Is there a Christian cosmology that doesn't include miracles?

[tieman55]

I use to love learning about all the proofs that God Created the universe. I especially liked geochronometry.
I still enjoy hearing new things as they are discovered on a daily bases that prove a young earth.
But a lot of creation science gets a little too far into the weeds for the average person to wittiness with.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that those things shouldn't be explored, they should be. But it appears so so deep into the weeds . . . that it almost seems like people are trying to convince themselves and not others.

From my prospective as a firm believer in a young earth, I think a broader more hypothetical approach would win more converts to the young earth. I would love to see the brilliant minds on this forum tackle, just how God did creation. Was it all miracles?

My favorite way to start with a evolutionist is with the joke about the scientist who eventually created life in the lab, using a piece of clay. And as they presented the life to God, of course God says, get your own clay.

If, E=MC2 and I think most concede that it probably does, then why can't creationist take M=E/C2 and put it in the place of some or all of the so called miracles.

Maybe the term miracle may not be what we think it is. Maybe, just maybe miracle is a figure of speech meaning something like "things that are hard to understand". My understanding is the term "miracle" is defined as actions that violate the laws of physics. If you believe in E=MC2 then I think you have to believe in M=E/C2, or energy into matter that would not violate physics.

Miracles are in the eyes of the beholder. If you gave a cell phone to Moses, he would surely call it a miracle. Heck, the amount of diodes they can now get on the head of a pin, makes me think its a miracle! LOL

Is there a Christian cosmology that doesn't include miracles? Maybe there should be? Why would God create laws of physics such as He did, only to immediately break them? Or, at least ask the question, if God wanted to create without violating "His" laws of physics, could He do it?

 

[Jonahdog]

Because you still need your deity to do the work

 

[tieman55]

Because you still need your deity to do the work

Is God working always a miracle?

 

[Trump Gurl]

Is there a Christian cosmology that doesn't include miracles?

The very act of the creation is a miracle. Your question makes no sense.

 

[Right Divider]

Because you still need your deity to do the work

So do you.

 

[Jonahdog]

Is God working always a miracle?

You missed my point. Miracle or not you still require your particular deity. I don't need one

 

[Right Divider]

You missed my point. Miracle or not you still require your particular deity. I don't need one

Where did your universe come from?

You claim "no deity", but the creation of your universe is just as miraculous.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I use to love learning about all the proofs that God Created the universe. I especially liked geochronometry.
I still enjoy hearing new things as they are discovered on a daily bases that prove a young earth.
But a lot of creation science gets a little too far into the weeds for the average person to wittiness with.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that those things shouldn't be explored, they should be. But it appears so so deep into the weeds . . . that it almost seems like people are trying to convince themselves and not others.

From my prospective as a firm believer in a young earth, I think a broader more hypothetical approach would win more converts to the young earth. I would love to see the brilliant minds on this forum tackle, just how God did creation. Was it all miracles?

First, I think it's important that we define terms. Later in your post you seem to try to define miracles as some arbitrary thing that can somehow be explained by science.

This is not the case.

Miracles are not "in the eye of the beholder."

Miracles are events that do not generally follow the laws of physics and reality, and which are caused supernaturally.

For example, God (a supernatural Being) turning the Nile into blood is a miracle, just as turning water into wine is a miracle, and healing lepers and raising the dead.

The word "miracle" today means something hard to understand by those who witness the event, but which ARE possible to explain through rational thought and looking at the event more closely.

My favorite way to start with a evolutionist is with the joke about the scientist who eventually created life in the lab, using a piece of clay. And as they presented the life to God, of course God says, get your own clay.

:thumb:

If, E=MC2 and I think most concede that it probably does, then why can't creationist take M=E/C2 and put it in the place of some or all of the so called miracles.

Maybe the term miracle may not be what we think it is. Maybe, just maybe miracle is a figure of speech meaning something like "things that are hard to understand". My understanding is the term "miracle" is defined as actions that violate the laws of physics. If you believe in E=MC2 then I think you have to believe in M=E/C2, or energy into matter that would not violate physics.

As stated above, true miracles are that which violate the laws of reality.

God creating the heavens and the earth would be considered a miracle, as creating everything out of nothing is not possible according to the first law of thermodynamics. But since the laws of the physical universe did not exist prior to God's creation of the universe, they therefore do not apply to Him.

Miracles are in the eyes of the beholder.

No, they are not.

If that was so, then anything anywhere at any time could be considered a miracle if it's not understood, and so the word would lose its meaning.

If you gave a cell phone to Moses, he would surely call it a miracle. Heck, the amount of diodes they can now get on the head of a pin, makes me think its a miracle! LOL

I don't think you give enough credit to ancient man.

They were geniuses (compared to modern humans today).

https://kgov.com/genius

Is there a Christian cosmology that doesn't include miracles?

No, because miracles did in fact happen.

Maybe there should be?

Denying reality leads to insanity. God is real, He is supernatural ("above" nature), and can do things that would violate the laws of the universe He created, because He has the power and ability to do so.

Why would God create laws of physics such as He did, only to immediately break them?

In other words, why did God do miracles?

To show His power to try to get others to acknowledge Him, and to potentially love Him.

Or, at least ask the question, if God wanted to create without violating "His" laws of physics, could He do it?

God created the matter and energy all at once in Genesis 1:1.

Everything He did afterword in the first six days that He created was by definition miraculous. He was setting into motion the universe He created.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You missed my point. Miracle or not you still require your particular deity. I don't need one

Yeah, you do. You just refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Hopefully you come to realize that you're better off accepting that He exists and loving Him than you are denying His existence.

 

[tieman55]

The very act of the creation is a miracle. Your question makes no sense.

Does God have to act out only in miraculous ways?

Could God if He wanted to create without using miracles?

Jesus, in His earthly life, did far more things that conformed to the laws of physics than He did that appeared to violate the laws of physics.

Can you or I force God to only work in the realm of miracles?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Does God have to act out only in miraculous ways?

In general? No. In fact, there are several times where God used tools that He had created to accomplish what He wanted to do.

Could God if He wanted to create without using miracles?

Creation by definition was a miracle.

Jesus, in His earthly life, did far more things that conformed to the laws of physics than He did that appeared to violate the laws of physics.

Such as?

Can you or I force God to only work in the realm of miracles?

I think this question is irrelevant. Could you explain why you think it's relevant?

 

[tieman55]

First, I think it's important that we define terms. Later in your post you seem to try to define miracles as some arbitrary thing that can somehow be explained by science.

This is not the case.

Miracles are not "in the eye of the beholder."

Miracles are events that do not generally follow the laws of physics and reality, and which are caused supernaturally.

For example, God (a supernatural Being) turning the Nile into blood is a miracle, just as turning water into wine is a miracle, and healing lepers and raising the dead.

The word "miracle" today means something hard to understand by those who witness the event, but which ARE possible to explain through rational thought and looking at the event more closely.



:thumb:



As stated above, true miracles are that which violate the laws of reality.

God creating the heavens and the earth would be considered a miracle, as creating everything out of nothing is not possible according to the first law of thermodynamics. But since the laws of the physical universe did not exist prior to God's creation of the universe, they therefore do not apply to Him.



No, they are not.

If that was so, then anything anywhere at any time could be considered a miracle if it's not understood, and so the word would lose its meaning.



I don't think you give enough credit to ancient man.

They were geniuses (compared to modern humans today).

https://kgov.com/genius



No, because miracles did in fact happen.



Denying reality leads to insanity. God is real, He is supernatural ("above" nature), and can do things that would violate the laws of the universe He created, because He has the power and ability to do so.



In other words, why did God do miracles?

To show His power to try to get others to acknowledge Him, and to potentially love Him.



God created the matter and energy all at once in Genesis 1:1.

Everything He did afterword in the first six days that He created was by definition miraculous. He was setting into motion the universe He created.

He created, granted, acknowledged and I know it to be true. But was it x-nihilo or was it from things unseen. If it was from things unseen, did the way He do it have to violate the laws of physics?

Which laws did it violate? All of them? Which ones?

 

[tieman55]

In general? No. In fact, there are several times where God used tools that He had created to accomplish what He wanted to do.



Creation by definition was a miracle.



Such as?



I think this question is irrelevant. Could you explain why you think it's relevant?

I tried to in my original post.

Today, Christian cosmology takes it for granted that all of creation was a miracle, I don't think that it is absolutely established that God "had to" violate "His" laws of physics to create out of things unseen.

 

[Jonahdog]

Where did your universe come from?

You claim "no deity", but the creation of your universe is just as miraculous.

Maybe but at least it does not involve a deity who threatens me with eternal torment if I don't believe in his particular miracles.
but I'm not willing to concede a miracle, just that we haven't figured it out yet--and we may never. But what we have figured out so far makes a need to believe literally in your holy book pretty silly

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe but at least it does not involve a deity who threatens me with eternal torment if I don't believe in his particular miracles.
but I'm not willing to concede a miracle, just that we haven't figured it out yet--and we may never. But what we have figured out so far makes a need to believe literally in your holy book pretty silly

"We just haven't figured it out yet" is a common ploy for atheists.

Once again, your creation story is just as miraculous. Your deity is yourself.

 

[Jonahdog]

If my deity is myself at least I should not have difficulty interpreting what I write. How many different christian denominations are there? Do they all agree on one interpretation of the Bible? Why cannot your god give a straight answer? Are works needed for salvation for example? Was Calvin right, you are either chosen or doomed? Those strike me as valid theological questions
"It's a miracle" is a common ploy of Christians. With no hope of figuring it out.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If my deity is myself at least I should not have difficulty interpreting what I write. How many different christian denominations are there? Do they all agree on one interpretation of the Bible? Why cannot your god give a straight answer? Are works needed for salvation for example? Was Calvin right, you are either chosen or doomed?
"It's a miracle" is a common ploy of Christians. With no hope of figuring it out.

Start another thread please, preferably in the Religion forum, or perhaps even the ECT.

 

[JudgeRightly]

He created, granted, acknowledged and I know it to be true. But was it x-nihilo or was it from things unseen. If it was from things unseen, did the way He do it have to violate the laws of physics?

Which laws did it violate? All of them? Which ones?

The first miracle, answered in the post you quoted, found here:

. . .

God creating the heavens and the earth would be considered a miracle, as creating everything out of nothing is not possible according to the first law of thermodynamics. But since the laws of the physical universe did not exist prior to God's creation of the universe, they therefore do not apply to Him.

. . .

God created the matter and energy all at once in Genesis 1:1.

Everything He did afterword in the first six days that He created was by definition miraculous. He was setting into motion the universe He created.

Creating matter and energy, including light: First law of thermodynamics.
Creating life: Law of abiogenesis.

As for FORMING what he had created, there's nothing violated physics-wise, other than God supernaturally manipulating the matter and energy, by God forming it into things.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I tried to in my original post.

Today, Christian cosmology takes it for granted that all of creation was a miracle, I don't think that it is absolutely established that God "had to" violate "His" laws of physics to create out of things unseen.

Well, no, it's not taken for granted. It by definition WAS a miracle, because according to the laws of physics, matter and energy cannot be created (nor destroyed), yet God created the physical universe with that law. If you think creation was NOT a miracle, then the onus is on you to present the case that it was not.

 

[Jonahdog]

Start another thread please, preferably in the Religion forum, or perhaps even the ECT.

No, I was responding to your post here.