Miracles are only scientifically impossible if they are magic. The Bible repeatedly says to stop doing or believing in magic, which means miracles are not magic. Our definitions do not make a distinction. So, how can God do miracles? He created the universe and knows how it works. He is everywhere, so can manipulate any atom or the space between atoms. He is every-when, so can start working even before the miracles manifests. Every miracle in the Bible can be accomplished by knowing how the system works and being able to manipulate the needed part in that system.
Hey Jo, to paraphrase Jimi Hendrix.
So divine intervention is scientifically possible. Because God doesn’t have a double standard. His supernatural manipulation of atoms and the space between them is sciency. And every infinite thing that has ever happened from eternity and ever will happen to eternity can be manipulated in the past or the future, because they’re all as real as now, in fact each now is perfectly preserved, to obtain the desired scientific effect now. I’m intrigued as to why God would have to go to so much trouble in past nows and future nows to make anything look like magic now? Can you think of an example?
An example of something that seems like magic. Both of my rotatory cuffs were torn. I lived with the pain, loss of arm strength, and dislocating shoulders for 23 years. Then, one night three lady’s at church noticed my pain and prayed. It took me 3 days to realize the pain in my arms was different. It took therapy to work out all the muscle knots down my arms. However, the V-shaped notch is gone, I can wrap a rope without crying, and my shoulders have not dislocated once in the years since that night.
Why would God do it that way? Why not heal all the muscle problems at one time? Why let me have the problem in the first place? The last question is the easiest to answer. Because I needed to know that He would heal. Why was time involved? To keep me aware of the divine intervention. Time gave me time to formulate the words to express my gratitude. It showed that natural problems do not come with “quick fixes.” That concept extends to all aspects of my life. He is always with us, but He does not act like a genie who grants wishes.
1 Like
And that sounds like idolatry to me
Scripture tells us that the world was created and IS SUSTAINED by God. To say the world has existence “apart” from God (e.g. because the physical world has some kind of essential existence other than by God’s continuing exertion of creative power)… now THAT is idolatry.
It is giving the created credit for the power of the creator.
No it is not. Furthermore it is obvious that if the all-powerful God of most theistic religions exists then God could make His existence clearly evident. But He does not. The conclusion must be that if God exists then making people believe He exists is not His highest priority.
You are in direct opposition to the Apostle Paul. God is clearly evident from what has been made. Men are without excuse for denying his existence.
No one is in opposition to the Apostle Paul. He isn’t around. His epistemology isn’t around. Including in you. If he were around now, he could not possibly say such a thing, being a brilliant, honest and faithful man.
Paul would say this today:
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners
1 Timothy 1:5
If he were around now, he could not possibly say such a thing, being a brilliant, honest and faithful man.
He could, and he would.
For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
…
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
The “Epistemology” of the age was no excuse in Paul’s time, ours certainly gives no defense today. He would reject the “wisdom of this age”, which allows people today to feel comfortable and secure in “skepticism”.
As should we all.
Amen. Come Lord Jesus.
1 Like
I am no skeptic. And proof texting Paul with Paul is not something he’d have ever done, let alone now as an educated person of this time.
Ironically in the very passage I just quoted, Paul himself is “proof texting” with Isaiah.
I’m not accusing you of skepticism or anything, however, you did apparently object to my application of Romans 1:20 and suggest it is not applicable in the present day.
That is wrong.
Wrong how? Wrong why? Why single out verse 20? What did it mean then? How could it mean anything now?
Annoyed are we? Object to quotations of scripture do we? Often dismissed its relevance to modern life have we?
Here’s another verse equally unsympathetic to “reasonable unbelief”: “The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God””
Or how about. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.”
What is there to be annoyed about? Apart from meaningless anachronistic ancient Jewish proof texting that has no relevance to faith on contemporary disinterested epistemics.
No. It does not. The word in scripture is φέρων and it means bring. It is used for when you align, help, introduce, or carry. What you describe is a dreamer and ANYBODY can do THAT! God is a true creator and makes things that are real, things that last, things held up by the nature of what God made them to be – and not just a figment of His imagination like the dream worlds of any child. Yes God aligns the world to His purpose. God is certainly a creator who introduced things into the world. He actively helps and even carries us at times. But no, God is not just a dreamer.
Incorrect. It is called theism - the belief in a creator God as opposed to pan(en)theism where everything is just an extension of God Himself with no existence apart from Him.
You are the one reducing what God has done to what any child can do.
Incorrect. YOU are rewriting the words of Paul. Paul did NOT say God’s existence is clearly evident from what has been made and He said nothing about people denying His existence. What Paul said was this…
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
God’s eternal power and deity has been clearly perceived. THAT is what Paul said. And if you read on, Paul makes it even MORE clear that He was NOT speaking of God’s existence. For the people who are without excuse are NOT people who don’t believe God exists but people who knew God but did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him. Your rewrite of the text is NOT accepted!!!
God spoke the world into being. It’s substance is his WORD.
Nothing. NOTHING is more real than the WORD of God.
God is no child. No child is comparable to God.
Nothing is REAL apart from GOD.
You radically miss the point.
Oh, and Romans 1:20 is unambiguously about the existence of God. Specifically, his invisible nature, power, and deity (GODHOOD) is CLEARLY perceived FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE.
Like what the heck. How can you in your right mind deny this. DIETY means GODHOOD.
Newsflash… that means GOD’S EXISTANCE.
Your rewrite to serve God knows what ends, is NOT accepted.
ALL MEN know, in their heart of hearts, that their creator calls to them. And they deny him at their Peril. This is what it means.
All “ungodliness and wickedness” among men is “without excuse”.
Faith? Faith in your own wisdom? Your big SAT words like Epistemics?
Jesus, Paul, they all engage in what you disparagingly call “Proof Texting”. It is a fetish in modern pseudo-intellectual circles that if you can label something you can dismiss it out of hand.
No, you can’t.
Justify your own position. Or else stand rebuked.
Nonsense. No such words as this are in the Bible. The Bible is not a creation for dummies book explaining how God created the universe. That is not what Genesis 1 is about. It is very clear that we have no idea how God created the universe.
Incorrect. God is more real and His creation is both more real and more directly from God. The Bible is composed of the words of human languages invented by sinful human beings. The translation of the Bible into many different languages makes this very clear. Jesus said to the Pharisees, “39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” The Pharisees thought by studying scripture they had become the gateway to God Himself. Jesus put them in their place in Matthew 23 saying that quite the contrary they had shut the kingdom of God against men. No, you do not know God by studying the scriptures. Life and truth doesn’t come from the Bible but from God. Yes the Bible is good because it point us to God, but is in Him we can find life and truth – not in the Bible. Your pantheism and Biblicism is as far from the truth as naturalism.
Wrong again. We are made in the image of God. Thus all children are comparable to God. Jesus said the kingdom of God belongs to them. So, why would you say such a thing.
So you are pantheist. I am not. I am a theist. I believe in a God who created things which are real.
I have no intention of getting the point taught by naturalists, devilists, pantheists, or many many other ists.
I will stick to the Bible and completely reject your rewrite of it. Romans 1:20 says nothing about God’s existence. God’s invisible nature, power and deity is NOT the same as His existence. And furthermore Paul made it clear that he was speaking of people who knew God but rejected God’s deity – so they are clearly NOT the same thing. THAT is what Paul says in Romans chapter 1.
No. You do not know what all men know. And I see no peril whatsoever in denying the religion and god you have made up. You do not speak for God as you imagine that you do. Even if you have read some portion of the Bible, it does not mean you can speak for God to tell us the mind of God or what He will do.
Frankly I think people try to speak for God because they don’t really believe in God at all they just want the authority of God for themselves.
Indeed. But “ungodliness” has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing that God exists. Paul makes this clear in the very next chapter.
Romans 2:12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
It is not what you know but what you do. Thus Paul makes it clear that “godliness” is not about knowing God but about how you behave. Those who do not know God or His laws can be said to have law of God written on their hearts because they do what the law requires. And we know from Isaiah chapter 1 and Matthew chapter 25 that this is not about religious rituals but about doing what is right: “learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
What do you actually think? Anachronistically parroting Jesus’ and Paul’s pre-modern rhetoric based on their enculturated epistemics does not work if you are incapable of deconstruction and reconstruction, of abstraction.
You tell us what your proofs of God’s existence are. Paul’s aren’t yours. Jesus assumptions as fully incarnate God cannot be yours. What do your senses and occult yet obvious conditioning, nature and nurture, education, training, experience, enculturation, cognitive biases tell you? Your sub-Chestertonian rhetorical bluster tells me much. What you won’t say is inferable. And what you can’t, as it does not exist.
1 Like
Rhetorcal sillyness and “Proofs” of God’s existance are all fun and games until someone kicks the bucket.
I will respond to one point only.
Incorrect. God is more real and His creation is both more real and more directly from God
In John we read:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,1 and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
So the Word of God is what created the world and also is God himself.
Revelation 4:1 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
Colossians 1:17 “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
So all things have their being (existance) held together by the Word of God.
And no. I do not speak for God. He speaks for himself through his Word.