"Name a Natural Explanation Later Replaced by a Supernatural Explanation"

Depths of Pentecost ^ | November 24, 2018 | Philip Cottraux

[pcottraux]

Sources:

-Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, pages 104-107, 97-104, 236-238.

-Polkinghorne, John. The Faith of a Physicist. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994, pages 71-72.

-Wallace, J. Warner. God’s Crime Scene. David C Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, 2015, pages 75-82.

-Geisler, Norman and Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, 2004, pages 81-82, 115-116.

-Salviander, Sarah. “My Research.” SarahSalviander.com. Accessed November 24, 2018.

I'm a day late posting this, as I usually upload new blogs Saturdays, but didn't get it up till late last night so decided to get it up this afternoon.

******

This one was a bit lengthy obviously, but this challenge pops up so much I had a lot of built up thoughts to unleash.

You can also subscribe by entering your email in the subscription box on the home page, read all my past blogs on the Archives page, or follow me on:

Twitter: @DepthsPentecost

YouTube: Depths of Pentecost

Thanks for reading/watching, and God bless!

[pcottraux]

My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge: Hosea 4:6.

This is the official ping list for Depths of Pentecost: I’m a Christian blogger who writes weekly Bible lessons. Topics range from Bible studies, apologetics, theology, history, and occasionally current events. Every now and then I upload sermons or classes onto YouTube.

Let me know if you’d like to added to the Depths of Pentecost ping list. New posts are up every Saturday, videos every Wednesday.

[onedoug]

So-called science related to so called climate change.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Where exactly is this alleged “Natural Explanation” that holds its own water?

Don’t hold your breath!
.

[humblegunner]

So.. true story....
Have you ever handled some snakes?

[pcottraux]

Yes, but in high school science class, not church. :)

[spetznaz]

Thank you.

[Hardastarboard]

Absolute, irrefutable proof that God exists is that liberals don’t believe in him. That alone is good to me as any scientific proof you could offer, maybe better. They’re literally wrong about EVERYTHING.

[ifinnegan]

Thanks. I enjoyed this essay, but he did meander about a fair amount.

“To conclude, I want to present my own counter to the question of naming a natural explanation replaced by a supernatural explanation. From the time of Christ to today, imagine how many people during that time have claimed a miracle has happened.”

I think he did name black holes as an example, using the definition/understanding of natural or naturalism, of something with a natural explanation - the universe - having supernatural properties.

But it’s a never win situation in that the atheist simply includes properties of black holes as natural.

[UCANSEE2]

IS this a religious thread or a scientific thread ?

[UCANSEE2]

" It’s like someone demanding you explain why 2+2=5, then when you inform them 2+2 doesn’t =5, they accuse you of dodging the question. "

"You mean like Democrats?"

[ifinnegan]

Hi Philip. I see that you are the author. I’m glad to be able to chat with you directly.

“Astronomer Fred Hoyle first coined the phrase “big bang” as a term of ridicule for LeMaitres’ proposal. But after Hubble’s observation, no one was laughing.”

This is awkwardly written. It makes it seem that Hoyle made his Big Bang joke after LeMaitre’ proposal (1916) but before Hubble’s observation which you state as 1918.

Hoyle was born in 1915 and his Big Bang “ridicule” would therefore be decades after Hubble’s observation.

In other words Hoyle indeed was laughing well after Hubble’s observation.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

For the Greeks, Zeus.

Just a nit pick but it would be Uranus or possibly Eros depending on whether you agree with the tradition of Hesiod or Aristophanes.

Good article.

[mlo]

"I can already hear skeptics getting to the end of this blog and shouting “Ah ha! You still failed to provide one!”

An easy prediction to make given that it's true. A lot of diversion here, but the central point is never made.

[grey_whiskers]

Virgin birth. Joseph *had* been going to divorce Mary quietly.

[The Toddler]

I read the whole thing...I don’t get what the specific question is.

Name an explanation for what? The Universe?

Not trying to be a smart alec, I just don’t see a specific claim made by atheists that I could refute.

[pjd]

I would define supernatural as something that happens which can not be explained by science. The origin of life is one such thing, thought to occur naturally, given conditions suitable for life. But there is no theory for the origin of life which doesn’t involve a necessary step that is not supported by science. All of the theories I’ve seen require an appeal to the supernatural - a component not supported by science.

[boatbums]

I love studying this topic! Well done article. I think for some “scientists”, the only reason they believe in Evolution is the alternative is Creation. Like Einstein, the evidence is irritating.

[pcottraux]

Agreed.

[pcottraux]

You’re welcome!