When people start walking through walls

Imagine living in the first century and you and several of your friends just witnessed your leader apparently walk through a wall, suddenly appear and then disappear. This, after having seen him tortured and brutally murdered just three days prior? Not to mention, you buried him! How would you describe this experience? What language would you use?

This is how John described this kind of strange phenomenon in his gospel account:

19 That Sunday evening the disciples were meeting behind locked doors because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them! “Peace be with you,” he said. (John 20:19 NLT *)

I asked this question in “Reality…what reality?” (in the comments) to show how supernatural events might be described by ancient people and show a possible relationship to quantum phenomenon. Skeptics have always been dismissive about anything that falls outside of a naturalist explanation, but now we’re finding out that our observable world is only a subset of reality.

The problem, fundamentally, is that you cannot prove anything supernaturally by natural means. To use C.S. Lewis’s analogy, it’s a bit like Hamlet trying to find Shakespeare by searching his whole kingdom for him. They’re simply not in the same realm. He would have to write himself into the play (which God did with Jesus – John 1:14).

This is the quantum world in us, around us, and outside of our world altogether. And there’s a lot more going on than what we can observe in our three-dimensional realm bound by time. This is from an 1998 article from the New Scientist Magazine:

“Quantum theory isn’t just a tiny bit nonlocal. It’s overwhelmingly nonlocal. Non-locality is the rule for our Universe. That is an unsettling conclusion. Non-locality cuts into the idea of the separateness of things, and threatens to ruin the very notion of isolation. To isolate an object we ordinarily move it a long way away from everything else, or build impenetrable walls around it. But the link of entanglement knows no boundaries. It isn’t a cord running through space, but lives somehow outside space. It goes through walls, and pays no attention to distance!”(New Scientist magazine, “Why God Plays Dice”, August 1998 *)

By the way, “non-local” simply means that things are interacting from outside of our observable world of time and three-dimensional space.

You see, we were just fine with our tidy Newtonian closed clockwork view of the universe…until the 2oth Century…then Einstein came along and said that time is an illusion, then quantum theorists came along and said our world is an illusion. It’s too late to go back now, Schrödinger’s cat is out of the bag!

I shared a video last time titled, “Digital Physics Argument of God’s Existence” postulating that our universe could be the ultimate virtual reality. If you want to dig deeper on that theory, here’s an article by Brian Whitworth, PhD titled  “Quantum Realism.”

Here’s what theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman, said about our dilemma:

“Quantum weirdness “is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way. It simply cannot be explained rationally unless we allow for a non-local interpretation of reality; something which devout rationalists such as Einstein could not accept...The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ought to be!” (Richard Feynman quoted in Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos: “The Non-Local Universe.” p. 41 *)

In other words, it’s only weird like three-dimensional phenomenon would be weird to two-dimensional flat people. And we cannot just dismiss these weird theories because the math that proves what we can observe is the same math we use to prove what we cannot observe. The math is absolutely accurate; we just can’t see it because it’s not in this realm.

So how would these first century people describe someone walking through walls, appearing and disappearing? They would simply report what they saw. They didn’t need an understanding in quantum mechanics to believe. And this brings me to something remarkable about observing strange phenomenon that defies natural explanation.

Even though many people saw Jesus appear and disappear in the 40 days after His resurrection (up to 500 people at one time), remarkably, some still doubted:

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. (Matt.28:16 *)

This only shows why even seeing something with your own eyes doesn’t mean you’ll believe. Believing is not an evidence issue; it’s a heart issue: “for with the heart one believes unto righteousness” (Rom.10:10). Jesus said we need to receive the kingdom like a little child because their heart is always open to the wonder of a world so much bigger than their understanding.

The bottom line is this: faith in God means trusting in Someone you cannot see who framed the world you can see:

By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible. (Heb. 11:3 NET *)

And this is the most valuable form of evidence, as Jesus said to Thomas:

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:24-29 *)

* New King James Bible unless otherwise noted. All emphasis added.
Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 36 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics, Faith and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to When people start walking through walls

  1. john zande says:

    Given the first atomists were in Greece some 350 years before Jesus, one must ask why Jesus would not, then, have spoken about some quantum realm where matter does not behave as it does in the super-atomic world?

    But you’re also misreading quantum fuzziness. What happens at that sub-atomic level does not happen in the super-atomic level.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I don’t think the first century was ready for quantum physics. 99.99% of that civilization had no idea about atomics then. And, even so, they were too primitive to use it wisely. When the will to use technology goes beyond societal advancement, disastrous things happen. I’m sure we would’ve destroyed ourselves many centuries ago. For instance, with the atomic bomb in the first century Roman Empire would probably not have resulted in MAD (mutually assured destruction) that kept us from annihilating each other in the last century. With advancement in technology requires the advancement as people who know how to use something without making ourselves extinct.

      And you’re wrong about quantum entanglement, tunneling, and teleportation not working at the macro level. Every molecule of our macro world is made up of the non-local quantum world. They’ve already theoretically proven it can (hence, shows like Star Trek, etc.), it would just take a massive amount of energy to do, which we don’t have the technology yet. It would be like Da Vinci talking about helicopters and military engineering in the fifteenth century.

    • john zande says:

      Did you delete my comment on your other post?

      Why?

      Why censor?

    • Mel Wild says:

      I have not deleted any comments. I do moderate. I’ve also been away from my computer a bit, but I looked through your comments, not sure what comment you’re referring to. I won’t post every comment if they are repetitive, excessive, or off-topic.

    • john zande says:

      Well, it was there, being held in Moderation, and now it’s gone.

      I’ll repost it.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I don’t know. I didn’t delete it. I haven’t deleted any comments on these posts. Try again.

    • john zande says:

      I hope that’s the case, Mel.

      Yep, just re-posted it.

      Thanks.

      And take however you like before replying. There’s a bit to chew over.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I do see that one. I’ve never seen this comment before. It’s excessively long (over 900 words) so I will have to spend some time reading it. I will post it just to make you happy, but please try to shorten your comments in the future. It’s easier to have dialogue with shorter comments.

    • john zande says:

      Understood, but I had to address your original question before returning to my first question. That was, after all, what you asked for 😉

      Yep, take your time. I’m out for most of the day, but do look forward to hearing your response.

  2. tildeb says:

    Oooo… gravity can penetrate walls! As if wall weren’t even there. Pretty weird, huh? So can magnetism, whatever that is. Trillions of neutrinos pass through you every minute! Have you even noticed? Nope. That’s because you’re stuck in your 3D Standard Model macro-world and don’t even grasp the weirdness of the underlying quantum reality in which you are immersed. Therefore, look how reasonable it is that walking through walls as if they weren’t a physical impairment to a 3D critter might just be possible… indicating an element not of divinity but quantum mechanics in action! Jesus could do the same, I’m just saying and, in fact, probably did… after he was dead, no less. Yeah, the wall thingie is the major hurdle to grasp here! But, hey, that wall passing bit is pretty weird, too, am I right? But it IS quite possible because gravity, you see. Subatomic particles. Quantum Fields. Yup, walking through walls, I tell you, is no less weird for a dead thing that is alive in reality! Superstitious belief, you say? Bah humbug. Superficially, I assure you, because…. well, Entanglement! Non locality! The Maths! There’s no Oogity Boogity! here, I assure you. Just insight into the quantum world, donchaknow.

    Good grief.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Exactly, tildeb. You’re actually making my point. It’s not superstitious “Oogity Boogity” but at least theoretically reasonable. If someone were to walk through a wall, appear and disappear, it could be explained today with quantum mechanics. So, what the Bible is describing is reasonable. They are describing it from their understanding, just stating what they saw.

      I get the impression you think that I think the supernatural is magic or some strange thing. I don’t, quite the opposite. It’s part of the “normal world” we can’t see. And there were at least a few people who traveled in both worlds while in the flesh. And the Bible describes that in first century terms. It’s not superstitious nonsense, just unusual.

      As you said, we’re stuck in 3-D macro perspective, which makes proving supernatural things very difficult.

    • tildeb says:

      Mel, I don;t know why I can’t convince you to stop for a moment and think; instead, you go on your merry way and build a fictional world you think is supported by quantum mechanics. You say, ” It’s not superstitious “Oogity Boogity” but at least theoretically reasonable.” Yes, it’s as possible as Thor causing thunder but that doesn’t make it reasonable because it theoretical!

      That’s the first mistake you’re making.

      The second, which is a gross mistake, is that you are treating fluctuations in the quantum field as true dynamical events, occurring in real time… events like walking through walls but using mathematical expressions of these fluctuations in space/time as if evidence for this possibility.

      This.
      Is.
      Incorrect.

      By not understanding what it is you’re talking about, you continue to sell a fiction on behalf of your religious belief based on your ignorance and the ignorance of others to go along with your musings. You are misleading people to think the unreasonable is, in fact, quite reasonable. And you’re misrepresenting science to do this in spite of my best efforts to explain where and how you go wrong.

      Quite simply, in order for a 3D person to walk through a 3D wall, all quantum fields in which energy is present AND STABLE would have to disappear and their energy evaporate. Not fluctuate, as fields are wont to do, but evaporate entirely. This absence would then eliminate any and all 3D objects in it by instantly disintegrating their constituent parts.That’s what the loss of energy means: a loss of both acceleration and mass. No mass, Mel. Zero mass. No ‘man’. No ‘wall’. There could be no ‘man’ and there could be no ‘wall’ in such a zero energy environment. Again, no mass is the requirement!! The energy bonds for both could not exist in such an absence. It’s like removing gravity and then saying it’s reasonable to ‘drop’ a ball and have it rise and ‘science’ tells us this is reasonable. No, it’s not. There is no ‘dropping’ in such an environment because there is no such ‘rising’ and ‘falling’ field at work! We’ve already eliminated this framework by eliminating gravity. And this is what you’re trying to do: bait and switch terminology to try to make one framework ‘reasonable’ with the other, reasonable to suggest a man not just could but DID walk through walls and the ‘maths’ prove it is possible!

      This.
      Is.
      Incorrect.

      This thesis of yours is bunk. And it is bunk because it is an ongoing misuse of terminology based on you not understanding which framework is being employed. You can’t just ping pong between them, Mel in order to draw whatever ‘conclusions’; you have already reached! You are making assertions for which there is no compelling evidence and then hiding behind the confusion about understanding quantum mechanics and field theory to act as your shield. Quantum mechanics is not your friend here and it does not make your hypothesis ‘reasonable’. At all.

    • Argus says:

      I stay away from such complexities myself. I like to deal with simple everyday questions and logic.

      For example, to me it seems illogical that the (same) unique God should have three variants of His holy message pop up in effectively the same location and be at each others’ throats—surely in a spirit of loving peace and compassion the Jews, Moslems, and Christians could get together and work out the ultimate One True Faith?

    • Mel Wild says:

      I would agree with you in principle, Argus, and in some ways these three faiths are trying to get along peaceably (at least at the highest level). Being at each other’s throat is a problem with human beings in general. We tend to project our own dysfunction (religiously or not).

      But, still, we should be able to live in understanding and have grace for one another. No one converts or deconverts anyone by the sword.

    • Argus says:

      But they do. Literally in days past, for Christ—literally in the present, for Islamics.

      I like the theory. Even agnostics and atheists (despite our horns) would love to live peacefully—and I think our chances of doing so would be better without any religions at all.

    • Mel Wild says:

      If you’re talking about the past, I would agree., they’ve been at each other’s throats. But the whole world was religious in some way back then, and they were all barbaric by our standards, so it’s not really a good argument. That would be like pointing to first century medicine to call it the problem with people dying.
      But, as I said before, the highest authorities in these religions are trying to get along today.
      And if we were actually following Christ (which is not the same as calling oneself a Christian) we would be living in peace. The problem is not religious problem. Religion only exposes a much deeper human problem.

    • tildeb says:

      That would be a coherent start.

  3. It is definitely with our hearts that we believe, and not just with our eyes alone. Yesterday I asked myself a question whether or not Faith can be lost. I concluded that doubt and disbelief affects the operation of Faith, and it’s ability to work in our lives. But it does not mean that Faith it lost, because if our heart changes we can begin to experience the miracles of Faith afresh. It all goes back to the condition of our heart. We confess with the mouth but believe in our heart, and receive salvation.

    It all begins with heart. I just love how eloquently you talked about the natural versus the supernatural. It comes down to us choosing to believe even when doubt is present. Faith lives in our heart, for the bible says that God has given every man a measure of Faith. What we do with that measure is based upon what we believe, and how we envision God.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thank you for your comments. It really does come down to the heart. It’s like a gatekeeper of what we choose to believe. What we think are facts can be argued but the heart is what decides which way we will go. As it says in Proverbs 4:23, “Guard your heart above all else, for it determines the course of your life.”

  4. Pingback: “When people start walking through walls” | See, there's this thing called biology...

  5. M Simon says:

    You leave out that the probabilities are different for large masses. Electrons can tunnel. A kilogram of butter has such a low probability of tunneling that it is not even worth thinking about.

    People who are scientifically illiterate…..

    • Mel Wild says:

      Your butter analogy would be a fallacious argument. You cannot separate the macro butter from the quantum butter. You are only perceiving its properties at a very high macro level and thinking it’s actually solid (all matter is known to be 99.999% space). When we can perceive it disappearing and reappearing is when it’s unusual, but that doesn’t negate the possibility, which is my point in the first place. This phenomenon has led to the theory that our reality is nothing more than an ultimately high resolution virtual construct. And crazy Christians and New Agers are not saying this, qualified scientists are saying this.

      So, while a kilogram of butter may not appear and disappear (to us) on its own, it could be manipulated to do so from outside forces. The math is sound, the technology is just not available. So, it is worth talking about when we’re talking about things we want to dismiss as “supernatural.”

      And, btw, your condescending quip about “scientifically illiterate,” I’m not. While I’m no expert in these fields I do have an engineering background and have a basic understanding of the math involved. I can also read those who are experts in these fields. And theoretical physicists would disagree with you.

    • tildeb says:

      Sure, we think of ‘space’ as empty but in field theory, space is time! So, again, you confuse one language with the other and presume the ‘space’ between particles of matter in the butter is empty. It’s not. It is many different fields from which certain particle/waves can be detected by us. There is no ’empty’ in field theory. Think of someone telling you that only the particles we can detect in butter exist but but the rest of volume has no gravity. You’d look at them the same way I look at you: you don’t know what you’re talking about and you seem unable to grasp that you have no idea what you’re talking about..

    • Mel Wild says:

      I agree. There’s no such thing as “empty.” But you’re not understanding my point. There’s also no such thing as a steady state of any solid object. If someone or something had the ability to manipulate the state of the butter, for example, it would seem to us to appear and disappear. This is theoretically possible, as they have transported photons up to 10 miles already, disappearing on one end and reappearing on the other, without traveling locally (in time). We just lack the technology to move something as big as butter, but it’s the same math and the theory is sound.

      And I do understand you will not agree with me on this. That’s fine. I wasn’t trying to win any argument here, but I won’t be dismissed or talked down to like I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m no expert here, but I know how to read, and I do know what I’m talking about. Take it or leave it but you can’t dismiss it.

    • tildeb says:

      Mel, it’s not that I don’t agree with you as you try to paint my criticism. I have nothing to do with it. . It’s that quantum physics doesn’t agree with you. I’m just the one pointing it out. Simply look up quantum decoherence and realize why your walking through walls is not a reasonable explanation once you grasp what decohernce means.

      As for this repeated claim about teleportation, it’s not a single particle that is being instantaneously transported; rather, it is entangled particle that is appearing at the other end. How far does entanglement occur? We don’t know, but we do know it seems to be able to happen when environmental factors and influences are reduced to near zero and we have the equipment sensitive enough to capture the entangled particle. These experiments are dealing with states involving entanglement particles (remember, photons are both a particle and a wave) and not the original fired particle itself. This is not a beam-me-up-Scottie example.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Tildeb, what you’re giving me is what’s “reasonable” at the present time for us. Decoherence doesn’t make teleportation impossible, it’s a limiting factor to eventually overcome, and it is being addressed with research on quantum computers, which essentially are using atoms to transmit information from one position to another without traveling. This is also the technology behind developing the quantum Internet. Actual information would be transferred between atoms without traveling. The point is, you’re not correct in saying it’s the same particle. We’ve already moved beyond that level.

      Extreme Tech reported back in 2014 on the first teleportation of information between macro objects:

      However, up until now, each successful teleportation has been between either two microscopic objects, or one micro and one macroscopic object. Now, Xiao-Hui Bao and a team at the University of Science and Technology in China reported that they have managed to teleport information between two macroscopic objects — two groups of rubidium atoms — over a distance of 150 meters.

      If the principle of teleportation works with atoms, it will work with anything material, including humans. The problem is technological, not impossible. And if there is God who created the atoms in the first place, then environmental factors and other problems would be easily overcome.

    • tildeb says:

      Okay. Now we’re finally starting to get somewhere. You think of teleportation in this macro world of ours… as in sending a particle from here to there, as in Jesus here and passing through that wall to be there. You claim entanglement offers us a reasonable hypothesis how this can happen.

      I say you don;t understand what entanglement means in the quantum mechanics you are raising.

      As evidence for my point, look again and how you think of teleportation,: this particle here sent there. But that’s not what entaglement is about. Go back and read what you quoted in your comment and you will notice that what is being teleported is not particles but ‘information’, which is about – as I said early – states and not about particles. That’s why I say you don;t understand quantum field theory, which is all about states!.And the clue you need to notice from these experiments is how it always involves TWO photons. Not one. TWO. Why two? Because they are entangled! Not ‘it’; they. Entangled means a relationship, which is not a ‘thing’. Are you beginning to see my point?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Tildeb, unless you happen to be a Quantum Physicist, you’re no more qualified than I am, so you don’t need to teach me a lesson in entanglement theory.

      Perhaps I should be more specific with my statements. Entanglement proves that there is a non-local world that exists outside of time and space. Quantum tunneling would be how objects would theoretically move through walls, appear and disappear. I quoted Paul Davies on this in “Reality…what reality?” if you remember. Here’s the quote again:

      Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist at Arizona State University said about Quantum Tunneling:

      “Imagine throwing a stone softly at a window. You expect the stone to bounce back again. Suppose that, instead of the stone rebounding from the window, it passed right through and appeared on the far side, leaving the window intact! Anyone seeing a stone penetrating a window without breaking it would conclude a miracle had happened, but this particular miracle occurs all the time in the subatomic domain, where quantum rules defy common sense.”
      (Davies, About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution,” [1995], p. 164)

  6. RichardP says:

    “… they have transported photons up to 10 miles already, disappearing on one end and reappearing on the other ..”

    In the best spirit of scientific debate, I ask how do they know it was the same photon? Did they take both and compare them using some meauring device? (rhetorical) And the subsidiary thought: maybe the universe is made up of only one photon that turns itself on and off at will at multiple locations at the same time. “I and the Father are one” and all that.

    I think that if God actually created the physical universe, using skilz that only he has, then he can certainly manipulate that physical universe to his benefit, whenever and wherever he wants to. Regardless of our ability to understand what he is doing. Appearing and disappearing at will need not involve walking through walls. That concept is so tied to our limited understanding of our physical world. God is beyond all that. As creator, he can make up special physical rules that apply only to the moment, and the current location. After all, he can do anything he wants to.

    Or – to state it differently: I don’t care how it works. I only want to know if we can use it to put a man on the moon. If we can, then it is real. Well – I don’t even care if we call it real. All I want to know is “is it consistent and dependable?” If it is, I can use it to do things with, regardless of what you call it. Sort of like “O taste and see that the Lord is good”. If we “do”, and if he tastes good, then it must be real – even though we don’t know how it works, or what words we use to label it.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I like your thinking, Richard!
      God, by definition, could do whatever He wants. That’s why I’m glad He does everything out of other-centered, self-giving love. Would hate for the fickle Greek gods to be the real one! 🙂

      In the best spirit of scientific debate, I ask how do they know it was the same photon?

      I read the paper on it a long time ago. They had a way of measuring and classifying, based on the math on entanglement. However, your point is well taken. It could be just one photon in the universe. That would be one crazy versatile photon!

  7. RichardP says:

    s/b “or regardless of what words we use to label it.

    • Argus says:

      Mel: you said “There is no such thing as Supernatural. it really is a word, that’s all and our imagination fills in the blanks with make beleive and magic.”

      I must concur.

      I am not an educated man but I do read quite widely—and my conclusion is: If it happens at all in this natural world, it must be natural.

      And being a wee bit of a doubting Thomas type, I like to see for myself. I loved watching Uri Geller on TV, he made it all so convincing. But knowing that what he was doing was impossible, then he had to be an illusionist—nobody can do the impossible. By the same token I’d like to see someone walk convincingly on water, turn water into wine, heal the sick and raise the dead.
      Written testimony thousands of years old? Harry Potter is more credible, being more contemporary … but just as supernatural.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I said no such thing. I was quoting Arkenaten in a comment.

      I defined supernatural as any phenomenon existing outside of time and space. The natural world is confined by time and space (three-dimensional). Regardless of why it’s doing what it’s doing, or who’s doing it, it’s not defined by natural means.

  8. Arkenaten says:

    What you appear to be trying to do is in some way tie in what the character Jesus of Nazareth did – appear amidst his disciples/walk through a wall with some aspect of quantum physics.
    I won’t get into a discussion on this for a variety of reasons, not least because others have already dismantled the essence of your point..
    So, my question is a lot more simple and down to earth.
    If your omnipotent god, Jesus of Nazareth, could walk through a wall or ”materialize ” amidst his disciples, why was it necessary for the very large and presumably heavy stone to have been rolled away from the tomb entrance thus allowing him to walk out?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Dismantling the essence of my point?…okay, whatever you want to believe.

      If your omnipotent god, Jesus of Nazareth, could walk through a wall or ”materialize ” amidst his disciples, why was it necessary for the very large and presumably heavy stone to have been rolled away from the tomb entrance thus allowing him to walk out?

      You might as well ask, why did Jesus cook and eat fish, or walk on the road with His disciples at all, or why didn’t He crush the Roman Empire in His resurrected state. I think the point (to us) is that no grave stone is going to keep Him bound.

      Think about it. Everything an omnipotent God would do is limiting Himself in some way by doing it. In Jesus’ case, it’s because of love. He wants us to believe by seeing the stone rolled away.

    • Arkenaten says:

      So therefore faith has nothing to do with your personal belief system then? Is this why you strive so hard to align science and naturalism with your god, Yahweh/Jesus of Nazareth?

    • Mel Wild says:

      No, Ark, faith has everything to do with my belief system. Faith is trust. And trust allows me to embrace a reality we may not even be able to “measure” for another 1,000 years, if ever. But it’s not blind faith. And it’s not irrational, like believing that the universe came into spontaneous being somehow, with no cause.

      Which is also why having faith in science and what you can see will never answer WHY you’re here in the first place.

      And I like how you ridicule our belief in the supernatural as superstitious nonsense, but then say we’re striving when we show you the correlation to scientific advancements in non-local realities.

    • Arkenaten says:

      So faith is the core. Fair enough.

      Which is also why having faith in science and what you can see will never answer WHY you’re here in the first place.

      I do not have faith in the same way you do and as far as I am aware no atheist does.
      Never is a long time, Mel. Although I concur if we insert religion into the equation as it will never provide any rational answer for anything. never has and never will.

      And I like how you ridicule our belief in the supernatural as superstitious nonsense, but then say we’re striving when we show you the correlation to scientific advancements in non-local realities.

      You see you just don’t understand do you?
      There is no such thing as Supernatural. it really is a word, that’s all and our imagination fills in the blanks with make beleive and magic.
      Once we can demonstrate that something is natural it immediately ceases to be supernatural.

      So I am all for you showing us how, through scientific endevour, that prayer works, for example, and through prayer we can tap into the universal energy of the cosmos and grow new limbs for amputees.

    • Mel Wild says:

      There is no such thing as Supernatural. it really is a word, that’s all and our imagination fills in the blanks with make beleive and magic.
      Once we can demonstrate that something is natural it immediately ceases to be supernatural.

      And you obviously missed my point about “supernatural.” Super-natural is just phenomenon in nature operating outside of time and space, whether we’ve proven it scientifically or not is not the point. Manifest expressions, like appearing and disappearing, would simply be a body interacting with both “worlds.” But this construct is not God Himself. It’s only an interface, if you will. Theologically, God would still be existing outside of that construct since everything is contained in Him (Col.1:16-17).

      And, btw, I would be all for tapping into the quantum world to grow limbs for amputees, too.

      So, if we got to the point where people could appear and disappear would you then agree that the Bible was not just superstitious nonsense when it describes Jesus doing so? Or would it not be possible for you to be that honest?

    • Arkenaten says:

      And now you are operating on the presuppositional … again, inserting your god into the equation.
      Why not Shiva or Hanaman?

      And, btw, I would be all for tapping into the quantum world to grow limbs for amputees, too.

      You mean, you would at last have no reason to believe god did it, right?

      Bible was not just superstitious nonsense when it describes Jesus doing so? Or would it not be possible for you to be that honest?

      Oh, I would always consider the bible a load of claptrap as most of it has already been shown to be so.
      The character Jesus of Nazareth is a narrative construct. … unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

    • Mel Wild says:

      “And now you are operating on the presuppositional … again, inserting your god into the equation.
      Why not Shiva or Hanaman?”

      Yes, absolutely, I’m inserting my God into it. I will answer why not other gods at a different time (different post).

      You mean, you would at last have no reason to believe god did it, right?

      No, I’m saying that if we could do it, then logically, God could certainly have done it 2000 years ago.

      The character Jesus of Nazareth is a narrative construct. … unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

      That’s your atheistic opinion, based on an argument from silence, and a different subject altogether. Prove to me from historical evidence that the early church was accused of fabricating Jesus. Certainly, the Jews and the Roman Empire had motive to make your claims.

      I’m very busy right now. May not get to further comments, but I think we’ve gone as far we can go on this subject. Believe whatever you want. I’m just telling you what I believe.

    • Arkenaten says:

      I’m very busy right now. May not get to further comments, but I think we’ve gone as far we can go on this subject. Believe whatever you want. I’m just telling you what I believe.

      I adore it when apologists do this! They get their nose all in a sling, have a mini- tantrum and then bugger off!
      Stop being such a damn wimp; be a man and stand up for your narrative construct god and show me the indisputable evidence that backs your claims to the absolute hilt.
      What are you, some lily-livered liberal half- arsed god-botherer?
      Where’s your metal, man?

    • Mel Wild says:

      And you are showing why you get moderated or banned from sites. Being more stubborn and obnoxious than anyone else doesn’t prove anything, Ark. The world doesn’t revolve around what you want, when you want it. Why don’t you grow up and stop demanding to have your own way. You need to let it go.

  9. Citizen Tom says:

    Oh my! You are attracting the atheists. Some, like Zande, will post comments full of nonsense, trying to spread beliefs that if you want to take the time you can easily disprove, but it is tedious.

    tildeb’s major sin is that he thinks you are a dangerous idiot if you believe in God. That’s tolerable, but it makes him unpleasant to debate.

    I am bit puzzled by the desire to show a possible relationship between the miraculous nature of the resurrected Jesus and quantum phenomenon. It is pure speculation. Kind of interesting, I suppose, but unlike Thomas we are stuck.

    John 20:29 New King James Version (NKJV)

    29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas,[a] because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

    I suppose you pointed out as much. Still, what made Jesus God to His disciples is not the fact He walked through walls. I think what impressed them most of all is just how much He loved them.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks Tom. Oh what fun! You’re right, it is tedious and time consuming. That’s why I have to moderate and end conversations, because they never seem to want to stop talking!

      The point I’m making is in response to their dismissal of supernatural phenomenon. Quantum theory has already proven dimensional reality outside of our tiny three-dimensional view of “nature.” Thus, like with supernatural claims of the Bible, you cannot “prove” them naturally. But they are feasible non-locally (outside of time and space). The problem materialists have is their world of “seeing is believing” is collapsing around them with every breakthrough in quantum science.

      And I totally agree that love conquers evidence! I know God’s love without scientific proofs. I guess we’re just idiots. 🙂

    • Arkenaten says:

      Still, what made Jesus God to His disciples

      Oh, that is hilarious. The funniest comment I have read for quite some time! I nearly spilled my tea when I read that!
      Well,done ,Tom. You are a peach, sir.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Well, thank you. I guess that makes you bananas?

      Anyway, I have better things to do than exchange silly insults, but I am pleased my comment amused you.

    • Arkenaten says:

      I realise it is not Kosher to mock those of lessor intelligence, Tom, but you do set yourself up for it. You must realise this, surely?
      Or do you truly beleive the disciples actually believed JC was Yahweh?

    • Citizen Tom says:

      😆
      I set myself up for it? I suppose I have from time to time.

    • Arkenaten says:

      I would venture just a tad more often than fro time to time”.
      So, no feedback/evidence to present on the disciples actually believing Jesus of Nazareth was actually Yahweh, then?
      Did you just throw that line in to see what might bite or are you aware that such a claim is palpable nonsense?

    • Citizen Tom says:

      You asked a question to which you have already been given an answer. Such dialogue is pointless.

    • Arkenaten says:

      You have not answered the question regarding the disciples believing Jesus of Nazareth was Yahweh.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Who do you think Yahweh was, and why are you asking the question? Are you a seeker, or are you just making a pest of yourself.

    • Arkenaten says:

      I know who Yahweh was …. the real question is, do you, Tom?
      So, again: do you truly believe the disciples thought Jesus of Nazareth was Yahweh? If you do, could you please provide the evidence? Thanks.

    • Arkenaten says:

      And … ?
      Seriously, you have so little understanding and have become so utterly blinded by indoctrination that you are completely unable to demonstrate any meaningful critical thinking in this arena.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Are you a seeker, or are you just making a pest of yourself?

      Well, we have the answer.

      My beliefs require me to spread the Gospel. Once someone has access to the Bible and knows something about what it contains, I have done all I can. I don’t have some silly notion I can make you believe what I believe. I don’t think you stupid. I think you wrong. What your conduct says about you is up to you.

    • Arkenaten says:

      Again, if you cannot or will not say where the disciples demonstrate that they believed the character, Jesus of Nazareth was Yahweh then you are not confident of the text and are merely relying on what you have been indoctrinated to believe.
      Hand waving my request always with some silly apologetic approach merely illustrates your own hubris and ignorance.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      There is a verse that knowledgeable Christians know which would lead them to answer you.

      1 Peter 3:15 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

      15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

      We have been though this before. You are not a seeker. You have just phrased an attack on the Christian faith as a question.

      It really is a pity. We live in era of technical wonders, when people from around the globe can communicate and try understand every sort idea about beliefs and science, beauty and function, joy and peace, man and God. And what are doing, tormenting people who don’t believe what you believe with insincere questions. What an utter waste!

      Look to yourself. You have but one life. Are you using it on what matters most?

    • Arkenaten says:

      I Peter is a forgery.
      You consider it is your duty to spread this gospel, yet the gospel is not only man made but demonstrably false.
      Now I will ask you again.
      And as you raised the topic of sincerity I would appreciate if you stopped skirting the question and show some sincerity and answer it directly, thank you.
      So, once again , please identify where the disciples demonstrate that they believe that the character Jesus of Nazareth is Yahweh.
      Thanks.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Next thing you are going to tell me is this.

      What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.

      You may wish to reconsider the model you are using.
      => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication

    • Arkenaten says:

      Hubris, ignorance and disingenuous.
      The whole nine yards?

    • john zande says:

      Hi CT, by Some, like Zande, will post comments full of nonsense, trying to spread beliefs that if you want to take the time you can easily disprove, but it is tedious are alluding to your failed attempt to name something new or original which Jesus said or did?

      After 6 attempts, I believe you crashed and burned rather terribly on that one.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      You posted more than 6 comments on my blog. If anyone wants to look them up and read the replies, they can do so.

  10. Scottie says:

    Hello Mel. Ah another weekend is here. Hard to believe so much time passed since we seemed to be having this same conversation with sight differences. I love how you fixed the comments section. Nice to not have them close in on each other.

    Mel you said

    No, I’m saying that if we could do it, then logically, God could certainly have done it 2000 years ago.

    Well really if we could do it, there wouldn’t need to be a deity involved at all. In fact I am thinking that this sort of goes deep into the god of the gap territory doesn’t it? We see pieces of something, we know there is more, we don’t know how it works or quite what it is so …must be god.

    I will stay light on the quantum stuff as you have read far more than I and there are people here who study the stuff, like Tildeb to mention one, I want to deal with a more reasoning approach to this. The subject is interesting for a different angle. Like if a man walked through a wall 2000 years ago, and it was done by moving from dimensions, that postulates their are people in those dimensions that know how to do it. The moving of things between dimensions leaves a energy signature I was told by Tildeb. So if it was happening before why not now. Ron has a channel on TV that drives me nuts as they claim to hunt these ghosts and see strange things. But it is never proven. Never can be repeated. So if it was done how long would the energy signature last? could we measure that today?

    This point I did not understand as I take it totally different than I think you meant it.

    And you obviously missed my point about “supernatural.” Super-natural is just phenomenon in nature operating outside of time and space, whether we’ve proven it scientifically or not is not the point.

    Again I take this to mean a phenomenon that is happening, but never can be seen or recording happening. Like the ghost in the hotel that every night walks down the hall and into a certain room, but you can’t get a picture of it, and no instrument readings, and the group of non ghost people don’t see it. To me a phenomenon that is can be seen to be repeated is proven we just don’t know how it is repeating itself, how it is working. Still not supernatural though? It is like the northern lights, I am sure people thought they were supernatural at one time, but now we know what produces them.

    Two quick points because I know you like these coments tight. I know you say that the macro world and the micro world are made up of the same stuff, but they do not act the same. They react and act differently. I think of an army buddy of mine who had anger issues and kept breaking his hand punching things. He did not go through the wall except buy destroying somethings, his hand and the wall.

    Last time I read about the teleportation thing the article said that to move matter like a plant or fruit or a person would take more energy than the universe is said to have in it. Granted this was a few years ago and I was reading an article about star trek transporters so it could have changed or they might not have know what they were talking about. OK, be well, have a great weekend. Hugs

    • Mel Wild says:

      Hi Scottie, quick answers to your questions…

      “Well really if we could do it, there wouldn’t need to be a deity involved at all.”

      But that’s not my point. We are talking about feasibility, not necessity of God’s involvement. Keep in mind, the non-local world that quanta traverses is still not God. He exists outside of it (according to theology). But if it’s possible at all, then God would certainly be able to do it, too. Then He could’ve done it 2,000 years ago (and we still can’t do it). You said at the end of your comments it would take the energy of the Universe. That’s someone overstating the case (old assumptions), but if it was, then God would be the only one who could do it, even though it’s theoretically possible.

      On the supernatural, the Northern Lights would not be an example since it’s still in this three-dimensional realm. It would be more like a ghost. But Jesus was the only one to appear and disappear, so even in Scripture it’s very unusual. And I doubt anyone from the first century would know anything about heat signatures.
      Anything interacting from outside of space and time would be supernatural. So, even if it became common it would still be supernatural (outside of time and space).

      Two quick points because I know you like these comments tight. I know you say that the macro world and the micro world are made up of the same stuff, but they do not act the same.

      They don’t act the same in their own respective worlds but the quantum world is integrated within the macro world. And if one could teleport (Quantum tunneling) an object some distance without traveling it would take dematerializing-materializing in order to do that (involving both worlds). This is why it would take so much energy (as far as we know now), but it is theoretically possible, otherwise they wouldn’t bother researching and experimenting with it.
      Thanks for the hugs! Blessings to you.

  11. john zande says:

    Mel, above you wrote: God, by definition, could do whatever He wants.

    That is actually incorrect. An uncreated aseitic being cannot not be.

    That is how we know this world is an artificial world, sealed between those three things He, the Creator, could never touch, but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.

  12. KIA says:

    Hello there brother Mel. Just a question if I might from one deconverted Christian to… well, a Still Christian.
    What’s with all the smoke and mirrors about quantum reality? You didn’t accept the gospel because of this line of ‘reasoning’ or ‘evidence’…. you don’t continue to follow Jesus or believe the bible because of it… And you probably don’t really expect others to see it as a realistic or relevant way to convince others who are not believers, to become believers. My question is… why max effort to use what, if either of us were really physicists, would still fail to demonstrate even the assertion “in the beginning, God…” was actually verifiably True in any meaningful of true sense of that word?
    Your post itself says that the physical, natural world could never prove the supernatural. Why the attempt to intellectual persuasion when the heart and will is the real battle ground, and you know it?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Hi KIA.
      You’re right my relationship with Jesus is not based on scientific evidence. I’m simply showing that believing in the supernatural is not superstitious nonsense.

      You mentioned that you are a deconvert. Did you deconvert from Christianity or from theism?

    • KIA says:

      Hi Mel. I’m a deconverted Christian.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Okay, so you still believe in a god or intelligent design, whatever?

    • KIA says:

      I guess at this point, but I’m agnostic. Willing to admit that I don’t Know, and we could probably never really Know.

    • KIA says:

      You might be interested in my recent post on Faith.

    • Mel Wild says:

      My question is, do you still believe in a god or intelligent design?

    • KIA says:

      Sorry, Mel. 245a wake up for work. I’ll need to pick this up tomorrow withnyour permission.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Okay. Fair enough. Thanks for answering my questions. Have a good night sleep.

    • KIA says:

      Hi brother Mel. Back from work. Settling in for a quiet evening. To answer your question fully might require a perusal of some of my Journey posts on my blog, but suffice to say… I was Christian for 34yrs, 25 of those in avocational (ie. Non professional/Non paying) ministry roles of different types. I deconverted fairly recently, about two yrs ago, when I could no longer accept the bible as an accurate, reliable or historical text or message. I would not consider myself Generally atheist at this point, however in regards to the Abrahamic God of the bible I would. Not only is no evidence for his actual existence, but also so much evidence that the biblical account of the origin of the universe, the earth, humankind and everything other living thing here… is false and religious mythology.
      Intelligent design? To know that first you would need to know there was a Designer. That is first base… then Intelligent Design becomes plausible possibly, but certainly not necessarily definite or even provable. That’s second base… then even if you get all the way to Home, you still only have a deistic kind of spinoza’s god of philosophers, who may or may not even be currently active or even caring about what happens here in our reality.
      From Intelligent design, to a deistic designer, you still have all your work ahead of you actually demonstrating the actual existence of a personal, interested and involved theistic God, let alone all the biblical baggage of the Abrahamic god of the bible… by anything less than sheer Faith, will to Believe the unbelievable on bad evidence, no evidence at all, and even against contrary evidence.
      That’s about where i stand as of right now I guess. Hope that helps you understand a bit. Thx again for the opportunity to comment and the kindness you have shown in your questions and comments to me. -kia

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks KIA. You said…

      Intelligent design? To know that first you would need to know there was a Designer.

      Wouldn’t it logically be the other way around? I mean, all I have to do is look outside my window (beautiful view of nature) and intuit a designer. Then I would logically ask how it was designed and who designed it. The idea that it designed itself is totally irrational to me. No one would say that in any other observance of something so intricately put together.

      While I don’t agree with the conclusion, I can understand why you might have problems with the Bible. But intelligent design, at least, is rational.

    • tildeb says:

      Intelligent design only appears rational at its most basic level equating what appears to be design with a Designer who must have vast powers to accomplish what you see out your window. As soon as one takes your question seriously and begins to investigate how what you see comes to be and how it changes over time and by what means, one quickly discovers just how irrational the Designer Hypothesis is in fact. It doesn’t fit the facts. It is an explanatory model that doesn’t explain anything. It is an explanatory model contrary to the facts. In fact, the model is Goddidit. It’s pure creationism, a belief in some divine agency implementing POOF!ism.

      But as long as one stays away from inquiring into what you see outside your window, refuses to respect facts about it, one can continue quite blithely continue to believe a designed world is rational. But that’s the only way.

    • Mel Wild says:

      So I will ask what every child would intuitively know…where, what, or who did it come from? What is the uncaused cause? And please don’t wave it away by saying it caused itself. That’s not a rational answer and doesn’t answer the question.

    • tildeb says:

      Remember, you have asked me not to explain – too many words. So the option for you is either stay ignorant or go learn on your own.

      My point remains: ID is not a valid hypothesis for further inquiry because it has no evidence in its favour and no method or means to gather any. It is simply another religious belief disconnected to the reality it pretends to describe.

    • Mel Wild says:

      This is not true. But I will let it go for now and will explain in future posts.

    • KIA says:

      Then of course… You would have to be able to positively identify that designer as the God of the bible…with more that just intuition. You need Evidence. Something you dont have for either assertion of Belief. Just Faith.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Yes, of course. Intuition has to do with revealed theology, but I can still argue the case for best explanation from natural theology. And you cannot prove that there is no possibility of God from evidence.

    • KIA says:

      Mel, not being able to disprove something does not lend any weight to the truth of it. You would still bear the burden of proof for your claim.
      And I haven’t said anything of the kind, that there is no god. Even if i were an atheist in general, that would still not be a positive claim that ‘there is no God or gods’ (ie. A claim to Know)… just a disbelief in gods (ie. Statement of Belief or non belief) based in your not fulfilling your burden of Evidence.
      Neither of us can prove there are no magic dust tossing pixie somewhere in the vastness of the universe, but also neither of us would accept such a claim that there were… without evidence being provided that there were in fact magic dust tossing pixie. Not being able to disprove something is not evidence of that somethijng existing in reality. It lends no credence or evidential value at all. See my point?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Okay. Fair enough. If you believe in the possibility of a designer or creator, you have a logical argument. I will get to the “Christian” argument eventually, but that’s not where I’m at right now.

    • KIA says:

      Sorry, again… you’d have to first prove the actual existence in reality of the Designer to demonstrate design BY an intelligent designer… ie. God or gods. You haven’t done that and I’d venture to guess that you’d be honest enough to admit you aren’t able to. At least I’d hope you’d be.

    • Mel Wild says:

      That’s a fallacious argument but I will answer that in the next couple of posts on this subject.

    • KIA says:

      Until then, all you have is suppositions, assertions and intuition based on confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

    • Mel Wild says:

      But keep in mind, if you have an alternative explanation to theism then you do bear the burden of proof for that position.

    • KIA says:

      Brother mel… I’m not proposing one. So I bear no such burden

    • Mel Wild says:

      Read my post tomorrow then…we can talk more about it then.

    • KIA says:

      Just read it. Got home from work. Sorry, I’m passing on the conversation. I don’t think it would be very fruitful or edifying. Cheers brother. Good to make your acquaintance

    • KIA says:

      then again… maybe i’ll pop over for a chat on the other post after work this evening. thx again for the invite. and your kindness in replies

  13. Argus says:

    Cut to here:
    it seems that much depends on a human-God being transported through time and space (as in ‘appearing’ to folks), and we then get into heavy stuff like quantums and things?

    Surely quantum transportation requires (or would require) very very heavy investments in technology? (Research, manufacturing, delivery etc etc.)
    You could be putting forward a good case for the ‘ancient astronauts’ folks; unless the teleportations and dematerialising etc is all done by the mind of the practitioner … so now we are entering claims made for some yogis and other non-Christian guru folks. Or hypnotists and clever illusionists. (Nothing supernatural is allowed …)

  14. Argus says:

    If I may take up the sleepy KIA query on my own behalf: no, I do not believe in a god or intelligent design.

    I also do not (r) not believe in the so-called Big Bang either, which really is just another name for God’s act of creation and equally (to me) as improbable—despite the maths.

    If God created Himself, why not the universe likewise?

    It’s a toughie … my vote goes for eternal universe, despite my not liking unfinishes. As for God, He falls over on the contradictions inherent in the terms ‘loving’ and ‘merciful’ and ‘compassionate’ and ‘omnipotent’ and ‘omniscient’.

    • Mel Wild says:

      If I may take up the sleepy KIA query on my own behalf: no, I do not believe in a god or intelligent design.

      Okay, what evidence do you have to prove there is no God or intelligent design, besides making yourself His moral judge?

    • Argus says:

      His moral judge … He is feted as being the Ultimate Good, and as He is blatantly not good, I feel entirely free to judge.

      I make no claims on being able to prove that there is no intelligent design—the mechanisms of (say) evolution that He so cleverly wrought into His works could be a case for, in fact.

      I come from the standpoint of contradiction. I cannot stand contradictions and the whole Christian ‘thing’ is based on out-and-out contradictions.

    • Mel Wild says:

      You say He’s blatantly not good. That is precisely what a moral judgment is. So, you have “faith” (not based on evidence) that there is no God.

      Btw, going to bed myself…later.

    • Argus says:

      Of course I make moral judgements~!
      I said I’m uneducated, I didn’t say I lack intelligence or perception or morals. I’d be a liar if I didn’t make moral judgements. Anyone who doesn’t make moral judgements is no longer capable of independence and should be in a safe environment …

      As for my ‘faith’ in not having a God—my faith is based on observation and reason. I make my own mind up on what I see for myself (I just wish everyone else would).

      Goodnight, and sleep well.

    • Mel Wild says:

      As for my ‘faith’ in not having a God—my faith is based on observation and reason.

      That would not be faith, Argus. Faith, by definition, would be trusting in what you can’t observe or prove. It takes no faith whatsoever to believe in what is proven conclusively. Your faith is actually in believing there is no God (or living as if there is no God), in spite of the fact that you cannot prove this with evidence.

      I make my own mind up on what I see for myself (I just wish everyone else would).

      I actually agree with you there.

    • Argus says:

      By definition I have faith in many things—that the traffic lights at intersections will help protect me, that the engineers have done their job when I’m flying and the inspectors likewise. I have faith that the wings will keep me up, a faith I cannot attribute to the divine (so many have been let down in the past, both ways).

      I’m told that one cannot prove a negative, which would make it tough for me to prove that there is no God. But at the same time, given all the contradictions, I also cannot accept that there is a god.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Okay. Fair enough. Thanks. I may look into that subject at another time.

  15. Megan Urlaub says:

    God bless. I enjoy your posts. And you’re a very patient man with comments. Patience. A fruit of the spirit. 😄

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s