(August 15, 2013 at 2:26 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I never said that water to wine doesn't have a supernatural explanation. I said it #could# have. This is crucial to faith: that it cannot be verifiably known.
We need to make a distinction here. I'm going to explain what I think your position is and you can tell me if it's correct.
Some event A could either have begun to happen because of natural *or* supernatural reasons. Two examples:
Naturally caused event: my heater turning cold air to hot air.
Supernaturally caused event: Jesus turning water to wine.
The agent responsible in each case is either natural or supernatural.
Now, for some event A, the explanation of how the event *plays out* could either have a natural or supernatural explanation. Again, our two examples:
Naturally explainable event: my heater uses electricity to combust a gas and thus heat up air.
Supernaturally "explainable" event: Jesus turned water to wine by means that escape the way in which nature works.
So, when you say that there *could* be a supernatural explanation, do you mean that it could be the case that the event *can't* be explained naturally at all? If so, then this sounds like a contradiction between that and saying "miracles are indistinguishable from natural events".
Quote:Miracles are extraordinary events that lend meaning and support purpose. A miracle without purpose is a magic trick (ie not a miracle).
Jesus was definitely into "purposeless magic tricks". In Matthew he makes a fig tree wither because it didn't have fruit on it. What's the moral of the story? Well, apart from the creator of the universe apparently not knowing how its creation functions, I have no idea. But I guess this is another topic altogether. Feel free to give your opinion, but I don't want to pursue that here.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
