Miracles Happen Every Day
If miracles are real, why don’t we see more of them? The problem is the definition of the word “miracle.” Miracles happen, but when they happen often enough for observers to discern a pattern and describe it, they are simply relabeled as science and no longer called miracles.
Is moving something without touching it a miracle? It is unless it happens all the time in a mathematically consistent way. Then it’s just called gravity.
What about moving around matter by the power of the mind? We do this all the time when we lift a finger. It has been relabeled neurophysiology.
What about mixing air, dirt, and water together into a living figure that dances and sings? That’s called biology. Plants combine air, dirt, and water all the time to build themselves up and are in turn eaten and absorbed by dancers and singers.
What about using positive visualization or prayer to heal the body? It is unless it happens often enough to be measured. Then it’s called a placebo effect.
What about creating something from nothing? Can science explain that? At the subatomic scale, particles pop in and out of existence all the time according to certain statistical laws. These “virtual particles” are how forces are thought to be mediated. Negative mass-energy is also possible when there are attractive forces. For example, a hydrogen atom has slightly less mass-energy than the sum of the electron and proton that make it up because of the electromagnetic force holding them together. In cases where negative mass-energy exactly balances positive to add up to zero, there is no limit on the positive mass-energy that can spontaneously exist. Mass is equivalent to energy through the relationship E=mc^2 and so it is possible for any amount of matter to pop out of nothing so long as the attractive forces holding it together add up to an equal amount. According to some estimates, the amount of mass in the observable universe is equal to the amount of negative energy in gravity it has, meaning that the entire universe might have zero net mass. In other words, the entire universe could have literally popped out of nothing without violating physics, all explained without resorting to intervention by supernatural entities.
The standard model of particle physics is incomplete because it predicts the mass of each fundamental particle and the sum of the quantum vacuum energy fields between them to be infinite. This defies observation. Some have suggested that the universe we see is only a tiny fraction of an infinitely dense sea of reality. In one sense, we no longer need God to explain physics, but what if the infinite quantum vacuum energy is God? Who is to say it isn’t? Something of that complexity would certainly be capable of thought – and probably many other activities far beyond our comprehension. There is no way to predict with any certainty what the nature of an infinitely complex energy field would be. It would mediate all forces and sustain the physical laws through continual intervention (Colossians 1:17, Acts 17:24-29). From this infinite reservoir energy could be added to and taken from the universe we see. Since known physics derives from this deeper physics, occasional violations of what we think of as normal physics could occur and these would be called miracles. It would also explain the evidence of intelligent design we see in creation.
In conclusion, science has already found proof of miracles and may even have found God, but it knows them all by other names. The conflict between science and spirituality is one of semantics.
I have decided to start a new You Tube Channel to go with my FloraAndFaunaOfTheUniverse blog. I will be posting doodles, excerpts from upcoming exobiology books, and worldbuilding advice. The WayOutDan YouTube channel will no longer cover these subjects, but will be for religion, philosophy, travel, exploration, and life's journey.
Do you ever remember something differently than someone else? How does that happen? I once wrote a blog post about this that is slightly too long to repost here. Read it at the link and tell me your thoughts.
Some years ago I developed a mathematical argument for optimism:
Starting with the present moment and assuming endless future time, one can plot a measure of "total good." This total good takes into account our attitudes and how we react to things and is thus dependent on memory of past good and bad. For example, after a long period of bad, even a tiny moment of good can have more total good than an extended period of good greater by any normal measure.
This total good will go up and down apparently randomly. Given an infinite amount of time, eventually, by chance, there will be a spike of good greater than all previous good. Everything that came before this spike will be part of the story of causality of how this good was achieved. Since it is a measure of total good, it will mean that no matter what happened before, it was all worth it.
Of course, the same argument can be used to prove that things are getting worse. Eventually, statistics predicts a dip deeper than any before it. ...