Possibility of Miracles

There is this strange objection to miracles which seems to have come from Enlightenment philosophy. It runs something like this: miracles are not possible because God is not such a God who would intervene in the natural order of processes in the world.

The first question to this strange objection to miracles is how one can by reason know that God would not subvert the natural order of processes in the world. It is as if God according this errant philosophy is somehow morally obligated to uphold the natural processes or laws of nature by which the world typically runs.

A more detailed response to this philosophy is that God created the natural process. In the beginning there was God. There was no universe or natural processes of nature at the beginning of time.

God create nature and as creature of nature if he wants to step in and alter the process momentarily this is his right. There are parts of scripture where God indicates that he has the right to mold creation as a potter has the right to mold clay, since he is the one who created it.

Of course the best response is simply that God reveals in the bible that he has in many times and places stepped in and altered the natural process of the universe, because it pleased him to do so. I personally am not sure the extent to which God does miracles today.

I believe God does intervene in the natural processes even today when he sees a need. Of course this is difficult to defend on only a scriptural basis, but miracles existed since the beginning of recorded scripture and I see no necessity that the death of Christ ended or prohibited God's work in this way.

Personhood of God

A lot of people like to think of God as some sort of impersonal force in the universe. The Christian God is very different from this, however.

He is a very personal God who interacts with his people. Some people have claimed that God cannot feel emotion since to feel emotion is to change and God cannot change.

I find such an object to be far too philosophical and not enough theological. I believe that it is true that God does not change, but to suggest that experiencing emotion is a changing of the nature of God seems to be a concept derived more from Greek philosophy then the scriptures.

Emotion is a state which one experiences and not an essential change of one's nature. It is true that people have often been changed by the emotions that that feel, but to experience an emotion does not necessarily change one's nature.

The bible through speaks of God as an emotional being. That God is an emotional being is not surprising since, we are created in God's image and our emotional beings.

Even if one cannot conceive that God has eternally experienced emotion one must now allow that when God's son Jesus (fully part of the trinity) entered into history now God has emotion as part of the Godhead. Of course Jesus never left his human nature upon his assent into heaven. He is in heaven as he left, fully God and fully man.

A Problem in Philosophy: Types of Knowledge

One of the biggest problems I find in philosophy is that far too many philosophers misunderstand knowledge. They often fall into the trap of thinking that there are only two types of knowledge: a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge.

A priori knowledge is knowledge that is gained by faith alone.

A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is based off of experience.

This distinction seems to leave out the most important type of knowledge: faith knowledge.

Most people find my beliefs that the earth orbits the sun or that there is mostly empty space in desks, or that there is a war going on in Iraq to be reasonable ones. Now I really have no knowledge that the sun orbits the earth, there are atoms in desks, or there is a war going on by reason alone. I also have no real reason to believe from experience that what makes up desks is mostly empty space with atoms, or that the earth orbits the sun, or that there is a war going on. There could certainly be other plausible explanation for what I experience, namely that the sun orbits the earth, or that desks are tightly filled with atoms with little or no empty space, or that the war in Iraq really is really just being made up. The problem is too many philosophers forget that most of what we know we accept from RELIABLE sources. Because they don’t understand this they often reduce themselves to skepticism when they cannot find a priori or a posteriori knowledge. Even philosophers who aren’t skeptics often find ways to damage their philosophies by baseing them around a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

Philosophy Class Discussion of the Problem of Evil

We spent a whole class period in Philosphy discussing the problem of evil.  How can we preserve God's forknowledge without ascribing evil to him.  The problem has always bothered me but after class I nailed it down in such a way that I feel it will never bother me again.

God is all knowing and forknows all history.  To toss these things aside would violate scripture's message.  Just because I do not see how the two can fit together does not affect my faith that the two are in harmony.  I will have faith that these two fit together even if they do not seem to.  I shall believe so that one day I shall understand.  If you look at good Christian theology by good Christain theologians you will find that much of it ends in mystery.  The trinity is the perfect example of this.   When the infinite meets the limited mystery naturally occurs.  It is a terrible mistake in theology to use reason to try to explain away mystery.

As Kierkegaard says we never get farther than faith.