But in this 'virtual world" the fossils need not be affected. The water is only needed to drown people, it is not needed to affect the earth. Just as the pillar of fire is needed to guide the Israelites, not burn a glass path in the desert.
If the miracle leaves no evidence, moving of fossils is evidence. I am saying the miracle only affects what it is meant to affect, and in the case of the flood, it is to drown all living things, and redeem the few faithful.
But if we were to imagine the global flood is legit in this manner. Would this be possible with regards to our DNA and the genome? I do not know that answer.
Itâs certainly a novel approach I can âappreciateâ - - as long as you maintain that the miraculous Flood was a mystical kind of flood⊠that vanishes once the job is done.
Itâs very much like the mystical action of âthe Destroyerâ - - who slew the first born of the Egyptians! There was no physical remnant of the Destroyer. It might even be described as a âflood of deathâ⊠that spewed forth on the land ⊠and then disappeared.
Well, that was covered pretty well in the Adam and the Genome thread, and while opinions may vary, the evidence of a severe bottleneck in the last couple of hundred thousand years is nil.
It is recorded as only drowning land dwelling, 4 legged, air breathing, sexually reproducing life. No mention made of the vast array of other living things. Which would be killed in any real global flood.
Not to be the Common Descent Policeman⊠but the vestigial legs are not universally present:
âPythons and boa constrictors have tiny hind leg bones buried in muscles toward their tail ends. Such features, either useless or poorly suited to performing specific tasks, are described as vestigial. They are also intriguing evidence of the evolutionary histories of species.â
Do you think itâs too late to report a terrible crime? Amphisbaena alba swears it had legs when it got on the Ark⊠then it takes a nap⊠and the next thing it knows ⊠he wakes up and his legs are just GONE!
This disturbing beast is part of a pretty large group of âlegless lizardsâ ⊠with absolutely no genetic heritage in the snake family ⊠it evolved separately ⊠as a burrowing animal, and lost its legs at a different time and place than snakes did.
But snakes get all the press⊠A. alba is pretty depressed⊠and uglyâŠ
These are big âFlood-wavesâ! I try to ride them in the following (hopefully without being drowned).
The key concept in your objections is âevidenceâ, that is information about the world we perceive with our senses. So it is crucial to define well this concept to avoid misunderstandings.
To this aim it is useful to consider the âMiracle of the Sunâ occurred in Fatima (Portugal) on October 13th, 1917.
A preliminary remark:
This miracle has been acknowledged âworthy of beliefâ by the Catholic Church on October 13th, 1930; since 1917 Fatima has developed to a pilgrimage sanctuary now visited by millions from all over the world every year; last year, on the occasion of the centenary of the âMiracleâ Pope Francis made saints of two shepherd children who witnessed the Marian apparitions, and the third is also on the way to sainthood. Nonetheless neither believing such a âMiracleâ nor even that the Mother of Jesus appeared in Fatima is a necessary condition to be a faithful of the Catholic Church because divine revelation is considered closed with the death of the last of the Apostles.
This said, I think the phenomenological structure of the âMiracle of the Sunâ provides a key to decipher the meaning behind the Genesis Flood narrative.
The âMiracle of the Sunâ consisted in that on said day 70,000 pilgrims gathered in Cova da Iria perceived the Sun dancing at 2 pm. By contrast 2 billion people in the rest of the world perceived the Sun following its usual trajectory. So during about 10 minutes two different groups of observers had different evidence of the same physical event depending on their location. What does this mean? Since the physical reality is defined by the observations, one must conclude that there were two physical realities or two parallel worlds: What watched the 70,000 in Cova da Iria was as real (or as virtual) as what watched the two billion in the rest of the world. At the end of the miracle the people gathered in Cova da Iria entered again the ordinary world and perceived the Sun following the usual trajectory.
On the basis of the evidence available today we could conclude that the Miracle âdid not happenâ. Does this mean God created âfalse evidenceâ? NO, it simply means that in making miracles God follows the principle of parsimony, that is: He lets ordinarily appear the world to us according the usual regularities that allow us to predict and calculate it, and when God (for whatever reason) considers it convenient to make a miracle then He lets a parallel world appear where things do not follow the usual regularities. Curiously this coexistence of two parallel worlds is very much the same as atheist proposers of The Multiverse hypothesis assume! So ironically Fatimaâs âMiracle of the Sunâ can be considered to demonstrate âThe Multiverseâ, although in the sense of âpossible parallel worlds contained in Godâs mindâ.
As a matter of fact, since 1917 there is no evidence of a dancing sun at Fatima every October 13th, not even for the celebration of the centenary in 2017. Should we conclude that God is a deceiver? NO, He speaks to us also through plenty of recorded eyewitness accounts. Evidence from eyewitness accounts may be at occasions (for instance in trials) even more important than evidence from possible apparatus records. So the correct conclusion is that on the basis of the evidence available today the only thing we can state is that the âMiracle of the Sunâ did not happen in the ordinary world we are living in.
In summary: The assumption that âevidenceâ has to be identical for all observers is appropriate and useful to the aim of describing the ordinary physical reality. However, claiming that God is obliged always and for all people to shape the world without deviating from the ordinary regularities is an arbitrary prejudice.
The same for the Flood: The Miracle of the Flood means that about 200â000 people living in Sumer around Noah and his family perceived the Flood basically according to the Genesis narrative.
The geological evidence we have today does not mean that Noahâs Flood did not happen, but only that it did not happen in the world we are living in now, where the ordinary regularities hold.
I apologize for insisting: Even when we âappeal to miracleâ we are bothering to wrestle with evidence, but with extraordinary evidence. The problem with YECism is that this community acknowledges only one sort of evidence and tries to justify the extraordinary evidence about the Flood reported in Genesis through âfocused exaggerationâ of the ordinary geological evidence we observe today. And I am afraid to say this is not far from what you seem to do too: You explain the extraordinary evidence in Genesis 6-9 through âpurposeful exaggerationâ (âHyperboleâ) of ambiguous ordinary one (undocumented local flood).
In other words both YECs and you are denying the possibility of distinguishing between extraordinary evidence (miracles) and ordinary one.
I like what you state here and get the impression we agree to a large extent:
According to my explanation at the time of the Flood (about 3000 BC) all Image Bearers on Earth were living in the region of the antediluvian Sumerian cities. All of them with exception of Noah and his family became âscoffersâ and perished in the Flood.
Therefore one can say (as you claim) that from our geographically perspective today the flood affected âlocal scoffersâ. Nonetheless from the perspective of Noah and his family (the only survived eyewitnesses) the flood was global: it affected all Image Bearers living at this date, and all of them perceived things according to the extraordinary evidence reported in Genesis 6-9, very much as the 70,000 in Cova da Iria perceived the Dance of the Sun.
The extraordinary evidence the Image Bearers affected by the Flood did share is as real (or as virtual) as the ordinary one we share today. In other words Genesis 6-9 is as real an account as our geological picture. Similarly to the âMiracle of the Sunâ: What happened in Cova da Iria was as real (or as virtual) as what happened in the rest of the world.
You raise a very good point, which receives a very good answer in the following comment:
Actually the miracle is only required to explain how 200,000 scoffers dissolved into water and passed away without leaving any trace (like the Pharaohâs warriors drowned in the Red Sea).
As I have already said in another thread, the rest of the world outside Sumer with all the animals therein can be considered part of Noahâs Ark: Also in doing miracles God follows the principle of parsimony!
I will continue answering further objections in coming posts. To finish now I would like paraphrase the following excellent comment:
God is not less active in ordinary events of nature or history than in extraordinary ones like miracles. The big miracle is not the Sun dancing at 2 pm on October 13, 1917, but the sun following the usual trajectory every day: The miracle of ordinary daily life!
Similarly, the miracle of the Flood was necessary to recreate Humanity. But even bigger as a miracle is the ordinary history thereafter, which brought about the Savior: It is the Incarnation of God what was aimed through the Big Bang and all the subsequent evolution.
So I understand what you are saying now. And I want to jump in that boatâŠbut I canât quite yet.
The âmultiverseâ theory works during the miracle, but after, we all collapse back o the single universe, where the proof of the flood never happened. I follow you there.
But once we collapse back, there is now false evidence created on the genome scale. Science says no global flood happened, ok, it happened in a âmultiverseâ. But in the single or multiverse, we have a dna that shows no bottleneck that small existed 4000ish years ago. That is false dna evidence planted. Thatâs where I canât follow this theory anymore.
Not just dna, but we know inbreeding is bad, that would have required a miracle/multiverse were incest was ok for a thousand or so years.
Unless they traveled far from the flood (outside of the flooded area) afterwords, and communicated and mated with all the ânon-image bearerâ. As I believe image bearing status came to one man through the breath of God, and spread to other through word of mouth. And the non-image bearers that didnât die, were communicated to, making them image bearers. That solves the bottleneck problem and inbreeding. This is what is currently believed/accepted by the âlocal floodâ crowd.
Am I right in understanding what you are saying is that the global flood killed all (sans Noahâs family)image bearers on the globe, but was not geographically global. And other races know of the flood, because as Noahâs family spread through the world, they spread the story of the flood with knowledge that made the rest of them image bearers as they were now aware of their image bearing status. You (combined with my own meditation/wrestling) might have just convinced me of this narrative you were pushing.
There also wasnât a whole lot of time from Adam to Noah for the world to have heard Godâs image bearing purpose, so it would be surprising to hear of a global flood needed to wipe the far reaches out, as word hasnât reached them yet.
This matches Waltonâs view of purpose made things âexistâ in the ANE. So until you were told you were an image bearer, you werenât.
Which I know can fall into a slippery slope to consider those who never heard of God as ânon-image bearersâ. But as long as that is only believed by the same people who see the sacredness of image bearing potential as the same as those who already are, then no bad things will come of that mindset.
I have always thought the miracle of Jesus coming. An amazing orchestra with so many different instruments from different areas and different times to all join in harmony and then to come to an amazing crescendo at the death of Jesus on the cross.
I was unaware of this event, thanks for sharing it. I would imagine where only a few saw something, they would be labeled as hallucinations. But 70k people canât have the me hallucinations. And I donât think that many people could keep a âconspiracyâ under wraps. Someone would be bound to slip up at some point. Like the flat earth eathers. There is no way every employee off NASA could keep that under wraps without a slip up.
This âvirtual realityâ or âmultiverseâ theory seems to hold a lot of waterâŠI have never thought of it that way before. I need to chew on this brain candy for a bit.
The miracle at Fatima has many skeptics. Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia
Many didnât see the sun dance; and those that did think they saw it dance, had different accounts frequently. When I stare at the sun too long, I get tired, and the sun dances. How much more would one feel with a crowd mentality? Itâs well known that mass hysteria can affect peopleâthatâs why when one choir member faints, watch outâmany others often do, too.
Wikipedia:
Criticism
Theologians, scientists, and skeptics have responded to claims that conflict with established scientific knowledge regarding the behavior of the Sun. Science writer Benjamin Radford maintains that âthe sun did not really dance in the sky. We know this because, of course, everyone on Earth is under the same sun, and if the closest dying star to us suddenly began doing celestial gymnastics a few billion other people would surely have reported itâ. Radford wrote that psychological factors such as the power of suggestion and pareidolia can better explain the reported events. According to Radford, âNo one suggests that those who reported seeing the Miracle of the Sun âor any other miracles at FĂĄtima or elsewhereâ are lying or hoaxing. Instead, they very likely experienced what they claimed to, though that experience took place mostly in their minds.â[8]
In The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary Kevin McClure wrote that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, since similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis, he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. McClure also stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research that he had done in the previous ten years.[10]
According to theologian Lisa J. Schwebel, claims of the miracle present a number of difficulties. Schwebel states, ânot only did not all those present not see the phenomenon, but also there are considerable inconsistencies among witnesses as to what they did seeâ. Schwebel also observes that there is no authentic photo of the solar phenomena claimed, âdespite the presence of hundreds of reporters and photographers at the fieldâ and one photo often presented as authentic is actually âa solar eclipse in another part of the world taken sometime before 1917â.[46]
Supernatural explanations, such as those by Father Pio Scatizzi who argues that observers in FĂĄtima could not be collectively deceived, or that the effect was not seen by observatories in distant places because of divine intervention[47] have been dismissed by critics who say those taking part in the event could certainly be deceived by their senses, or they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.[8]
Others, such as professor of physics Auguste Meessen, suggest that optical effects created by the human eye can account for the reported phenomenon. Meessen presented his analysis of apparitions and âmiracles of the sunâ at the International Symposium âScience, Religion and Conscienceâ in 2003.[48][49] While Meessen felt those who claim to have experienced miracles were âhonestly experiencing what they reportâ, he stated sun miracles cannot be taken at face value and that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun.[7] Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly, Meessen concluded that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[7] Meessen observes that Sun Miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun. He cites the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949) as an example, where many people within a crowd of over 10,000 testified to witnessing similar observations as at FĂĄtima.[7] Meessen also cites a British Journal of Ophthalmology article that discusses some modern examples of Sun Miracles.[50] Prof. Dr. Stöckl, a meteorologist from Regensburg, also proposed a similar theory and made similar observations.[51]
Critics also suggest that a combination of clouds, atmospheric effects and natural sunlight could have created the reported visual phenomena. Steuart Campbell, writing for the edition of Journal of Meteorology in 1989, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear to be yellow, blue, and violet, and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reported that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983.[12] Paul Simons, in an article entitled âWeather Secrets of Miracle at FĂĄtimaâ, stated that it is possible that some of the optical effects at FĂĄtima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[52]
Skeptical investigator Joe Nickell wrote that the âdancing sunâ effects reported at FĂĄtima were âa combination of factors, including optical effects and meteorological phenomena, such as the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc. Other possibilities include an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, causing the sunâs image to alternately brighten and dim and so seem to advance and recede, and dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere refracting the sunlight and thus imparting a variety of colorsâ. However, Dr. Jose Maria de Almeida Garrett observed, âIt could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment).â[53] Nickell also suggests that unusual visual effects could have resulted from temporary retinal distortion caused by staring at the intense light of the Sun,[6] or have been caused by a sundog, a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon.[54][13] Nickell also highlights the psychological suggestibility of the witnesses, noting that devout spectators often come to locations where Marian apparitions have been reported âfully expecting some miraculous eventâ, such as the 1988 Lubbock apparition of Mary in Texas, the Mother Cabrini Shrine near Denver, Colorado, in 1992, and Conyers, Georgia, in the early to mid-1990s.[6]
My father was one of the most godly folks I knew. However, he said, when I was struggling with proof for God, that we probably would never be able to rely on proof of any miracle.
When one member faints, it can trigger response. A psychological response can trigger a biological response, causing the blood to drain from the head, which causes you to faint. It is biological too not purely psychological, they are really going into shock.
This fits the multiverse theoryâŠand scriptureâŠ
Mark 6:4-6 â
Jesus said to them, âA prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.â He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.â
Matthew 13:57-58 ââŠBut Jesus said to them, âA prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.â
And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.â
This also fits most medical miracles. There is no proof, the âproofâ is in the faith of those that believe it.
Matthew 12:38-42 International Standard Version (ISV)
The Sign of Jonah
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees told Jesus,[a] âTeacher, we want to see a sign from you.â
39 But he replied to them, âAn evil and adulterous generation craves a sign. Yet no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, 40 because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights,[b] so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
No it is not. There is no physical evidence that anything happened at Fatima. On October 14th, 1917 they only thing you would have to go on would be eye witness testimony.
In looking over a list of the miracles performed by Jesus as recorded in the NT I noticed that in all cases there was physical evidence of the miracle. It might just be baskets of fish sandwiches or a dead man walking around but there would be something you could use to verify the miracle. The other thing I noticed was none of this evidence would survive the lifetime of those who experienced it and some might only be seen by the eye witnesses such as Jesus walking on water. The only exception was the Temple Tax Jesus produced from the mouth of the fish, but since it was used to pay the tax it also could be considered not available. So bottom line the miracles produced physical evidence that existed for a period of time. There is nothing to suggest these miracles were limited to the local area. I imagine if Joe returned from Egypt after hearing Lazarus was dead and he found Lazarus alive Joe could confirm the miracle.
So are you proposing the Flood was really regional? You are the one who said there is no physical evidence for a regional flood. And the inspired text certainly gives indications that the flood was real and world-wide.
Why should the flood be any different from the miracles recorded in the NT? When you say âit did not happen in the world we are living in nowâ you have reduced the flood to a fairy tale.
The miracles performed by Jesus are extraordinary events, but the ordinary physical evidence was still there. If doctors had been around I am sure they would pronounce Lazarus in good physical condition and I am sure a modern doctor would scoff at the idea Lazarus had been dead for 3 days.
The quote from Dumbledore, "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?â is appealing. However, it doesnât jive with truth. I donât feel comfortable with the multiverse idea. A dancing sun would affect you with gravity going haywire, too.
God doesnât treat us as though weâre in a multiverse. If I die in this universe, I donât go on living in the next, the same as before. It really does matter whether I drive well or not, so as to not get into a fatal accident. If I sin in this universe, God doesnât treat it as though it didnât happen in the next.
Sorry that Iâve been out of pocket for a few days. The question is similar in some ways to the question of ancient âscienceâ/cosmology in the Bible. For some people, it is extremely troubling to think that God inspired an author to write something counterfactual. (As witness, I call the crazy-long and numerous threads about firmaments and pillars and waters above the heavens.) They seem to equate it with âmaking God a liar.â I donât think theyâre right, but itâs hard to dissuade them. In any case, the fact that the inspired author would draw examples of judgment from scripture (fallen angels, Noah, Sodom) to make his point is completely unremarkable, and whether or not he considered them âliteral historyâ is moot, as far as Iâm concerned.
But letâs look at the passage itself. Peterâs first example of judgment (2 Peter 2:4) is of fallen angels being consigned to hell (Gk. Tartarus): âFor if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment âŠâ Peter begins his defense of Godâs judgment by citing an extrabiblical Jewish tradition that may or may not have been a âhistoricalâ event. His mention of Noah as a âpreacher of righteousnessâ also draws from Jewish tradition not found in scripture. No one seems bothered by the fact that Peterâs first two examples draw from tradition rather than scripture. Simply, he is using what his audience accepted as âcommon knowledgeâ to make a point about the certainty of Godâs judgment. Trying to turn his exhortation into literal history is like trying to turn a pastorâs sermon illustrations into literal history, but some canât wrap their minds around that concept. They still want to draw that line in the sand: All is literally âtrueâ history, or all is lies and falsehood.
Youâre right in the sense that the words âmiracleâ and âsupernaturalâ are not the language of scripture. I use them out of convenience, habit, and the need to communicate clearly. However, it was not all God/gods. For the ancients, the world was composed of the âseenâ and the âunseen,â two sides of the same coin. The connection of God/gods to ânaturalâ events was more of a both/and rather than our current either/or. In short, they could attribute a spiritual and a natural cause simultaneously to the same event. They felt no compulsion to tease out the distinctions that we try to make.
Signs and wonders served a purpose, which was to arouse awe, identify Godâs messenger(s), and authenticate the message as coming from God. Signs and wonders primarily cluster around three events: the Exodus deliverance, the beginning of the prophetic movement in Israel (Elijah, Elisha), and the appearance of Jesus Christ. When God granted signs and wonders, it was not just to âflex his muscles,â but to identify the one who spoke for him. Outside of the scripture, claims of miracles â whether modern or medieval â almost never fit this pattern.
In scripture, signs and wonders are always accompanied by the messengerâs prophetic interpretation of the event. âSignâ and âwordâ are not to be separated, since the sign was granted only to authenticate the messenger. On its own, a sign is ambiguous. Consider John 12.27-30:
27 âNow my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? âFather, save me from this hourâ? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!â
Then a voice came from heaven, âI have glorified it, and will glorify it again.â 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
30 Jesus said, âThis voice was for your benefit, not mineâŠ
So, of the people who heard Godâs voice, some offered a natural explanation (thunder), while others misidentified the source (angels). Even were God to grant signs and wonders in abundance today, the same responses would occur. Even among those in Galilee who saw the risen Lord, some doubted (Matt. 28.17). âProofâ is overrated.
My small joke about a slippery slope to YECism was simply meant to point out the hypocrisy of their position. Their belief in a young earth is based on faith in the literal truth of Godâs word. âLet God be true, and every man a liar.â If no amount of evidence can shake their faith in the literal truth of Godâs word, then why do they seek evidence to prove the literal truth of Godâs word? Makes no sense.
Exactly.
Are you speaking of physical proof? What would that be? The only âproofâ is the testimony of the witnesses. There is coincidental corroborating evidence, but that falls far short of proof. Basically, the gospels are structured around the same core question that Jesus poses to his disciples prior to the Transfiguration:
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, âWho do people say the Son of Man is?â They replied, âSome say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.â âBut what about you?â he asked. âWho do you say I am?â
We really should ask ourselves why Jesus appointed apostles/messengers, why he wrote nothing down, and why he did not openly stroll through the streets of Jerusalem after his resurrection. Blaise Pascal attempts an answer:
"God has willed to redeem men and to open salvation to those who seek it. But men render
themselves so unworthy of it that it is right that God should refuse to some, because of their obduracy,
what He grants others from a compassion which is not due to them. If He had willed to overcome
the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself so manifestly to
them that they could not have doubted of the truth of His essence; as it will appear at the last day,
with such thunders and such a convulsion of nature that the dead will rise again, and the blindest
will see Him.
âIt is not in this manner that He has willed to appear in His advent of mercy, because, as so
many make themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in the loss of the good
which they do not want. It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine,
and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so
hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him. He has
willed to make himself quite recognisable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who
seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart,
He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who
seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.â
Did parting the Red Sea or changing water to wine have any prophetic messages? I like how you said âto authenticate the message as coming from Godâ.
I am on board with you there.
I guess I was referring to The Holy Spirit living in us. I guess proof for us, not not to the outside observers, nothing tangible that science can test.
For a time, miracles do provide physical evidence, then it all becomes hear-say. The healed man can only feel the healing, the hungry people were satisfied from the multiplied fish and bread. But we can all experience the miracle of Jesus generation after generation.
Can you or anyone think of a miracle that produced physical/tangible evidence past a generation?
The fact that we know many Egyptian soldiers in armor (which should still be perserved) died in a sea that we know the location of and canât find any, almost backs up the idea that miracles do erase all physical evidence in a generation if not sooner.
I agree in most cases, yes, the heat and gravity would thrown the entire solar system out of wack. That is what gives the multiverse such credence. What would be easier for God to do, to make the sun dance pausing our known physics, or to give 70k people a âvisionâ of that happening?
I donât think anyone means it in the sci-if sense. But that God can use that concept whilst performing miracles. We donât have that control, God does.
I donât get that âlogocâ (or lack there of). Whether there is a multiverse or not, shouldnât effect how you live here, or if Jesus saves everyone on earth on the cross (not just those who have faith), or if the creation account was material 6 days or if ⊠etc.
We are to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul, strength, and our neighbor as ourself. This is all just brain candy. I donât think there is anything wrong with trying to learn about God better, but it shouldnât have any effect on how you live.
The reason you drive well, is because that is loving others and God, regardless if you are in a multiverse or not. Though again, I donât see myself in a multiverse like that anyway.
Why does something have to happen according to our laws to not be a fairy tale? Even quantum physics says something can exist in multiple possibilities, something can be stationary and moving at the same time. So is that a fairy tale?
Who is saying it is any different? How do we know that the 5000 werenât fed in a âmultiverseâ? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so it must not have happened in our universe? Floods canât happen, and the waters not affect the ground in this universe right?
âŠthen you contradict yourself and say
Jesus walking on water can be compared to a sun dancing. Even a pun if you want to go there with the Son/sun dancing on water/in space. Eye witnesses only.
I think you could say physical evidence in most cases, not all.
There is equally nothing to suggest these miracles were global. The evidence that suggest they were local, is that outside of local area, the accounts are only hear-say at that point right?
Interesting quote, thanks for posting.
I think this aligned with the âunforgivable sinâ.
As George Macdonald said
âone whom they saw to be a good man, that they denied the goodness of what they knew to be good, in order to put down the man whom they knew to be good, because He had spoken against them, and was ruining their influence and authority with the people by declaring them to be no better than they knew themselves to be. â
And
âBut there are two sins, not of individual deed, but of spiritual condition, which cannot be forgiven; that is, as it seems to me, which cannot be excused, passed by, made little of by the tenderness even of God, inasmuch as they will allow no forgiveness to come into the soul, they will permit no good influence to go on working alongside of them; they shut God out altogether. Therefore the man guilty of these can never receive into himself the holy renewing saving influences of Godâs forgivenessâ http://www.online-literature.com/george-macdonald/unspoken-sermons/4/
Iâm not sure I agree with this.
Kind of goes alongside the parable of Lazarus
Luke 16:31 â
âBut Abraham said, âIf they wonât listen to Moses and the prophets, they wonât be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.âââ
I believe because He is a personal God. If you preached to and converted 100k people everyday, it would take something like a thousand years to convert everyone. And none of them would have any substance or mentors, or relationships and an impossible burden for that 1. And life would continue to be full of pride and hate for those thousand years.
But if one person discipled 3 people every year and those discipled 3 and so one, 60 some years and the world would be saved. And they would have relationships, strong mentors, accountability. It would be a tsunami of Godâs love any power taking over in ones lifetime.
I think Jesus did what He did to relate and told us to make disciples, because that is most consistent with the way Jesus lived. And if He just physically healed everyone, no one would want/allow Him to die, and no one would see the humility, truth and love He came to show us.
