Are miracles possible without violating known laws of physics?

[RandFan]

Do you believe that the account of Christ walking on the water as told in the bible is possible and would not violate the laws of physics? If you answer yes could you explain how?

Note Until I can get it changed the 2nd option should read Yes, the account does violate known laws of physics.

In the R&P forum Wrath of the Swarm and I are aguing as to the possibility of walking on liquid water without violating the laws of physics. I do not accept the account in the Bible where Christ walks on water becasue, if true, it would violate the laws of physics.

Matthew 14:24-31
But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? There is a ship at sea.
There is a storm.
Christ walks to the ship.
Peter gets out of the ship and begins to walk to christ.
Peter starts to sink because his "faith" wavers
Christ reaches out and pulls him out of the water.
Christ states clearly that Peter's ability to walk on water is due to his faith and his failure the lack thereof.


poll option edited on request of RandFan

[Johnny Pneumatic]

You worded the poll so we can't say its impossible.:hit:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
You worded the poll so we can't say its impossible.:hit: I know for the time being the 2nd option serves the purpose. Wrath of the Swarm is simply going to love this.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

A miracle would have to violate TLOP to be a miracle.

[Zep]

Thought we had done this before. OK, a picture of a normal guy walking on water.

http://www.zi.ku.dk/eunet/OuluPics/image/walking-on-ice3.jpg

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
Thought we had done this before. OK, a picture of a normal guy walking on water. What does this have to do with a ship at sea? A guy walking to the ship on the water? There are waves? One individual gets out of the boat and after walking for awhile begins to sink. I don't sea any waves or boats or people sinking into water in the picture that you post. The account is clear that it is liquid water.

How does this picture have anything watsoever to do with the account in the bible?

Come on, and if James Randi says pigs can't fly you will show him a picture of a pig on a plane.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by RandFan
What does this have to do with a ship at sea? A guy walking to the ship on the water? There are waves? One individual gets out of the boat and after walking for awhile begins to sink. I don't sea any waves or boats or people sinking into water. The account is clear that it is liquid water.

How does this picture have anything watsoever to do with the account in the bible?



Its a joke RandFan.:hb:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Its a joke RandFan. I assumed as much the first time he posted it. The 2nd time? Ok, whatever.

[Bottle or the Gun]

It's allegory. A story used to teach, like the bogey-man or Little Red Riding Hood.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
It's allegory. A story used to teach, like the bogey-man or Little Red Riding Hood. Yes, but would such an event if true violate the laws of physics?

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
I assumed as much the first time he posted it. The 2nd time? Ok, whatever. Somebody needs a tickle...! :)

[Zep]

At risk of a second taunting...

Even dogs can walk on water sometimes.

http://www.rideau-info.com/canal/images/winter/katie-350-5051-600.jpg

[Zep]

Even Da Vinci had some thoughts about this subject.

http://www.1099.com/graphics/illustrations/leonardo/water_shoes.jpg

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes, but would such an event if true violate the laws of physics?

Yeessssss

[epepke]

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you believe that the account of Christ walking on the water as told in the bible is possible and would not violate the laws of physics? If you answer yes could you explain how?

Well, ya know. There's a slight difference between impossible and so bloody unlikely that nobody would consider it.

All you'd need to walk on water would be to have the water pressure at the soles of your feet and just at the soles of your feet be (estimating my foot area and applying it to what I think might be an underfed Hebrew about 2000 years ago) something like 5 PSI. Not impossible with water jets. You'd have to wait some horribly long time, like maybe a googleplex of universes, for it to happen just at random.

Barefoot waterskiing is much easier.

[CFLarsen]

My 2 ører.

The basic concept of a "miracle" is that something happens that is outside of what we can explain - today. If someone had switched on a light bulb 2000 years ago, it would have been a miracle - or, of course, the work of the Devil. http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/salook.gif

As for walking on water, I don't think the explanations offered here take into account the possibility of Jesus getting lighter. What if he used some sort of anti-gravitational device?

What we need to look for, when examining so-called miracles, is the "force" that is not explained by science. Something that - at least temporarily - negates the known forces of the universe.

An article about investigating miracles: An evening with a Miracle Man (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/hvidtmiracle.htm)

[epepke]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
As for walking on water, I don't think the explanations offered here take into account the possibility of Jesus getting lighter. What if he used some sort of anti-gravitational device?

Mmm... Not good. GR doesn't see gravitation as a force.

Of course, maybe some ion pumps in his sandals would have done the trick.

[Zep]

To be serious for once, and harking back to the pictures I posted above, your original question relies totally on the ASSUMPTION that the biblical story is utterly and completely true in all respects, AND that all the information about the event is presented there.

For example (and now I'm making assumptions, of course), Christ's walking on the water could indeed have been as simple as walking on exposed rocks or shoals. After all, it was a dark and stormy night causing varying tides, and Gallilee is a lake - not a sea.

http://www.thank-water.net/image/galilee-after.jpg

In such a case, Peter's partial drowning could have been simply falling off the actual "treading places" that Christ was
walking on.

Heh... Total speculation, but it sounds more plausible and less miraculous than the bible story, yes?

Edit: hit the button too damn soon.

[Captain Trips]

Hey, walking on water is possible -- I once saw Gilligan do it on his tv show!

Seriously, though, I always thought the definition of a miracle was something happening that couldn't possibly happen. Like a man walking on water with nothing to support him. (Gilligan had a board just under the surface of the water.) Under this definition, no, it is not possible to have a miracle that does not violate some law of physics.

Now, another definition of a miracle might be "performing an act for which there is no obvious explaination" in which case Randi himself has made a career out of performing miracles. A stage magician's whole job is to perform an act for which one cannot find an explaination. This doesn't mean there isn't one, just that it can't be seen.

In other words, it all depends on what definition of "miracle" you are using. Biblical? No, they do violate the laws of physics, by their very nature.

[Beerina]

Reminds me of suggestions the star above the manger of Jesus "could have been" some alignment of planets or some end-on comet, etc. As if that being the case supported religion (something actually happened that matched holy writ) more than detracting from it (it wasn't supernatural.)

[Denise]

I guess it would depend on if Jesus had really really big feet and weighed a couple of ounces. Yeah, then it might be possible.

[espritch]

I'd just like to point out that basilisk lizards can walk (or rather run) on water. They run on two legs and move so quickly that they don't have time to sink.

This is, of course, irrelevant to the subject at hand but I think it is very cool. :cool:

[DangerousBeliefs]

Seems like silly speculation given that there were no first hand accounts of the event.

We might as well talk about how some winemaker built a wooden Titanic or how some guy got swallowed whole by a big fish and lived to tell about it.

[Riddick]

well, if you watch COPS long enough to watch another guy in shorts and a mullet get arrested, you can almost believe the whale story.

hrm, well i think there was still the force of gravity on jesus, but he changed the upforce to be greater than gravity, hence walking on water. or maybe he just did away with gravity and hence walked on water. there's definately a force vector downward, whether i call it gravity is unknown to me. F=m*a i think, so F=JesusweightK*9.81m/s or something like that.

[neutrino_cannon]

The basilisk lizard is also known colloquially as the jesus lizard.

Riddick, quibbling point, but weight would already be the downforce of Jesus. What you're looking for is Jesus mass times gravity.

Of course, if jesus increased the upforce of the water, I guess we could call it uberboyancy, then his feet would have to be displacing some water. If jesus could create an air cushion, ala hovercraft, then his holy feet need not have gotten wet.

Maybe he had really big sandals, made of gopher wood... whatever that is.

Or better, if we define walk loosely enough, jesus just dog-paddled out across said body of water, and was therefore "walking" along all the layes of water under him!

Another possible explaination is that Jesus holiness is more analogous to a jet engine than to any soul-saving or godly power. In this case, Jesus would be much like a harrier jet or a humming bird, with enough thrust downwards to cancel out his weight.

It's also possible that Jesus's robe was frayed that day, and he simply "balloned" across on the frayed threads in much the same manner as spiders do when they disperse themselves.

I could go on all night. This is fun.

The really important question, however, is whether or not Jesus can walk on water after he has holes in his feet.

[Ladewig]

No it doesn't violate TLOP.
Hint: there is a finite number of water molecules in the Sea of Galilee.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Zep
At risk of a second taunting...

Even dogs can walk on water sometimes.

http://www.rideau-info.com/canal/images/winter/katie-350-5051-600.jpg
Well, to me the question is lame since a miracle is defined as an event which deviates from the known laws of nature:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Miracle n. An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed.

The more interesting question is whether Zep's photo is of amazingly prefect ice or is just a photoshop job.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Well, to me the question is lame since a miracle is defined as an event which deviates from the known laws of nature:
I don't think it need to break any physical law, it just have to be extremely unlikely and very useful.

Originally posted by Iconoclast
The more interesting question is whether Zep's photo is of amazingly prefect ice or is just a photoshop job.
That is a good question.:eek:

[Ladewig]

The more interesting question is whether Zep's photo is of amazingly prefect ice or is just a photoshop job.

I don't think it is a photoshop job. If you look at the hind legs of the dog and of the dog's reflection, you see two different perspectives, as one would if the dog wwere really standing on a reflective surface. My guess is thick ice that had the slightest amount of rain fall on it.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I don't think it is a photoshop job. If you look at the hind legs of the dog and of the dog's reflection, you see two different perspectives, as one would if the dog wwere really standing on a reflective surface. My guess is thick ice that had the slightest amount of rain fall on it. Oh you're right, in the reflected image you can see a small gap between the dog's hind legs which does not appear in the primary image. However, the photographer could have taken a phot of a dog standing on a mirror then combined it with the photo of the lake. Anyway, it's a damn cool picture.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Ladewig
My guess is thick ice that had the slightest amount of rain fall
on it. You're a genius Ladewig!

http://www.rideau-info.com/canal/images/winter/img-katie-ice1.html

[Michael Redman]

There isn't any point to the story if it were withing the relm of possibility. The whole point of a miracle is that it could not happen, but for God.

[Tez]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Well, to me the question is lame since a miracle is defined as an event which deviates from the known laws of nature:


I think I'd be prepared to extend my usage of the term "miracle" to events which may be theoretically possible within the laws of physics, but whose likelihood (calculable within those laws) is so mind-numblingly small that were they to happen I'd wonder of the laws weren't being manipulated in the background by something. As someone pointed out, the water could have locally moved away from thermodynamic equilibrium such that its density was high enough so as to support Jesus. However the odds of such are pretty damn small. Lets just say that if macroscopic violations of the second law of thermodynamics are ever left as the only possible explanation for miracles you'll find me lining up to chew on bits of Jesus every Sunday....

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tez
I think I'd be prepared to extend my usage of the term "miracle" to events which may be theoretically possible within the laws of physics, but whose likelihood (calculable within those laws) is so mind-numblingly small that were they to happen I'd wonder of the laws weren't being manipulated in the background by something.Er.... You mean like if an entire universe sprang out of nothing and formed into complex worlds, and one of those worlds by an astonistingly long shot happened to have conditions that might sustain life, then life appeared spontaneously and evolved into an amazing living breating planet. Is that what you mean?

Here's a tip, try to be first in line for communion, that way you won't have to worry about catching someone else's disease from the wine.

[Tez]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Er.... You mean like if an entire universe sprang out of nothing and formed into complex worlds, and one of those worlds by an astonistingly long shot happened to have conditions that might sustain life, then life appeared spontaneously and evolved into an amazing living breating planet. Is that what you mean?

Here's a tip, try to be first in line for communion, that way you won't have to worry about catching someone else's disease from the wine.

AFAIK the big bang doesnt violate the second law!

If someone used that argument serisouly against me I ask where'd theyd gotten the idea that it "sprang out of nothing" or is an unlikely event, or that having a world capable of sustaining life is and astonishingly long shot. And so on. Such assertions are trite, and always reveal themselves as such with enough probing...

And thanks for the communion tip ;)

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tez
AFAIK the big bang doesnt violate the second law! Whether on not it does is irrelevent since we're arguing about whether a miracle could occur that didn't violate any known laws. In any case, I made no assertion that it did.

Originally posted by Tez
If someone used that argument serisouly against me I ask where'd theyd gotten the idea that it "sprang out of nothing" or is an unlikely event, or that having a world capable of sustaining life is and astonishingly long shot. And so on. Such assertions are trite, and always reveal themselves as such with enough probing...Well the strong anthropic principle was created to attempt to explain away why it is we exist even though the probability of us being here is so incredibly small, so I'm obviously not the only one who thinks we've benifited from a really, really long shot.

Wait a minute, what the hell is that? Oh, a new universe just sprang up in my salad bowl, I take it all back.

[The Don]

I think that Matthew 14:24-31 is not necessarily a factually true account and it may heve been manipulated over time to present this Jesus chap in a good light.

[Mark]

Originally posted by The Don
I think that Matthew 14:24-31 is not necessarily a factually true account and it may heve been manipulated over time to present this Jesus chap in a good light.

Since there is no real historical corroboration of Jesus existing at all, why is everyone assuming the biblical account is anything other than a complete fable? :confused:

[sorgoth]

Because speculation is fun, that's why.

[Mark]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Because speculation is fun, that's why.

I agree. But several of the posts seem to be based on the notion that the gospels are describing real---albeit distorted---events. Many agnostics or atheists start off discussions that way; I just wonder why, when there is no historical evidence that such is the case.

But the speculation about miracles and physics is fun; I agree completely.