heart. The mere fact that the human race has survived is evidence that God overrides the will of man to kill. And this leads us to another broad topic that - were I to delve into it - would assure that this post never ends. How can God allow such brutality that we hear of?

Sure God could have prevented it. I bear witness that God has for my entire life isolated me from the circumstances by which I am tempted to kill. But all He has to do is.... well, nothing. And in five minutes, I will begin my career in organized crime. If God would prevent all crime - which He is certainly able to do - then we would conclude that man is law-abiding, and there is no need to trust Him for salvation. So in grace, God from time to time lifts the curtain to show what man is capable of, and by extension that we desperately need God's salvation. In other words, every act of kindness is a miracle. The evil man does is when God does not perform a miracle.

[The two facets of life that God and man disagree are the object of worship and the canons of sexual purity. That is why they are paired so frequently (Revelation 20:4, Romans 1:18-32). That the believer can so easily see the wickedness of man as God does not override the will of man is proof that trusting God results in a new creation to do His will. And that - by any standard - is a miracle.]

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your comments, gmw. Many skeptical approaches to and understandings of miracles cut far short of what needs to be discussed to digest the topic, as you have aptly shown. The first challenge is even defining what a miracle is. I tend to define it as "When the world is not left to itself; when something distinct from the natural order as a whole intrudes into it." But even that definition is dicey. The ancients made no distinctions between the spiritual and the natural worlds. There was no such thing, in the ancient mindset, as a "natural occurrence." Most people don't know that "natural" and "supernatural" are modern categories. So to define miracles as "a suspension of natural laws," "bypassing normal causality," or "a contravention of physical realities" would have left one of the writers of the Bible scratching their heads. Nature was God's activity. God’s activity is not limited to what scientifically describable cause and effect processes fail to explain; he is engaged in working through all processes.

But then we would also need to discuss the idea that there is no scientific evidence that the universe is a closed system, and that other entities and powers are impossible. Science can claim no such thing.

Then we would also need to discuss that miracles can take such a variety of forms, from walking on water to shoes not wearing out, that it becomes impossible to study such phenomena under scientific rigors. If it's a one-time occurrence that leaves behind no observable (and therefore studiable or confirmable effect) such as walking on water, science is not the correct measure of evidence. If it's a continuing (but "natural") situation such as shoes not wearing out, that leaves behind no confirmable or repeatable causal chain, science is not the correct measure of evidence.

Then we would also need, as you have said, to take into account the issue of faith, and what God is trying to accomplish in our minds and souls as we follow him.

Then we would also need to understand that miracles were often given as signs confirming the accompanying revelation, and so their purpose was often "tangled" by other governing factors.

Then we would need to understand that miracles, if they are when "the world" is not left to itself" (an inadequate definition, to be sure—is the world EVER left to itself?) are one of the ways God interacts with us, they are neither predictable, reproducible, or even necessarily leave an enduring material effect, science is not the correct measure of evidence.

Those who claim that miracles are mere magic tricks or the perceptive ignorances of primitive peoples have not delved deeply enough into the awesome marvel of what the Bible teaches.