Modern Miracles

[Johnny Dough]

Good day, Christians.

As an atheist, one of several questions I have regarding the supposed existence of God and the legitimacy of the Bible is the absence of miracles (of the elaborate sort, such as the Genesis Flood, the burning of Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.) in contemporary times.

Thousands of years ago, God (according to the Bible) performed all sorts of grand miracles relatively frequently. However, it seems such miracles no longer occur - and don't even seem expected to occur, even among Christians.

Personally, I believe the reason is they never happened in the first place, and that claims are largely absent because as man's knowledge, scientific and communication methods have advanced, it is a lot more difficult for such things to be fabricated.

For example, if Las Vegas (which is notorious for "sinful" happenings) were to be bombarded by fire and breamstone (much like Sodom and Gomorrah), virtually everyone in the United States (and millions throughout the world) would know about it within an hour because our communications methods are so advanced and coverage of the event would be broadcasted by television, radio, Internet, cell phone, etc.

Thousands of years ago, though, none of that existed and claims of miracles were much more likely to be exaggerated by people with far less knowledge about the world, more passion about religion and supernatural entities, more dependent on hearsay rather than first-hand sources, and were without investigative methods that compare in any way to modern times.

Because of all that, I believe modern miracles do not occur because the world has changed and things of that sort cannot be fabricated on a large scale in this day and age - but more likely could have in ancient times.

So that's my take on the subject. Can anyone explain why my position is unreasonable?

[watchinginawe]

Hello Johnny. Welcome to Bibleforums CMB!

Yes, I see your point. Sounds reasonable. But I think you are ignoring the evidence of some whopper miracles right in front of your nose (or within your very being).

For example, the universe. Where in the world did that come from? Or the elements, what was the alchemist's furnace that produced those? Or the laws of nature? Or life? Or intelligent life and ultimately ending with us, discussing these events on an internet forum? Are these the evidence of miracles past and present, or are there reasonable explanations that need no miracles?

More than likely you will suggest "reasonable explanations". But I would be surprised if your "reasonable explanations" didn't include "ancient events" that can't seemingly be reproduced in modern times. Why swallow those explanations that have seemingly quit happening in this day and age?

God Bless!

[Johnny Dough]

Hello, watchinginawe. Thanks for your response.

Originally posted by watchinginawe:
"For example, the universe. Where in the world did that come from?"

The best guess at this point appears to be that the universe originated with the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago.

Originally posted by watchinginawe:
"Or the elements, what was the alchemist's furnace that produced those?"

It's believed that nearly all elements other than hydrogen and helium were produced by stars.

Originally posted by watchinginawe:
"Or the laws of nature? Or life? Or intelligent life and ultimately ending with us, discussing these events on an internet forum? Are these the evidence of miracles past and present, or are there reasonable explanations that need no miracles?"

I believe there are reasonable explanations, many of which have been answered with a quite a lot of depth. Some questions are still unanswered and might remain that way indefinitely. Time will tell, but the progress that science has made in the last couple thousand years indicates that future findings likely will have a natural explanation, as supernatural explanations have gradually fallen by the wayside through the millenia. Naturalism has a far better track record and I expect that to continue.

As far as the "ultimately ending with us" part, I don't think too many people who support evolution (at least the non-theistic brand) believe we are the ultimate end of the process and the crowning creation. We have been around for about a geological eye-blink (far less time than the dinosaurs) and who knows what the future holds. Our sentience and creativity might one day lead to our undoing, though I certainly hope not.

Originally posted by watchingawe:
"More than likely you will suggest 'reasonable explanations'. But I would be surprised if your 'reasonable explanations' didn't include 'ancient events' that can't seemingly be reproduced in modern times. Why swallow those explanations that have seemingly quit happening in this day and age?"

Like... what?

[gpmosely]

Hi Johnny!
I think your also ignoring some of the miracles that can be easily explained through scientific terms. I mean back then they couldn't explain things. Now however we can.

For example: The moon helps raise the tides of the ocean up. We have figured out how to fly in space and in the air, we have figured out how to look at x-rays and the internet and etherwaves etc.

BUT how are those miracles?

Well- where did they come from? What is it about that relation with the earth that causes the gravitational forces to move? Where did this idea come from to make a flying machine? From the Birds? Well ok thats fair enough but where did the ability come from to get the idea to actually BUILD a plane?

The miracles then i think were things the people didn't understand. But now, we do understand things through science and logic- but that still does not void the fact that they aren't miracles. It just states- that this is happening but we can understand it better. So now instead of using the word miracles we use another word: Science.

[watchinginawe]

I believe there are reasonable explanations, many of which have been answered with a quite a lot of depth. Some questions are still unanswered and might remain that way indefinitely. Time will tell, but the progress that science has made in the last couple thousand years indicates that future findings likely will have a natural explanation, as supernatural explanations have gradually fallen by the wayside through the millenia. Naturalism has a far better track record and I expect that to continue.

I see. I recognize that belief. It is sometimes referred to as scientism, or the belief that science is the only reliable philosophy to establish truths. In this case, it doesn't matter whether science can offer the truth of any particular matter, but rather the belief that when the truth of any particular matter becomes apparent, it can be established entirely through science. You Johnny, are a brave stakeholder in your beliefs. You are a decided individual (at least for now ).

As far as the "ultimately ending with us" part, I don't think too many people who support evolution (at least the non-theistic brand) believe we are the ultimate end of the process and the crowning creation. We have been around for about a geological eye-blink (far less time than the dinosaurs) and who knows what the future holds. Our sentience and creativity might one day lead to our undoing, though I certainly hope not.

You read too much into my comment. We are here discussing this on an internet forum. So all of the events that have ever occurred up to this time has ultimately ended up with us discussing them on this internet forum. I see a certain paradox in that when trying to employ naturalistic explanations but perhaps you don't see my point.

Like... what?

All that I mentioned. But it you want to focus on a particular one, how about the beginning of life? That has to be one of the all time so called natural miracles ever. Why don't we see life springing up naturally in sterile environments in modern times? Does the fact that we don't see this happening dim your view that science postulates that life occurred and began reproducing itself as a natural process millions and millions of years ago when we couldn't observe it?

To me, this discounts your idea that a large scale fabrication of a myth (something not proven) can't be purported in modern times. Just because scientism states that it MUST have started that way does not make it so. I believe an explanation employing intelligent causes is just as likely. In either case, life exists today as the evidence of one or the other. I believe that life looks more like the result of an intelligent cause rather than an un-intelligent natural process.

So, that would be one that you might be overlooking.

God Bless!

[dljc]

Good day, Christians.

As an atheist, one of several questions I have regarding the supposed existence of God and the legitimacy of the Bible is the absence of miracles (of the elaborate sort, such as the Genesis Flood, the burning of Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.) in contemporary times.

Thousands of years ago, God (according to the Bible) performed all sorts of grand miracles relatively frequently. However, it seems such miracles no longer occur - and don't even seem expected to occur, even among Christians.

Personally, I believe the reason is they never happened in the first place, and that claims are largely absent because as man's knowledge, scientific and communication methods have advanced, it is a lot more difficult for such things to be fabricated.

For example, if Las Vegas (which is notorious for "sinful" happenings) were to be bombarded by fire and breamstone (much like Sodom and Gomorrah), virtually everyone in the United States (and millions throughout the world) would know about it within an hour because our communications methods are so advanced and coverage of the event would be broadcasted by television, radio, Internet, cell phone, etc.

Thousands of years ago, though, none of that existed and claims of miracles were much more likely to be exaggerated by people with far less knowledge about the world, more passion about religion and supernatural entities, more dependent on hearsay rather than first-hand sources, and were without investigative methods that compare in any way to modern times.

Because of all that, I believe modern miracles do not occur because the world has changed and things of that sort cannot be fabricated on a large scale in this day and age - but more likely could have in ancient times.

So that's my take on the subject. Can anyone explain why my position is unreasonable?

To use the example you gave about Las Vegas compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. Yes, it is recognized as a "sinful place". However, Abraham pleaded with God to spare Sodom, if only 50 righteous people could be found, that number dwindled to less than 10 (Genesis 18). Only Lott and his family were spared, but his wife turned to a pillar of salt because she looked back. (Genesis 19)

So it would appear that there are at least 10 righteous people in Las Vegas. As well as the other cities in the world that are just as bad as Las Vegas. Do you think there are no churches or Christians that live in Las Vegas? Would it take the destruction of an entire city and all of it's inhabitants to get you to believe? God is merciful. What if the city you live in is next on the list, and there were less than 10 righteous people? You would want God to be merciful with you wouldn't you?

He's given you the option to choose, life or death. John (3:15-19) Choose wisely.

[th1bill]

... I am sorry to explain this to you but you are just ill informed. There are two men that live close that were declared dead in this area and yet both of them, after being prayed for and having the hands of God's people laid on them, live. One of them was dead for an hour and a half and instead of being a vegetable, he stands in the pulpit and preaches the Word of God, has written a book (90 Minutes in Heaven) and makes personal appearences when requested. Don Piper was declared dead by EMTs, Texas State Troopers and the man that God sent to pray for him declared him dead also. (He was a combat experienced combat medic out of Vietnam.) The best news is that these are not isolated cases, miracles are daily occurance.
... The question you need to ask is why, since these events happen daily, on a world wide scale, do they not get reported? The answer, God is not news worthy to a secular press core that is busy beating the believer into submission. The news is slanted to conform to what any man believes to be true.
... There is another factor that, without some study of the Bible, you will be unfamiliar with, Jesus, God in the flesh of a man, did not do many miracles when He was among people of little faith. Why would He? Where there is no faith folks work very hard to dismiss the event and the Kingdom of God is not profited.

[Walstib]

Good day to you,

As an atheist,

Been there myself

Can anyone explain why my position is unreasonable?

As an atheist I don’t think your position is unreasonable at all. These ancient “miracles” I think one believes in faith. Sure I could point to evidence of a world wide flood or chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea but would that prove anything to you spiritually? Well I guess it could. I think it has more to do with trusting the authors were telling the truth and evidence is a bonus. That the bible was penned by men through divine inspiration from the Creator who kept it accurate. Horse before the chariot if you will Then I did not really believe this when I first came to believe in Jesus nor does one have to I think.

See that is the direction I would recommend looking into first. The miracles that Jesus the man is reported to have done rather than the heavenly Father unseen. Being a “christian” to me is a smidgeon about physical and a ton about spiritual. Unless one believes there is more to a man then physical atoms nothing of faith will be reasonable.

Peace,

Joe

[Johnny Dough]

Originally posted by gpmosely:
"The miracles then i think were things the people didn't understand. But now, we do understand things through science and logic- but that still does not void the fact that they aren't miracles. It just states- that this is happening but we can understand it better. So now instead of using the word miracles we use another word: Science."

I believe that's a little too watered-down to have any real meaning relative to the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by Johnny Dough:
"I believe there are reasonable explanations, many of which have been answered with a quite a lot of depth. Some questions are still unanswered and might remain that way indefinitely. Time will tell, but the progress that science has made in the last couple thousand years indicates that future findings likely will have a natural explanation, as supernatural explanations have gradually fallen by the wayside through the millenia. Naturalism has a far better track record and I expect that to continue."

Originally posted by watchinginawe:
"I see. I recognize that belief. It is sometimes referred to as scientism, or the belief that science is the only reliable philosophy to establish truths."

Personally, I simply refer to it as reality. Every single indisputable fact about our world has a natural explanation, and many things that were once thought to have a supernatural explanation have been cast aside through the millenia as our knowledge has increased.

When I see proof that there supernatural forces at work in the world, then I will consider them. Until then, I am going to assume that everything has a natural explanation, as that is by far the most likely scenario in any given situation. The history of science clearly indicates that it is more reasonable to defer to future discoveries on issues we don't fully understand than to resort to the supernatural.

Originally posted by Johnny Dough:
"As far as the "ultimately ending with us" part, I don't think too many people who support evolution (at least the non-theistic brand) believe we are the ultimate end of the process and the crowning creation. We have been around for about a geological eye-blink (far less time than the dinosaurs) and who knows what the future holds. Our sentience and creativity might one day lead to our undoing, though I certainly hope not."

Originally posted by watchinginawe:
"You read too much into my comment. We are here discussing this on an internet forum. So all of the events that have ever occurred up to this time has ultimately ended up with us discussing them on this internet forum. I see a certain paradox in that when trying to employ naturalistic explanations but perhaps you don't see my point."

Why is there a paradox in that...?

Originally posted by watchinginawe:
"All that I mentioned. But it you want to focus on a particular one, how about the beginning of life? That has to be one of the all time so called natural miracles ever. Why don't we see life springing up naturally in sterile environments in modern times? Does the fact that we don't see this happening dim your view that science postulates that life occurred and began reproducing itself as a natural process millions and millions of years ago when we couldn't observe it?"

What I find most convincing about abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life) is that the history of life shows an increase in complexity through the ages, going all the way back to unicellular life.

According to our best science, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Rudimentary life appeared at some point relatively soon after that and multicellular life evolved much later. Well-known prehistoric life such as dinosaurs did not show up until about 250 million years ago and modern mammal species within roughly the last 50 million years.

So what I see in that is life on earth has changed quite a bit, tracing its roots all the way back to simple origins. From my perspective, I find it unlikely that a deity of some sort tossed out the first forms of life and intentionally allowed them to branch out into what we see today.

So while we don't fully understand abiogenesis at this point, I believe it's a lot more likely that we will one day. I think abiogenesis is merely the 2008 version of questions people asked thousands of years ago about thunder and lightning, wind and rain, etc. And just as those questions turned out to have natural explanations, I expect the origin of life will too.

Originally posted by watchinginawe:
"To me, this discounts your idea that a large scale fabrication of a myth (something not proven) can't be purported in modern times."

Firstly, a myth is not defined as something "not proven." It is something known (or highly suspected) not to be true, often in retrospect. According to your definition, God is a myth because deities are "not proven" to exist.

Secondly, the point of my original post regarding the absence of modern miracles on a large scale is quite different from what you're asserting. The scientific community being right or wrong about something has nothing to do with why we don't see miracles taking place like they did in the Old Testament.

Originally posted by dljc:
"To use the example you gave about Las Vegas compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. Yes, it is recognized as a "sinful place". However, Abraham pleaded with God to spare Sodom, if only 50 righteous people could be found, that number dwindled to less than 10 (Genesis 18). Only Lott and his family were spared, but his wife turned to a pillar of salt because she looked back. (Genesis 19)

So it would appear that there are at least 10 righteous people in Las Vegas. As well as the other cities in the world that are just as bad as Las Vegas. Do you think there are no churches or Christians that live in Las Vegas? Would it take the destruction of an entire city and all of it's inhabitants to get you to believe? God is merciful. What if the city you live in is next on the list, and there were less than 10 righteous people? You would want God to be merciful with you wouldn't you?"

That is irrelevant to my question. Las Vegas was merely a modern day example that if something on the scale of Sodom and Gomorrah were to take place today that it would instantly be world news and everyone would see footage of it. It can't be fabricated or exaggerated. Everyone would get first-hand reports from credible sources directly from the scene while (or immediately after) it happened.

I believe that's why we no longer see biblical style miracles happening, because there is far, far more scrutiny in 2008 and the world can turn its attention to virtually any point on the globe in a matter of minutes.

Originally posted by th1bill:
"I am sorry to explain this to you but you are just ill informed. There are two men that live close that were declared dead in this area and yet both of them, after being prayed for and having the hands of God's people laid on them, live."

Bill, there are approximately 5-6 billion people on the planet. Bizarre things are gonna happen from time to time regarding life and death situations and pretty much anything else. If the odds of a given situation happening to a person are a billion to one, then it's gonna happen about 5-6 times a day somewhere on the planet. Doesn't mean miracles are involved.

Furthermore, how many times has someone been prayed for who ended up dying? Millions of times, I'm sure. Is that evidence against prayer because the person being prayed for didn't survive? I doubt you think so.

Additionally, I will give you this scenario: If you and I were to meet a military veteran who's missing a limb in a hospital one day, I would be willing to bet you everything I own and ever will own vs. a single penny that you could sit and pray for him all day and his missing limb would not grow back.

Prayer just doesn't impress me.

Originally posted by Walstib:
"Then I did not really believe this when I first came to believe in Jesus nor does one have to I think."

I believe there are a lot of issues in the Bible that have bearing over the legitimacy of Christianity. I think it's all related.

And thank you all for your replies. I appreciate them.

[Walstib]

Hi

I believe there are a lot of issues in the Bible that have bearing over the legitimacy of Christianity. I think it's all related.

I think it's possible to be a Christian without knowing how to read or hearing more than Jesus was a man who was God as well and came here to live and die so that people can gain a intimate relationship with the creator in the depths of their "self" now and for eternity. That believing He is who He says He is is all that is needed.

Yes everything is related, but I don't think issues about seeing things proved in the physical legitimize one mans personal relationship with the creator. Christianity is not a bunch of things you believe in but who you believe in. It's not what you know but who you know.

I would say if you ask God from your heart to reveal himself to you in your inner man, He will, and you will have your own miracle to take with you everywhere. I have mine I could never prove to you.

Peace,

Joe

[dljc]

That is irrelevant to my question. Las Vegas was merely a modern day example that if something on the scale of Sodom and Gomorrah were to take place today that it would instantly be world news and everyone would see footage of it. It can't be fabricated or exaggerated. Everyone would get first-hand reports from credible sources directly from the scene while (or immediately after) it happened.

I believe that's why we no longer see biblical style miracles happening, because there is far, far more scrutiny in 2008 and the world can turn its attention to virtually any point on the globe in a matter of minutes.

How much faith would it take then? You want God to destroy a major city, just so you can believe in Him? Just so you can have proof?

[chisel]

Johnny Dough,

It looks like you're trying to create an environment where no evidence for God can be sufficient, so that you can justify not believing in God.
It is in other words not so much a case of there not being sufficient evidence but rather the suppression of evidence.

What I mean by that is, that you expect a miracle to believe in God, right?
But at the same time you believe that anything can be explained naturally. Even things you can't explain you defer to future discovery/explanation.

So, if something explanable happens, you say "natural!"
If something unnatural happens, you'll say, "natural, but not yet discovered"

You've therefore created an evidentiary vaccuum where no evidence for God can exist.
Even if you were to be a witness to a miracle you still won't allow yourself to be convinced, because your position precludes the possibility of miracles.

[watchinginawe]

;
I apologize that this turned out so long and fragmented. I hope that doesn't dissuade you from giving some time and consideration to my points.

Personally, I simply refer to it as reality.

Johnny, it is important for one to know what they believe and what forms their belief. Of course you refer to it as reality. That is your worldview. I view life after death as a reality. But I recognize that is my belief about reality and I put my faith in that belief of reality. You do to.

Every single indisputable fact about our world has a natural explanation,

I believe that your sentence is incomplete because you presume it to be a statement of fact. What you are really saying is: Every single indisputable SCIENTIFIC fact about our world has a natural explanation. I would agree with you there. However, one must recognize that the set of possible scientific facts resides within the set of natural explanations. So of course the statement is true. Scientism further states that all facts reside within the set of natural explanations. That is a belief.

and many things that were once thought to have a supernatural explanation have been cast aside through the millenia as our knowledge has increased.

That does not mean that there is no set of supernatural explanations. In your process of increasing knowledge, you have cast aside God. Here is a verse from the Bible. Can it be true? Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. If we are convinced that all truth comes from the set of natural explanations and search only there, then the above verse becomes true if there is more than just the set of natural explanations.

When I see proof that there supernatural forces at work in the world, then I will consider them. Until then, I am going to assume that everything has a natural explanation, as that is by far the most likely scenario in any given situation.

As a 3rd party observer you may never get your "proof". But if you throw yourself into the experiment you may have a different conclusion one day. The very best proof that the spiritual exists will come from within your very own crucible.

Why is there a paradox in that...?

Because science states that everything up to now is the result of natural unintelligent causes but all of that added together somehow resulted in intelligence. Man sees himself typing out messages on an internet forum (basically arranging ones and zeros in a particular pattern that means something to others) as intelligent intervention in nature. So, when we discover a pyramid or a tablet with writing on it we classify it differently than a natural formation. We even classify ourselves as intelligent life and believe ourselves able to distinguish other intelligent life. Anyway, I see a certain paradox in all of that.

What I find most convincing about abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life) is that the history of life shows an increase in complexity through the ages, going all the way back to unicellular life.

You know, in a broad sense, so does the Genesis creation account. Even that life was brought forth from the earth (but supernaturally of course). The text is thousands of years old.

According to our best science, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Rudimentary life appeared at some point relatively soon after that and multicellular life evolved much later. Well-known prehistoric life such as dinosaurs did not show up until about 250 million years ago and modern mammal species within roughly the last 50 million years.

So what I see in that is life on earth has changed quite a bit, tracing its roots all the way back to simple origins. From my perspective, I find it unlikely that a deity of some sort tossed out the first forms of life and intentionally allowed them to branch out into what we see today.

So while we don't fully understand abiogenesis at this point, I believe it's a lot more likely that we will one day. I think abiogenesis is merely the 2008 version of questions people asked thousands of years ago about thunder and lightning, wind and rain, etc. And just as those questions turned out to have natural explanations, I expect the origin of life will too.

Yes. Scientism.

Secondly, the point of my original post regarding the absence of modern miracles on a large scale is quite different from what you're asserting. The scientific community being right or wrong about something has nothing to do with why we don't see miracles taking place like they did in the Old Testament.

Science has its own "Old Testament" it seems. The only difference is you don't classify abiogenesis as a miracle. Think about this. You know it is true. If life did not start naturally, then science will never be able come to the knowledge of the truth.

Have you been following the Mars Phoenix project? Here is a thread with some of my thoughts regarding how the scientific community and media have behaved themselves in this experiment. We have got to get a grip IMO. Scientism basically imputes a "law of life". In other words, life just happens given the proper conditions. If the conditions are discovered, then ipso facto life is discovered.

What we view or personally refer to as reality is our belief about reality. Our beliefs are entirely shaped and therefore supported by our worldview. I've held to a worldview like yours in the past. I considered it a mature (as in personally mature) viewpoint. I believed that I made a brave and honest acceptance of "reality". I didn't recognize it at the time, but for some reason, it didn't bring contentment. I would continually be discussing and defending my worldview with those that held a different one, trying to get them to bravely and honestly embrace the world. I guess that I was really defending my viewpoint to myself. I have since understood that the reason for this is that I disagreed at some level with some component of myself. It kept me searching until all of me could agree with my worldview.

God Bless!

[apothanein kerdos]

Your premise is false.

For one, the Bible never claims these happened frequently. In fact, what we see when miracles occur is that people are startled and that the miracle works as proof of a happening. The only reason it appears frequent is due to the fact that the Bible isn't an overall narrative on human history, but specific events. If they were frequent then they shouldn't have been so awe inspiring.

Secondly, notice how the miracles slowly decrease as the historical narrative of the Bible progresses. The reason there were more mentioning of miracles early in the text is because there was no written text people could rely upon. Thus, they needed prophets to speak. How do you trust a prophet? Have him perform a miracle. As time goes on, however, written text is developed that people can trust in and the need for miracles (which are signs) are diminished.

You should read C.S. Lewis' Miracles if you want a detailed explanation.

[Johnny Dough]

Was my last post deleted or something...?