You ask good questions, but the point of the OP is: Would you include a supernatural explanation in your list of possible explanations for the facts listed above? I think we would all want and request more information.
Seems to me, the same sort of questions apply. What is a supernatural explanation?
What about me? Do I believe in a non-physical (supernatural) aspect to reality? Yes. But the reasons are important. Science is founded on objective observation (where what we want is irrelevant), but life requires subjective participation (where what we want is central). The value I see in religion is as an attempt to address the latter. Thus I pretty much equate spiritual (i.e. non-physical or supernatural) with subjective. I think it is absolutely real and important, but trying to make it something objective or observational would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of it. It also means diversity is natural and pretty much unavoidable.
So⌠would I look for a supernatural explanation of objective events? No. I wouldnât say it is impossible, but it does seem very unlikely to me. I am not even sure it is coherent, and thus I would be asking a LOT of question.
What about the miracles in the Bible? Do I believe in those? Yes. But again we go back to the same sort of question. What is a miracle? If you define this as a violation of natural law then no, I do not believe in that, and I see very little reason to resort to an explanation like that in the descriptions I see in the Bible. Instead, I define miracles as events with the involvement of God. And since the God I believe in is not some ancient necromancer but one who created natural law for a good reason, it doesnât make sense to me that miracles are violations of the natural law God created.
1 Like
Truthfully, probably no. But I donât actually know the odds of some of those things.
But the odds arenât central to the concept of a miracle, at least looking at it as scripture portrays it. A miracle is just a random wild event without a context and point. If it doesnât bring about something we could consider in line with Godâs purposes, and doesnât mean anything, it wouldnât classify as a miracle. Admittedly, this is somewhat subjective, and a miracle to one person might be a random event if it occurred in the life of another.
Again, this isnât proveable, especially if the miracle worker is the one who holds the laws of the universe in hand - as it will just look like the laws at work. But again, this is theological, not scientific
2 Likes
I am reminded of the film âFrailtyâ where demons are portrayed pretty much as people who have done something bad⌠murder.
The same kind of evidence that encourages someone to imagine a demon needs cash or thinks a bank robbery is the way to get it.
4 Likes
So if I understand you correctly, Mitchell, you are stating that if God does something very extraordinary; an event which most non-theists would describe as a laws-of-nature defying event or a supernatural event; you would say it is not a violation of the natural law; it is is not supernatural if God did it because God created the natural law. God is the natural law, so whatever God does in this universe cannot defy Him.
Very good. I get it.
So let me rephrase my question: What would be your top five hypotheses to explain the empty bank vault based on the facts everyone agrees exist for this odd event?
- The bank vault is empty.
- Bank employees found and reported the empty vault to authorities early Monday morning.
- Local authorities and the FBI did an investigation of the crime scene and found no clues indicating who robbed the bank. They are stumped.
- The local newspaper reports on Tuesday morning that twenty members of a local religious sect claim that on Sunday, the day before the bank vault was found empty, a demon suddenly appeared in their midst, told them he had robbed the bank, and then disappeared into thin air.
So are you saying that you agree with me that alleged miracles could be just mere coincidences? Oneâs worldview determines how one categorizes these events? Neither interpretation can be proven true?
Interesting.
Question: Does your belief in the resurrected Jesus depend upon your perception of his ability to perform miracles today or is your belief in the Resurrection based entirely on historical evidence?
Excellent. You want more information before giving an answer. I think that most people would see your request for more information as very rational and reasonable. We donât have a lot of evidence at this point. Let me repeat the evidence we do have:
-
The bank vault is empty.
-
Bank employees found and reported the empty vault to authorities early Monday morning.
-
Local authorities and the FBI did an investigation of the crime scene and found no clues indicating who robbed the bank. They are stumped.
-
The local newspaper reports on Tuesday morning that twenty members of a local religious sect claim that on Sunday, the day before the bank vault was found empty, a demon suddenly appeared in their midst, told them he had robbed the bank, and then disappeared into thin air.
The additional information you want to know:
-What is a demon and how is that different from a your usual bank robber? You want a detailed eyewitness description of the alleged demon. Would only one description from one alleged eyewitness be sufficient or would you want several? How much corroboration will you require of the different descriptions from different eyewitnesses? 100 % or just agreement on his main features?
-How do the members of this religious sect know what they saw was a demon? You want eyewitness testimony from people who claimed to have seen and heard the demon. How would you like these eyewitness statements to be obtained? Would you want each alleged eyewitness interviewed separately or would it be ok with you if they are interviewed as a group? How much corroboration would you require of these alleged eyewitnesses?
-How do they know he told the truth? You want the alleged demon to prove he robbed the bank. You want to see stacks of money and jewelry or some other objective evidence that he was the robber.
-And how was this different from a magic show? Good point. Maybe someone at the church used a video projector to suddenly make the image of a short guy with fake horns on his head appear in the center of the church. The church should be thoroughly searched.
Bottom line: It doesnât sound like you would list a laws of physics defying explanation in your top five hypotheses to explain the cause of this odd event. There isnât enough evidence to convince you that a non-human committed this crime. That is exactly how we skeptics (atheists and theists) feel about the Christian claims for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. We request more evidence. The current evidence is insufficient. We deny the historicity of the resurrection not due to its impossibility but due to its high improbability and lack of good evidence.
Not really⌠you have jumped to some conclusions.
yesâŚ
No. It is not that something is not supernatural just because God did it. It is just the laws of nature are created by God and important AND I donât think God has to violate them to get things done. I see no evidence in either the Bible or in everyday life that God does violate the laws of nature. And I see little reason for Him to do so, certainly not just to impress a bunch of ignorant savages who wouldnât know the difference anyway.
NO! God is NOT natural law. God created natural law. But He created the universe for relationship so His ability to interact with things is a part of it⌠like a back door in software we create.
No. Definitely not. We can certainly defy Him and we have done so.
- Criminal activity is responsible for the bank job and the so called demon is unrelated scam.
- Criminal activity is responsible for bank and the demon is a scam of the religious sect itself.
- Criminal activity is responsible for the bank job and the so called demon is related trickery.
- The local religious sect is involved in the bank robbery.
- The bank robbers are trying to implicate the sect.
Explanation
- I find it highly unlikely that a criminal activity involves anything spiritual or non-physical.
- I see little reason for a demon to do what the sect claims
- I see little evidence that demons do anything like this.
Well aware and do not object. I am a Christian who regularly defends the rationality of atheism. I donât believe in the kind of traditional apologetics which essentially argues that atheism makes no sense or must be wrong.
Although⌠it seems to me you are objecting to a physical resurrection. But in 1 Cor 15 Paul teaches a bodily resurrection to a spiritual body, and since natural law says absolutely nothing about spiritual things then there is no violation of natural law in this.
Oh and back to question of âwhat evidence would you require?â Since this is contrary to the very reasons I believe in spiritual things in the first place, my requirements would not be so much different from atheists if not even more extreme. And even extreme evidence would more likely suggest something more like alien involvement.
You have a very intriguing world view, Mitchell. Nice chatting with you.
You appear to e asking the same question over and over, just varying the words and the parameters.
let us finish this once and for all.
Christianity is not about scientific verification or proof. It is about faith, You have to leave behind the need for verification.
Theology starts from certain assumptions. If you are going to query those assumptions then you are lost before you start. The point being that if you accept the assumptions your faith can grow. If you question them your faith fails. It is as simple and impossible as that. As I said elsewhere, Scripture is the beginning of faith not the end of it. I have long since lost the need for Scripture to be proven or verified. My faith is my life. I can argue Scripture without it mattering to my faith. In truth, that is something many Christians fail to understand.
Richard
Once again, weâre seeing the same formula under a new headline. âDemon Robs Local Bankâ isnât really a question about evidence; itâs a rhetorical setup that challenges the very idea of the supernatural. The pattern is familiar from the authorâs previous threads: change the illustration, keep the conclusionâthat no miracle claim could ever be credible. Itâs a closed loop, not an open discussion.
That approach seems to run against the guidelines Laura set out earlier, which asked for genuine dialogue and charitable reasoning rather than repeated satire dressed as inquiry. At some point, the form stops inviting discussion and starts performing disdain.
The underlying move is to treat whatever lacks a scientific explanation as if it were therefore impossible. But that confuses methodological limits with metaphysical boundaries. Science can describe natural processes; it cannot decide in advance what reality is allowed to contain. The absence of a scientific explanation is evidence only of our ignorance, not of impossibility.
7 Likes
In such a case, I would think of different possible explanations and then start to eliminate those that seem impossible based on facts.
One possible explanation for the case is that it is an insider theft - insiders take the money and then stage it as a bank robbery. At least, the robbers would have needed information that is only available for the insiders.
Maybe someone manipulated the video surveillance. Difficult but possible.
etc.
One of the questions in such a case would be why? A demon robbing money - why?
The old-fashioned detective approach is to eliminate possible scenarios one by one until only one is left. However improbable that alternative is, it is the most probable answer to the question.
1 Like
The short answer to your questions is yes: technically I do agree with you. But there is a lot of nuance to that - I had typed up a long response, but instead favored simplicity. This doesnt mean I dont believe miracles happen, but it does mean I canât prove them scientifically beyond any doubt.
As for your last question, Iâm not sure I would say my belief in the resurrected Jesus depends completely on either. I do believe he still works in the world today, but if I never saw a miracle it would not change my mind. I know there is historical evidence for the person of Jesus, but I wouldnât tell you I could scientifically prove His resurrection. Theologically speaking, that would be the single miracle that might not apply to being potentially scientifically observable were you there to study it in the moment, as in the context of the scriptures it is a universe changing event as He becomes the Firstborn of the New Creation.
My belief in the resurrected Jesus comes from personal experience (not proveable to anyone else as it occurs in the unknowable thing that is the mind of another human), and a long study of the context and meaning of the scriptures and gospel, which resonate both with how I see the world to be, as well as my desires for the ultimate future.
3 Likes
Iâd bring the 20 on for questioning. Search all their property. Gather all phone records. Confiscate all computers. All surveillance footage. Get the FBI on them. And do the same with all bank employees. Itâs an inside job obviously. Why would I listen to their fairy stories in the first place? No matter that they pass the lie detector tests.
Excellent. You would not consider a supernatural cause based on the limited evidence available.
Personal experiences seem to be the primary basis for belief in most theists. What is odd to me is that similar personal experiences are attributed to different gods depending upon the culture and upbringing of the person involved.
Excellent. I would suggest that this is the rational and reasonable approach to all very extraordinary claims. The onus is on the claimants of the very extraordinary claim to prove it is true not on skeptics who doubt it.
1 Like
Iâd give this a thousand likes if I could.
4 Likes
So youâre happy that there always will have been a natural explanation.
Until there really isnât. Until the supernatural actually shows its hand to atheist scientists and converts them.
1 Like