1robin
Christian/Baptist
He did tell us how to measure these types of events. The problem is many have a dogmatic and narrow view of what they accept. There is no justification to suggest my visual experience is any more reliable than my spiritual or moral experience not that I am limited to only these.Let's use two magnets sticking together. You have a god standing beside you. He says he can make these magnets fly apart contrary to "natural mechanics". You have all existing measuring equipment in the world available, he makes them fly apart, and your equipment registers no forces acting on the magnets. Did he use something "supernatural" or just something natural we can't measure yet? If he tells us how to measure what he used, would it then still be "supernatural"?
I have often thought of the supernatural as just an undiscovered natural force emanating from God. God certainly would not be unnatural. Faith precludes proof so I do not expect to find objective proof of God but I do not think of his acts as anything but another realm of the natural. I use the term to distinguish it from the known natural for convenience. I have heard others take issue with that view but I have never understood their contention. I think it enough to distinguish God's acts from methodological naturalism or materialism.
I will add that supernatural events are rare exceptions and measurement would be impracticable. I can test all water at all places and times for wine. I can test historical claims and have not been left disappointing, to conclude the very meticulous and accurate NT writers suddenly went insane at every place I can't test is not justifiable.
Last edited: