About Miracles

As Easter draws near,  it’s a good time to talk about its central component: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In my recent posts, “Pulling Back the curtain on Materialism” and “God is not a god,” I tried to show incoherence of the materialist ontology concerning the question of the existence of God, and that idealism is a much better fit, especially in light of what we know about quantum realities (see also “Reality…what reality?” and “Christ, the Cosmic Mind, and Consciousness” for further background into this philosophical discussion). 

What’s interesting about this is that what you think about the resurrection of Jesus Christ reveals more about your worldview than whether or not miracles are actually possible.

For instance, the historical evidence surrounding the Easter story is pretty much not disputed by credible historians and textual critics. Here’s what a former atheist philosopher and a current atheist textual critic (respectively) said about the Easter event:

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than any other for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity…” (Antony Flew, “Did the Resurrection Happen?”, p.85)

“There are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after His death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that He was buried. The earliest accounts we have are fairly unanimous in saying that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow Joseph of Arimathea, and so it’s relatively reliable that that’s what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. And so I think we can say that after Jesus death, with some certainty, that He was buried… and three days later appears not to have been in the tomb.” (Bart Ehrman, “Lecture on the Historical Jesus with the Teaching Company”).

What’s in question is not the historical event itself but whether or not a miracle occurred. Naturalist reasoning (via David Hume and Ehrman) says that miracles cannot occur because they violate natural regularities and aren’t part of our normal human experience. This argument is not only circular but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim (see video below for explanation).

C.S. Lewis gives an illustration to show why the resurrection does not violate natural laws:

“If this week I put 1,000 pounds in the drawer of my desk, and 2,000 the next week, and another 1,000 the week thereafter, the laws of arithmetic allow me to predict that the next time I come to my drawer I shall find 4,000 pounds. But suppose when I next open the drawer, I find only 1,000 pounds, what shall I conclude? That the laws of arithmetic have been broken? Certainly not! I might reasonably conclude that some thief has broken the laws of the State and stolen 3,000 pounds out of my drawer. Furthermore, it would be ludicrous to claim that the laws of arithmetic made it impossible to believe in the existence of a thief or the possibility of his intervention. On the contrary, it’s the normal workings of those laws that have exposed the existence of the thief.” (“Miracles,” p. 62)

Furthermore, science cannot even answer the question of miracles. Science studies nature. And the question before us is whether there is anything outside of nature.

“Science neither denies nor opposes the supernatural, but ignores the supernatural for methodological reasons.” (Eugenie Scott,  Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education)

The laws of nature can predict what will happen with a degree of certainty as long as there is no interference from outside. But if there is interference in the process,  you won’t get what science predicts will happen. C.S. Lewis makes this argument brilliantly here.

No Christian claims that Jesus was raised from the dead according to natural laws, which is Hume’s argument. The claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead by overpowering natural laws, much like jet propulsion overpowers the law of gravity every time a plane takes off. The plane didn’t violate the law of gravity. It overcame it by a stronger force. This is what is meant by a miracle.

With the discovery of quantum mechanics, we’re finding out that the cosmos is not so closed as we once thought it was under a Newtonian paradigm.

“Science, at least to the extent that is influenced by quantum mechanics, is no longer so certain as to what can and cannot happen.” (Dr. Mark Worthing, “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology,” p. 158)

Here’s a short video by Inspiring Philosophy explaining the logical argument for miracles.

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 40 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 and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to About Miracles

  1. John Branyan says:

    The first miracle is my own consciousness. There is no natural explanation for the existence of my mind.

    Once I came to understand a little bit about the nature of God, the resurrection wasn’t difficult to believe. No disrespect intended, but raising Jesus from the dead was a parlor trick for God.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Consciousness is unexplainable by science. They try with radical hypotheses like panpsychism, but these are nothing more than magical thinking, not science. And I totally agree, if God can create and sustain every moment of our existence, then He could raise someone from the dead as a matter of course.

  2. The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

    If God can speak the entire universe and everything in it into existence, the numerous miracles depicted in the Bible are easy.

    But atheists, not believing in God, cannot believe in miracles because their naturalistic presuppositions simply will not allow them.

    Not only that, though, smart atheists know if they can take down (or get believers to queation) miracles, the whole of the Bible will crumble. There is, after all, a reason they happened.

    All the miracles in the Bible had a purpose—to prove that God is like no one else, that He has complete control of creation because He is its source, and to convince us that if He can do all these miraculous things, nothing in our lives is too hard for Him to handle. 

    He wants us to trust Him and know that He can do miracles in our lives as well. If the miracles did not occur, then how can we trust anything the Bible tells us, especially when it tells us eternal life is available through Christ?

    When we begin to call any part of Scripture into doubt, all of God’s marvelous plan is suspect, and we open the door for the lies and distortions which are Satan’s plan to destroy our faith (1 Peter 5:8). 

    The Bible is to be read and understood literally, including the miracles.

    • KIA says:

      So James. You believe by faith primarily then, right?

      • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

        Yes but I don’t believe faith is the opposite of reason as you evidently do.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Actually, to believe in naturalism also takes faith that the natural world is all there is because you cannot prove naturalism with science.

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          True Mel, we all need faith. I actually like and agree with this quote quite a bit.

          “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, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.”

          – Blaise Pascal

          KIA and his like minded friends label us as fools because we lack verifiable evidence but, in reality, evidence doesn’t matter at all.

        • Mel Wild says:

          KIA and his like minded friends label us as fools because we lack verifiable evidence but, in reality, evidence doesn’t matter at all.

          What’s funny about the “verifiable evidence” atheist talking point is that you cannot be an empiricist, or verificationist, and also be a materialist, as Keith Ward points out here. This mindset originally came from philosophers like Hume, then in early 20th century logical positivism, but it largely debunked by Quine and others in the last few decades because, ironically, you cannot even do science by relying solely on empirical data! This leads to a misconception of what science is actually giving us anymore, and how much of has drifted away from empiricism (by necessity).

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          Well Mel, it has been my experience that people who clamour the loudest for more evidence aren’t really that deep or introspective. Other people say there isn’t any evidence and many just repeat it without thought.

          Besides, and I don’t think this can be said enough, it’s not about evidence anyway.

          When people reject the Bible’s historical accounts of Creation, a global flood, and/or the resurection of Christ, for example, Peter says they are willfully ignorant (2 Peter 3:5). It’s not a matter of evidence; they just don’t want to be convinced.

          So it can be a mistake to proceed as though the main problem is a lack of knowledge or convincing evidence with non-believers who have a heart problem that has caused them to reject the God of the Bible even before they begin to consider whether His Word could possibly be true.

          Modern intellectuals, as they call themselves, are no different from the proud Greeks of Paul’s day, who lived in the futility of their thinking. They too were darkened in their understanding… because of the blindness of their hearts (Ephesians 4:17–18).

        • KIA says:

          “in reality, evidence doesn’t matter at all”

          What more can one say to that? Then I presume apologetics as a course of action is now defunct and pointless as well? Have a wonderful day gentlemen.

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          You misunderstand, let me repeat.

          When people reject the Bible’s historical accounts of Creation, a global flood, and/or the resurection of Christ, for example, Peter says they are willfully ignorant (2 Peter 3:5). It’s not a matter of evidence; they just don’t WANT to be convinced.

          Apologetics still has a purpose always has, always will.

        • KIA says:

          Sorry James. That’s not the context of what you said. At all. That is your spin trying to get out of what you said by being dishonest and asserting dishonesty to anyone who disagrees. Have a wonderful day.

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          How can I be trying to get out of what I said when I quoted exactly what I said word for word?

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          M]poo)l

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          Sorry Mel, I have no earthly idea what that comment is or how it got there.

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          Christian apologetics is simply presenting a reasonable defense of the Christian faith and truth to those who disagree and is a necessary aspect of the Christian life. 

          As you well know from your three decades in ministry, Christians are commanded to be ready and equipped to proclaim the gospel and defend their faith (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Peter 3:15). 

          That, not arguing scoffers who don’t want to believe into the faith, is the essence of Christian apologetics.

        • KIA says:

          Always with the personal attacks, James. Have a great day

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          How in God’s name was that an attack?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I was wondering the same.

        • The Isaiah 53:5 Project says:

          Meh, not much of what he said matters anyway so…

  3. Cool post, Mel. I totally accept the miraculous. Close your eyes, set aside disbelief, and let the Lord surprise you. 🙂

    What always baffles me about this line of thought, isn’t nature itself a miracle? We cannot be both living within a miracle and denying the existence of miracles at the same time. What we call the “laws of nature” are simply the things we have observed from the miracle around us, the probabilities that we have calculated. Mathematically, this is how things will probably go down. Take your math to a casino however, cast your lots on a losing streak, and you can a have a rather “miraculous” string of bad luck. Playing the odds has long tantalized people, because something “odd” is going on there. We expect things to behave in a certain way….and then they suddenly don’t.

    A bit funny, but I have certainly had patients who have clearly defied the laws of physics and made me ask,so why are you even still alive? The crash dummies they used to conduct the very same physics experiment, all had to be swept up with a broom. 🙂

    • Mel Wild says:

      A bit funny, but I have certainly had patients who have clearly defied the laws of physics and made me ask,so why are you even still alive?

      LOL! My grandpa smoked like a chimney from the age of 10 until he died at 95 (not of lung cancer). I also wonder that about the hummingbirds and bumblebees in my garden. Don’t they know they’re not supposed to be able to fly? 🙂

  4. Pingback: Miracles? | See, there's this thing called biology...

  5. Citizen Tom says:

    @Mel Wild

    Thanks for the post. It was fun and Interesting, but I think we try to hard to please the skeptics.I got an especially good chuckle out of the quantum mechanics section in the video.

    A miracle is an event outside the norm best explained by the intervention of God. The parting of the Red Sea (or whatever it was), for example, was quite unlikely. However, since what we call the the laws of nature are just cause and effect models that we have created. So it is kind of silly to say God cannot produce a temporary change of behavior in His creation that appears to violate our models. How does He do that? Well, if we knew we might be even more astonished, but we don’t. Does it have anything to do with quantum theory? Statistical probabilities? Who thinks that way? Apparently someone does. 🤔😏

    Consider the miracle of raising the dead. Raising someone from the dead definitely violates our scientific models, and the statistical probability of that happening is incalculable. Nevertheless, it did, and we are thankful God loves us so much.

    Still, it makes me think of what Albert Einstein said.

    God does not play dice with the universe. (from => http://www.businessinsider.com/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015-11)

    Using quantum mechanics to explain miracles most certainly illustrates how bizarre quantum mechanics is as a theory.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks Tom. I think what quantum mechanics shows us is that the cosmos is a lot more open than 17th century naturalists understood. So, there’s a lot more going on in reality than we even come close to understanding. To me, it’s just plain hubris to dismiss miracles.

      But the point is, science cannot give us an answer about miracles, by definition, since science can only test regularities in nature, which miracles are not! This is why Hume’s argument is circular and actually irrelevant.

  6. I’m quite sure we will disagree on this Mel, but it is always beneficial for everyone who wants to make objective informed decisions to consider ALL viewpoints to a controversial event that has MORE THAN ONE interpretation or interpolation or library of evidence, right? Make your OWN decisions, don’t just follow the crowd. 😉

    The historicity of Yeshua, the canonical gospels, and the later Christology developed 400-500 years later after the execution of the Rabbi (Messiah?) Yeshua is simply too vast and too complex a topic to sufficiently cover here in a comment or one blog-post. It is too convoluted by Hellenistic Apotheosis and the Roman Empire over sectarian Judaism, especially pure, true Jewish Messianism.

    Nevertheless, “Miracles” (or the paranormal) are simply cases of public naivety of Natural and Cosmic laws/events and reactions that have yet to be categorically recorded, tested, and understood by all cumulative, interdisciplines of science and then recorded… then over time reviewed and repeatedly retested further over time, again and again. And if it is shown to exist outside of current known Natural laws — e.g. subatomic particle physics (like the results of the Large Hadron Collider experiments) and its implications — then one day soon it WILL be explained and common place… not exclusive to any time, place, person, or ideology, and repeatable by many. History has shown this time and time again.

    As always, TIME and progressive, evolved intelligence will tell… not temporary awe, bafflement, superstition, or orthodoxy (ala the geocentric model)… or as I like to describe the phenomena of religion: the Placebo-effect and Peer-pressure/assimilation. It is a lack of broad understanding or ignorance.

    Again, thank you Mel for your continued allowance of alternative viewpoints. Have a good week sir. 🙂

    • Mel Wild says:

      You’re right, I do disagree with everything you said except for your last statement. We should be able to think for ourselves and not be cowed by MISINFORMATION under the pretense of knowing better. Especially, when someone is not just offering an alternative view but making snide remarks about Christianity on my site.

      To set the record straight, we know that the resurrection claim goes back to within a year of the event (even agreed by skeptics), it was well-known by oral creed (since most Christians couldn’t read anyway) until written down in mid-first century by Paul. This is attested by Christian and skeptic textual critics alike. It wasn’t made up 400 years later.

      As explained in the post, not believing in the possibility of miracles has more do with an a priori naturalist prejudice than science’s ability to disprove them. As Eugenie Scott said, science cannot prove or disprove the possibility of miracles for methodological reasons.This prejudice against them comes from a 17th century materialist worldview that’s based in circular reasoning.

      But thanks for your comments.

      • We should be able to think for ourselves and not be cowed by MISINFORMATION under the pretense of knowing better. Especially, when someone is not just offering an alternative view but making snide remarks about Christianity on my site.

        I must agree with that Mel; our identical points work both ways. You have your “information,” I have mine. It is up to readers to decide whether to checkout, verify, contrast and compare (with all available OPPOSING viewpoints too) what we are both writing. Naturally, I would assert that much of the information you put on your blog is misinformation, but everyone shouldn’t take my word on it — nor yours to be frank — and themselves go to all the original sources… or as close as possible to the “original” sources like the Hebrew Tanakh and Greek NT… and put BOTH those collections into their proper, correct historical context. Yes? If they choose not to, then they are making a critical mistake and proceeding blindly.

        Someone making snide remarks? Not sure who you might be referring to, but it is quite common when discussing and debating a controversial topic like Christology that some snippyness will occur. FEW people fully understand Christology’s entire historical context — both from dependent AND independent sources — and tempers may flare a bit. However, emotions won’t change the historical facts and reliable or unreliable narratives.

        To set the record straight, we know that the resurrection claim goes back to within a year of the event (even agreed by skeptics), it was well-known by oral creed (since most Christians couldn’t read anyway) until written down in mid-first century by Paul. This is attested by Christian and skeptic textual critics alike. It wasn’t made up 400 years later.

        That paragraph isn’t very clear and not exactly true. The meaning of Jewish resurrection was clearly understood within Judaism, even sectarian Judaism, but it was not understood from Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) ideas or apotheosis. The two were completely different ideologies. 1st-century CE Jewish resurrection was not meant to be taken literal, as it later morphed into over the following four centuries up to Emperor Theodosius I and beyond. I think you misunderstood there. Nevertheless, you and I will not have enough time or space here to iron this out. We must trust that ordinary people will do the legwork themselves and not take what we write as gospel. 🙂

        Regarding your last paragraph, firstly, there are various meanings of the word “miracle” and people today use the word in completely different contexts than others and certainly different than people did in Antiquity. Secondly, miracle can be synomous with “an unforeseen event not yet understood or carefully examined.” Magical deceptions were quite common in Antiquity because as you mentioned, most were very uneducated and illiterate, including several of the disciples. Dr. Bart Ehrman plausibly asserts that Jesus was illiterate too and most likely could NOT speak Greek.

        In ancient Roman-Egypt and Greece many mechanical illusions were utilized in temples to create awe and marvel (miracles) to unwitting worshippers and to collect monetary tributes. Hero of Alexandria (10 – 70 CE) wrote about, drew blue-prints, and explained these engineering marvels in his book “Pneumatics.” Hero also invented magical/miraculous jugs — very popular entertainment throughout the Mediterranean — that could pour either water or wine from the same jar/jug (John 2:1-10). The crowds and worshippers called it miracles, but others (then or today) called it illusion or deceived human-sensory. The point is that surprising events may not be understood or explained at the moment, but that does not automatically indicate any sort of divine intervention.

        Thanks for the brief discussion Mel. I will be unable to continue this thread and disagreement; time constraints. But for any neutral unbiased readers here understand that this topic really, REALLY should be thoroughly researched, examined, and scrutinized from all viewpoints, not just from a pure Judeo-Christian or Christological lenses. Start with all the reasons WHY the Holy Bible had to be canonized over a 400-year period. That’s a good start. 😉

        • Mel Wild says:

          Professor Taboo, my post is about miracles, specifically pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the canonization of Scripture, or what the Jews or surrounding cultures thought about it, or what was said about it 400 years later. I would appreciate it if you would stick to the subject instead of throwing about a bunch of unrelated accusations about Scripture.

          My point was clear. The death, burial, and resurrection creed (1 Cor.15:3-7) was well known in the earliest church and repeated as a central tenet of the faith by the time Paul wrote it down into text. This is a historical fact.

          Even the skeptical scholar Gerd Lüdemann says about the first-century creed:

          “I do insist that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional foundations is one of the great achievements in New Testament scholarship.”

          Paul penned the words in 1 Cor.15:3-7 in the mid-first century, which is not in dispute as authentic by textual scholars, it was already a well-known oral creed in the church before this, possibly within months of the event itself.

          But for any neutral unbiased readers here understand that this topic really, REALLY should be thoroughly researched, examined, and scrutinized from all viewpoints, not just from a pure Judeo-Christian or Christological lenses.

          First, there is no such thing as neutral unbiased readers. That itself is a naïve myth. Words, and how words are used, carry bias. Everyone has a worldview, whether they know it themselves or not. They will see everything through this interpretive lens. To not understand this is to be ignorant of one’s own prejudice.

          Furthermore, nothing in all antiquity has been more examined and researched, and maligned, than the claims of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is also a myth to think that people will be convinced just by the evidence. They will believe what they already want to believe and will justify it with “evidence” that suits their prior belief (or disbelief). In things like this, believing is a heart issue, not an evidence issue. The only thing evidence will do is give a reasonable evidence for someone to believe or disbelieve. But it still takes faith (to believe or disbelieve). And there is already enough for that if someone is actually open to the claims of Jesus’ life and resurrection.

        • …my post is about miracles, specifically pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the canonization of Scripture, or what the Jews or surrounding cultures thought about it, or what was said about it 400 years later. I would appreciate it if you would stick to the subject instead of throwing about a bunch of unrelated accusations about Scripture.

          How does anyone today know about a supposed resurrection of Jesus?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I have no idea why you would ask this. We can know this through the historical and textual scholarship that I mentioned, through the independent writings of the early church fathers going back to early second century. This was not based on documents 400 years later. Even skeptical scholars agree with this. All of these things collaborate what Paul wrote in the mid-first century.

          As Antony Flew said, while still an atheist: “The evidence for the resurrection is better than any other for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity…”

          So, if we’re going to insist on any higher standard of historical evidence, we would have to throw out practically everything we know about ancient history.

        • Sorry Mel. As I mentioned earlier, I really don’t have enough time to challenge in-depth many controversial points you are making/asserting — some that have already been shown to be inaccurate or false. But I’ll make this quick reply then I must stop.

          First let me say that I’m really not trying to irritate you or annoy you. I am trying to offer alternative viewpoints to your blog-topic(s) and content. It isn’t intended to be personal or directed at you, just to the content, the religious ideology, Christianity.

          I have no idea why you would ask this. We can know this through the historical and textual scholarship that I mentioned, through the independent writings of the early church fathers going back to early second century.

          I asked because you said this: “I would appreciate it if you would stick to the subject instead of throwing about a bunch of unrelated accusations about Scripture.” People today (and since c. 70 – 80 CE) have one primary method of hearing about a/the resurrection: Scripture. Therefore, my comments here about the reliability or unreliability of Scripture, by association MUST involve the scrutiny of Scriptural testimonies, past and present, which I believe is indeed “sticking to the subject.” 🙂

          …through the independent writings of the early church fathers going back to early second century.

          See, that’s another contention by me and many skeptics of the gospels and New Testament, those writings by “early church fathers” are actually NOT independent. They are Hellenistic Christians 2-3 generations (and more) removed from the actual characters in question that were Jewish reformers called “the Way” or the popular 12 disciples and their immediate recruits. And their later recruits were no more than Judeo-Christians, but not called that at the time. There are no extant testimonies by “the Way” members or other contemporaneous testimonies about a “resurrection” of a man Jesus. Regarding Paul’s epistles, he too was not there at the execution or burial or what happened days after. But that wouldn’t matter anyway because he is not an independent source either. Even the Hillel Pharisaic concept of “resurrection” going back many, many centuries (of which Paul was educated) included belief in the resurrection of all Jewish bodies.

          In the case of comprehensive INDEPENDENT support for the veracity of the Synoptic Gospels and Paul’s epistles and Christology, the comparitive source has to be purely Roman or non-Judean in origin to be truly independent. The few sources that are pure Roman (3 or 4 only?) do NOT mention anything about a Jewish man that rose from the dead, went around to people spooking them, and then floated up into the sky. And the Romans were anally obsessed with keeping records about EVERYTHING! Yet, the only extant sources that narrate such a “resurrection story” are the highly biased productions of some Judeo-Christians and then embellished later by Hellenistic Christians, neither independent.

          I must stop here due to time-constraints and other obligations. I can’t continue this, BUT I do hope that neutral, open-minded people/readers will do a fair examination or reexamination of the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament… complete and inside the full-spectrum context of 1st-century BCE thru 5th-century CE Roman Empire. I think you’ll find your previous (amputated?) teachings were incomplete and erroneous.

          Thanks again Mel for the chance to discuss these things despite it all being far too brief and incomplete as well. Best regards.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Amputated? There you go again.
          Okay, fair enough. Just know that your “alternative viewpoints” will be challenged here.

        • 👍 Expected nothing less. 😉 Thanks Mel.

        • Nan says:

          I’m sorry, but I have to ask … if, as you wrote: In things like this, believing is a heart issue, not an evidence issue. … why carry on these lengthy discussions? You obviously believe in your heart that God exists, Jesus died and was resurrected, and your life has been changed as a result. However, for others it IS an evidence issue … which means you’ll never agree with each other. So why continue?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Nan, I do it for believers and seekers, not for hardened atheists or secular humanists. The only person I ever hope to persuade is the one whose heart is open to the truth. And, honestly, while you haven’t done this here, I get tired of seeing believers get bullied by these belligerent anti-Christians with their scientistic pretensions, bad history, and abysmal understanding of theology. People who are honestly seeking need to know that we have very good reasons for why we believe. Especially, when the atheist position is ontologically incoherent. Don’t get me wrong. Evidence is important (if you define evidence properly) but it will always come down to faith in the end, either way, believing or not believing. Believing in God is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one. Science has no way of proving or disproving God on methodological grounds. As I said here, there’s plenty of reasonable evidence to believe, if one’s heart is open.

        • Mel, much of that reply to Nan is your personal opinion. I like to at least make it known, to casual passerbys to those “seekers” open to ALL truths that they MUST ULTIMATELY seek this on their own. I encourage them to do it fairly, with as little personal and cultural bias as possible. And if our discussions or debates start that, then we should BOTH be happy… and let “God” do as He wishes or let the cards fall where they may, right? 😉

          There’s also plenty of reasonable evidence NOT to believe, if one’s heart is honest with itself given the true comprehensive evidence available. And then too often “faith” is used to cover up laziness and not willing to invest the sweat and hard legwork to come to a highly INFORMED decision. That’s what I see in the majority of all American churches and certainly around the world.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And that’s your opinion. As I said before, neutral and unbiased is a naïve myth.

          Btw, I thought you had to go?

        • 🙄 I’ll try to explain better what I meant…

          I do not think it has to be strictly A or B, or 100% “naïve myth” or 100% immutable precision Mel. It can be something somewhere in between (degrees of). As an analogy to help, when astronauts view the Earth from the ISS, they completely see themselves and life differently than they ever could have before. Staying on the ground, in one 10-mile radius, on 1 continent in one hemisphere, all their life can never offer more objectivity. Humans are absolutely capable of becoming MORE unbiased, neutral, objective with time and effort when they modify/change their perspective and firsthand experiences — the more the better — for some NEW, unfamiliar ones in extended periods of time in various 4-dimensional space.

          What I am NOT saying is that we can achieve 100% perfectly neutral, all-encompassing objectivity or unbiasness 100% of the time as you are incorrectly interpreting. I can give more analogies if it would help.

        • A valid question Nan. Thank you. 🙂

  7. Pingback: Why Hume was certainly wrong about miracles | In My Father's House

  8. I love your the C.S. Lewis analogy and the one about the money disappearing from the drawer. Though skeptics might question the fact that I believe by faith, not reasoning, I can’t deny the power of God’s Word. As was the case was with Jeremiah, there are times it has burned like fire in my bones. And I can’t explain in any other way the healing miracles that have happened when I’ve prayed for people. It’s a promise in God’s Word and it really works.

    There’s something about believing in the heart, not just the head. I also recently heard that people really have two brains: one in their head and the other in their gut. Very interesting.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.