Why do Bible believers knock themselves out trying to come up with natural explanations for miracles of God?

Question

For example: Where did all the water come from for the worldwide Flood, and where did it go afterward? How did Noah feed all the animals? How could he possibly have collected all those species?

Um....weren't all those details meant to define the whole to-do as Supernaturally designed and executed?

What if y'all could come up with credible, well-constructed scientific explanations for all those questions? The response of unbelievers might be, in that case: "Well, see, that wasn't a miracle of God a'tall, the way the Bible says it is. You've just proved that it could have happened naturally, with no supernatural intervention.

And non-Bible believers why are you asking. You know just the right buttons to push on those eager evangelistic beavers don't you, you clever devils! But wouldn't everyone's time be better spent working on solutions to problems we ALL have: facing epidemics, aging population that will need medical care (with fewer young people to provide it)..ENERGY!!!

Bing! Bing! Bing! Congratulations Cantanker. You have MISSED the POINT! :)

Kentchath: Walk is walk. Is done Vertically. Float is float. Is done horizontally. Unless Mary had a Baby Buoy instead of a Baby Boy.

That's a third refutation to add to your excellent other two.

Project: You cause me to smile a wee bit, too. :) The B-I-B-L-E, now that's the book for me, I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E. *does backwards sommersault midair* BIBLE!
Yo, friends, read it!

Mortgage -- Yes, most of them do have jobs to do---except the ones who were barred from certain positions because they didn't beleive in Evolution. Think of all the sidelined talent!

Stepchild? Christians are involved in and celebrate successes in stem cell research--particularly, the types of stem cell research that don't involve destruction of human life. You need to learn more about those.

Answer 1

I agree with part of your point but I don't think you are using the best examples. Some better ones would be the miracles that Jesus performed like walking on water and feeding 5,000 people with 7 loaves of bread and two small fish. Explaining how Noah could fit all of the animals in the Ark isn't a good example from my point of view because the Bible doesn't say anything like God supernaturally made an interdimensional holding space inside the Ark or that He put 100,000 animals in a boat the size of a log cabin. That's my opinion anyhow.

Answer 2

You know what the miracle of Noah's Ark was. Noah built an Ark out in the middle of the desert, no where near water, before anyone ever saw rain. God said He was going to destroy all life in 120 years. Now you may be able to explain the flood in natural terms, but what's miraculous is that it came in the year predicted, and earth saw it's first rain.

I would like to make a comment on the size of the Ark, since people here say that the Ark wasn't big enough. First of all, I don't think that those people know how big the Ark was, or how many animals that Noah had to bring, they just know it was big enough.
The capacity of the Ark was equal to over 500 rail road cars, which can carry 240 sheep size animals. That means the Ark could have held 120,000 animal the size of sheep. Noah only had to have representatives of each kind of animal. Scientist have estimated that there are about 8,000 kinds of animals. Assuming he took two each of the unclean animals, and seven each of the clean animals, he would have had a total of about 25,000 animals on board. The Ark, having a capacity of 120,000 sheep size animals, would have had plenty of room for them.

I would like to make a comment to :), The phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is only not in the Bible, but it's against Biblical principles. That phrase was said by Ben Franklin. The reason it's unbiblical is because God usually can't help anyone until they find they have no place else to turn, and they turn to God. When people are down at the bottom, God is there to lift them up.

Answer 3

Claiming that a god is an exception and does not need to have been created because said god is all powerful is fallacious because it is entirely dependent on the circular reasoning to believe in a god. Speaking of which, if somehow you convince us that the world was created by a higher being, how do you prove it was the christian god? Other religions tell their own stories and yet you claim them false. How do you prove one creation story over another? The bible says the christian god is eternal, i will accept that premise. But how do you know you can trust the bible? If your answer is anything along the lines of "it is God's book" (even if it takes a few steps to reach it) then you are guilty of circular reasoning. The bible cannot simultaneously be a premise and a conclusion. The fact a pastor prayed for you and then you got better is entirely post hoc ergo propter hoc. Further, why is it that other families just as Christian as yours pray for their children to survive a condition but the child does not? If it is God's plan to kill or if he works in mysterious ways when something bad happens but he is so great when something good happens, then you are guilty of selective attention. You say you had plenty of evidence. What evidence? Just feeling/knowing it, having experienced the holy spirit for yourself is not evidence because it is not something that can be identically recreated in a controlled environment. The fact you quit drugs and alcohol is great but you decided by yourself. It was all you. Religion may have helped but it certainly cannot be directly credited as the sole cause. Want to make God happy? Well you cannot just choose the nice parts of the Bible. Oh and you cannot ignore the old testament because as you know, Matthew 5:17 says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." So then all of the Leviticus business about things being prohibited apply to you. And why not listen to Acts 3:23? It says "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." What about Romans 5:12? It says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: And read 2 Thessalonians 1:8. "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" I could go on with some passages but the point I made is clear: there are many negative things in the bible that you fail to address. Why do you ignore them? Why are those things necessarily metaphorical while the good things are necessarily to be taken relatively literally? You being happy may be a result of having found religion but it is not evidence of it. Statistically speaking the happiest nations tend to be more Atheistic (among them are Norway, Sweden, Australia, and Canada). Now these statistics don't prove that a god does not exist nor does it prove a more atheistic nation is necessarily happier or better off. It does, however show a correlation. Regardless of this, NOTHING you said proves any god exists. Let me bring you this hypothetical scenario: if I were wounded and decided to ask Apollo, the ancient Greek god who in addition to being a sun god was also known as a healer, to help me. And then I am cured. Does that prove that Apollo and the other greek gods exist? Of course not. The reason is not because it is thanking a god different than your own but because you would want proof. Much like that, nonbelievers ask for proof. Your claims are just claims. These claims cannot be recreated. Science does not truly know how life began and it might never know. However the fact science is willing to admit ignorance shows that it accepts it does not know everything and that it is willing to change. Every scientific discovery is fair game for debunking. If it can be conclusively and scientifically proven a god exists and created everything we know then the scientific community will accept it.

Answer 4

Actually, it is of interest not only from a scientific basis, but also from the perspective that God is using what he created in nature to fulfill prophesy. It is just as much a miracle to know it is going to happen, as what happens in the first place. Consider when Isaiah challenge the pagan priests to demonstrate the power of their gods by creating a sacrifice and asking their gods to destroy it. Naturally they failed, whereas when Isaiah tried it, fire came down from heaven, not only destroying his offerings, but also the other one and the pagan priests. During an archaeological dig at the location they found a crystal that is only found where atomic weapons have been used. Could it have been fire from God, or solar flare energy breaking through a weak spot in the atmosphere and hitting the ground? It does not mean that the event was any less a miracle, since the offerings were at the location where it hit.

The science of the Bible can be interesting, but no one should study it to re-enforce their faith. You have faith or not. It is found in the heart, not in things or evidence of things.

Answer 5

I thought it was the non-believers who try to come up with scientific explanations in order to prove the miracles weren't miraculous. I guess if believers offer scientific explanations it's to convince non believers that the miracles could have happened. But it seems to me that true believers don't need explanations. If God wanted an ark with all the animals in the world on it then God can have it because God is God and you either believe it or you don't. I remember someone trying to explain to the radio preacher that the flood couldn't have happened or the red sea thing because there would have to have been a wall of water a mile high and that's impossible. And the preacher said. If God wants a wall of water a mile high God can have a wall of water a mile high. That's how you do religion. Science is something different.

Answer 6

http://deeperstudy.blogspot.com/2006/04/jesus-walked-on-ice-not-water.htmlJesus walked on ice, not water?

======================
Why do non-believers knock themselves out trying to come up with natural explanations for miracles of God?
=======================

According to an Associated Press story, Florida State University professor Doron Nof claims he may have found a scientific explanation for Jesus' miraculous walking on the water of the Sea of Galilee. According to Nof, an oceanography professor, a rare combination of water and atmospheric conditions in the Sea of Galillee two millennia ago may have caused a patch of ice to form.

To observers, in this case, the disciples in the boat, the ice would have been hard to distinguish from the unfrozen water surrounding it. "I'm not trying to provide any information that has to do with theology," Professor Nof is quoted as saying. "All we've thought is about the natural process."

=======================================
But the disciples had rowed out there from shore.
Why would it have happened that at that specific time in the last 2000 years a naturalistic explanation would have existed?

And, is the naturalistic explaination plausible?=======================================

Against this theory are two strong arguments.

The walk on the water took place at the wrong season of the year for ice. According to John 6:10, "there was plenty of grass" at the place where Jesus fed the 5,000, a miracle that He performed earlier that same day (see also Matthew 14:19). Mark's account (6:39) describes it as "green grass." This historical detail indicates the event did not take place in the winter but some time during the season when grass is green. In fact, the context of John 6 and 7 suggests that it happened before the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), which occurs in October. Sukkot involves sleeping outside in shelters made of tree branches, not an activity for sub-freezing temperatures, and the miracle apparently took place before Sukkot, closer to summer.
According to the temperatures posted by the Israel Meteorological Service, mean temperatures there from July through September range from a low of 70º F. (about 20º C.) at night to a high of 84º F. (about 30º C.) during the day. Even in October, the range is much too warm for ice – 66º F. (19º C.) to 81º F. (27º C.).

The observers of the event were well qualified to distinguish between water and ice. They were not visitors to an unfamiliar setting; they were professional fisherman who had spent their entire lives on that very lake, night and day, in all seasons and every kind of weather. Furthermore, at the end of the walking on water incident, they received Jesus into the boat, which means they were not just viewing Him from a distance, but close up—close enough to discern ice if it had been there. The larger the piece of ice—and it would have had to be substantial to sustain a grown man's weight—the more easily it could be seen. When we add the detail that Peter climbed out of the boat and also walked on the water, the possibility of a patch of ice melts away.
Naturalistic explanations

==========================

Or take the crossing of the Red Sea ... a natualistic explanation is that it actually was the sea of reeds, that the Israelites walkee across on bullrushes where the water was only four inches deep. Wonderful; a naturalistic explanation. No need for a miracle ... except that Pharoah's army drowned in four inches of water!!

Answer 7

As an aside, these things would fairly well take care of themselves if we lived by God's intentions.... Guess that takes too MUCH energy...
"facing epidemics, aging population that will need medical care (with fewer young people to provide it).."

As for your question, we didn't knock ourselves out trying to explain Biblical happenings. Non-believers were so intent on DISproving the Bible, that they came up with credible assumptions, in spite of themselves.

For instance, evidence of a water canopy before the flood; evidence that "all that water" would have no problem evaporating back into the atmosphere, settling into bodies of water, or soaking into the ground; that specific "species" needed not be present, only a male & female of each kind, to pass on the necessary charcteristics.

None of these evidences disprove the Biblical accounts. They support them.

Answer 8

It is a good point. If the important thing is faith, and you believe it, why feel the need to justify it to someone else on their terms? The only place I could see this being useful is in a conversion attempt, but I'd think scientific explanations of miracles would case someone so inclined to be less likely to convert, if it can be explained away.

Answer 9

*Yawnnnnn* Did I miss anything. Oh yeah well actually there is scientific proof that the ark was real and did land on Mt. Ararat. Besides as you said why ask a question if you are just trying to push a button? Don't you have a job to do? Better get busy with the epidemics and old folks (which I would help you with if I could).

Answer 10

The fundies knock themselves out trying to explain away irrational, illogical things because

1.) They have been trained like monkeys to do so.

2.) They have been threatened to believe or burn in hell by their merciful god.

3.) Denial is the first step.


We heathen, pagan unbelievers often waste more time trying to convince them they are wrong rather than focusing on the more important issues at hand true-
However, we find it difficult to solve many of these problems due to the actions of the fanatical fundamentalists.

Case in point: Any attempt to research methods of treatment and cures for disease by way of studying stemcells result in failure. Why? Because of laws enforced as a direct result of fanatical fundamentalism.