Earlier you said:
“I have been criticised for setting my faith above all else and have been equally critical of those who set science above all else. It would seem that there aught to be (must be?) a middle ground?”
In the case of YEC and science, are you setting science above YEC?
I do not understand your problem. I have never supported YEC. What is so difficult for you to understand?
YECs reinterpret science, they do not accept it.
Richard
It’s not a problem. It’s a question.
You reject YEC and claim there is no middle ground between YEC and science. Is this a case of you setting science above the faith based belief of YEC?
Stop chewing the bone. You have had your answer. I do not have to be explicit.
You are trying to get me to say something that you can then misinterpret or use against me.
Richard
Edit
I am not going to openly condemn another person’s faith or claim mine is superior and I am not going to claim any science can take precedence over any faith.
Consider your doubts about the faith healers who are all about themselves and how much money they can get people to give them. You do not reject the possibility of God miraculously healing, but you recognize that the particular claims are suspect both theologically and scientifically. You have also probably noticed that most things do happen in patterns that fit natural law explanations. That doesn’t mean that God isn’t involved, just that a first guess that something will fit natural law patterns is reasonable, whereas demanding that something must or mustn’t have a natural law-type explanation is problematic.
Our understanding is imperfect in many ways. But that doesn’t excuse giving up nor insisting that my idea is right no matter what the evidence. Rather, we should be testing ideas and holding to that which is good.
Actually, no. My experiences of miracles ae that they defy natural , or scientific explanations.
agreed. But individual circumstances will dictate which view would seem to apply. However, there appear to be some who refuse to accept even the possibility of it not being naturally, or sciientifically explainable.
I do not think we can generalise one way or the other, and that is the whole point.
Richard
But I did not say that most possible miracles happen in natural law patterns; I said most things happen that way. Miracles, if genuine, are exceptions to the norm.
Within Scripture, miracles are relatively uncommon. God is free to work miraculously if He wants, but usually works through ordinary means. After all, Moses is not going to say “Look, a bush! It’s just sitting there. I should check it out.” Nor “Another burning bush that isn’t burnt up. That’s fifty this week. Funny how bushes work here.” He needs to know that this is unusual and deserving of attention.
Some biblical miracles have plausible natural law explanations for the event, but the perfect timing of a rare event and someone being notified in advance are exceptional. Exodus records God sending a wind, and modern calculations support the idea that just the right wind would have set up a seiche wave, parting an area of the Bitter Lakes. But that doesn’t mean that ridiculous natural law explanations should be preferred to “it was a miracle”. It does suggest that we should be cautious about claiming something had to happen non-“naturally” .
To be honest, i see little point in trying to “explain” Biblical miracles. Knowledge out of time is enough to make them miraculous/ If the preparqtions of the sacrifice on Mt Carmel included Sulphur and or Potassium, the water would have ignited it rather than doused it. So what?
It is the human need to ndersand that i , not so much question, as dismiss as unecessary. God can use whatever method He likes, Natural or Suoernatural, He is God. mine is not to reason or undersand.
Richard
Yes, trying to find explanations for miracles is not necessary. It may be of interest as a curiosity question, but we don’t really have enough detail to do more than speculate about detailed mechanisms.
Problems come from someone insisting either that everything can be explained away as merely weird “natural” events or that there can’t be any “natural” component to anything God does. Both are assuming that God is not involved in “natural” processes, whereas the Bible consistently sees both “natural” and miraculous events as coming from God’s hand.
Water on sulphur just gives wet sulphur. Elijah did not have the equipment to be able to make any of the chemicals that would produce flame when wet (such as sodium, potassium, etc.), nor did he have the capacity to refine hydrocarbons into lighter fluid and substitute that for water to pour over the altar (which someone apparently actually proposed as a way to explain away the miracle; I read a source mentioning it as a not credible idea, even though the source itself was not particularly conservative theologically). A very precisely timed and aimed lightning bolt could fit the description, especially as it would be a further taunt on the ineffectiveness of Ba’al at his supposed specialty, but that can be no more than a guess.
I completely agree with you here. I’ve heard people trying to come up with scientific explanations for the plagues in Exodus, but I’ve never understood the point of the exercise. It’s a matter of faith, not science.
In modern times there is a bit more friction between science and miracles. For example, there are a group of Catholic officials that investigate claimed miracles, and they often find natural explanations. However, when it comes to a one on one interaction with someone, I feel no need to try and argue for a natural explanation.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.