Can God Violate the Laws of Physics?
In church today the pastor discussed the story of Jesus rebuking the storm and calming the sea. He brought up earlier miracles that Jesus had performed, such as turning water into wine and healing a congenitally blind man. Then he said something like, “So already Jesus has broken the laws of physics and biology.”
I disagree, on two fronts. First, strictly speaking this is nonsense, and misconstrues the character of physical law. If the H2O molecules didn’t obey “the laws of physics” when they were turned into wine, then those aren’t really the laws of physics are they? We don’t say that the behavior of clocks at high velocities violates the laws of physics. No, we say the Newtonian understanding of matter, space, and time was wrong.
Second, and more relevant to the theist reader, I think this typical view of God–where the religious person believes he is puffing up God’s strength by saying He can violate the “laws” of physics–is actually much less flattering to God than my own conception of His genius. It’s a bit weird to say that God setup a clockwork universe, running on autopilot, but then He has to come in every once in a while and break the rules because the physical machine He built was going down a path He didn’t like.
In contrast to that (typical) view, I prefer to view every event in the natural world as being equally willed by God. Everything is a miracle in that sense, and everything is natural–in accordance with the true laws of physics.
Now the really interesting thing–and here is why God is so brilliant–is that God figured out a way to tell His grand story (full of love, hate, honor, sin, faith, betrayal, redemption, heroes and villains, etc.), using (to a first approximation) little bundles of something we’ll call “energy” that obeys a very parsimonious set of rules. It would be like Shakespeare writing all his plays not in the original English, but in a series of 0s and 1s upon which you could do very mechanical operations involving the prime numbers, and BAM out pops Romeo and Juliet. Would that make Shakespeare more or less clever, in your estimation?
So don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that I think the true laws of physics (and biology, etc.) are necessarily completely foreign to our current understanding. What I’m saying is that it is sheer sloppiness to say, “A guy turning water into wine is violating the laws of physics.” It most certainly is not. Two hundred years from now, we might have Star Trek (TNG) type replicators, so a guy can say, “Make me a glass of water,” then his lady friend walks in and he says, “Scratch that, turn it into a glass of wine.” Don’t tell me that this would violate the laws of physics; you don’t know that.
Now of course, the obvious reply will be, “Oh my gosh Bob, fine, let’s stipulate Jesus didn’t have a little device from the future that was sent back in time by an android with huge biceps and an Austrian accent. Now do you agree it would be violating the laws of physics for a regular man to somehow turn water into wine?”
No, I still don’t agree. We have only the most miniscule ability to take our knowledge of the microscopic “laws of physics” and turn them into statements about the macro world. Consider this:
No fooling, I can use my mind to control matter. There can be a physical object (weighing more than a pound) resting on my kitchen table. I can control it with my mind, making it go up in the air and putting it back down. I can do it in any pattern you want. E.g. you can say, “Make it go up and down, rapping on the table to count out the first 7 prime numbers” or whatever you want. This way we can be sure it’s not a coincidence (like me saying every morning I’m going to use my mind to make the sun rise in the east). Really, I’m not kidding, I can do this experiment right before your eyes. The one catch is, the physical object I’ll be controlling is my right hand.
Of course, our apparent ability to control a small subset of nature directly with our “mind powers” is so commonplace that nobody even notices it. You think I’m just being goofy with that observation.
I don’t think so. It is absolutely astonishing that we seem to be intangible essences who yet can derive information from our bodies and somehow seem capable of influencing the course of events.
Mind you, I actually don’t think anything in the human nervous system violates the laws of physics or biology, even as we currently understand them. What I think is that we have only the dimmest understanding of the complexity and emergent phenomena that those simple laws are capable of generating.
So in conclusion, I would ask theists to reconsider their view of God’s relationship to physical law, and I would ask atheists to stop speaking such nonsense as, “The stories of the Bible violate the laws of physics.”
“If the H2O molecules didn’t obey ‘the laws of physics’ when they were turned into wine, then those aren’t really the laws of physics are they?”
If you define “laws of physics” to mean “a set of laws that completely describe all physical behavior,” then no. But that is not how the theist is using the phrase. He means the general regularities of nature that exist across time and space, as contrasted with event-specific “miracles.”
“I prefer to view every event in the natural world as being equally willed by God.”
I don’t see the conflict; the orthodox Christian view is precisely that the laws of nature are ordained by God. A miracle is “special legislation,” as contrasted with “general legislation”; put colorfully, it is a bill of attainder.
P.S.H. has it right.
AFTER THE RESURRECTION HE APPEARED IN THE UPPER ROOM. He either came through the door or the wall.Was he more solid than the door or the wall ?
amen
Bob, I agree, you are correct in as much as “Laws of Physics” are not actually edicts that must be obeyed, they are merely explanations of what has been observed. From this perspective we can say that these laws are forever provisional on potentially new observations coming along and forcing us to revise what we know. Physicists get very excited when one of these new observations turns up and they generally argue about what it means. Part of this argument will be testing to see whether the observation is repeatable, and whether there are a whole class of similar observations that can be predicted by the existence of the first.
Thus, from a more formal point of view we should not say, “Jesus broke the laws of physics”, we should say, “The reports of biblical miracles are not repeatable, nor are they consistent with what can be repeated.”
Let’s suppose for a moment that we happen to know that Jesus really was the son of God, and more than that, Jesus did his thing, he finished up and left, and he isn’t coming back. Under those conditions, can we extend the Laws of Physics to sufficiently cover the miracles that Jesus was reported to have demonstrated? No we can’t do that, because a single report is insufficient to build up the sort of trend that Physics requires. Would it be useful even if we could extend the Laws of Physics to cover Jesus? Not really. After all, if he isn’t coming back then such laws have no predictive value, and serve no practical purpose.
Well vines turn water into grapes and no one gets freaked over that… and yeast turns grapes into wine and people seem to deal with that OK. I guess we expect these things to happen slowly, but in principle the same reaction could be accelerated… mind you there are a lot of inventions for rapidly aging wine to make it taste better and none of those have caught on yet!
Bob, I think most Christians believe God is omnipotent as well as omnipresent. If you subscribe to this belief as well, you would have to acknowledge that God is not bound by the constraints of this universe.
JSR08, right I agree God is omniscient as well as omnipresent. I think this universe and all its events are unfolding in His mind, just like you imagining a TV episode in your head. And if you did do that–say you wanted to imagine a Crouching Tiger-type world where people could do crazy kung fu in the air–it would be silly for the people in that world to say their protagonists were violating the laws of physics.
You wouldn’t be violating the constraints you’d set up in your own story; you would have picked the constraints in the first place, for your own good reasons.
Bob, my point is that no occupant within this universe will ever be omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent due to the laws of physics and nature governing our universe. God is above these laws that all other entities (animate and inanimate) are bounded by and He can act in direct opposition to them if He chooses to. I do not see the value in trying to define the laws of physics/nature such that they encompass the things only God Himself can do.
When one hears of something happening that “shouldn’t” there are two possible explanations. We don’t fully understand the physics, or the observer is lying, wrong, mistaken, etc. So miracles are either proof of an omnipotent being, or that some ancient loonies were telling some whoppers. What is it that you say? Believing is seeing……
Bob, it appears you are trying to answer the question posed by George Carlin – “can God make a rock so big even HE couldn’t lift it?”
I doubt Carlin invented that question. And no, I don’t think it’s quite the same thing, though they’re similar. It’s more like, “If God decides to turn water into wine, is it impossible for water to turn into wine? Clearly not.”
Not to get snarky but I didn’t say he invented it – just that he posed it – most memorably in one of his early recordings in the “stump the priest” portion of his take on parochial schools.
Your response reminds of the joke – I’m sure you’ve heard it many times – about the sociologist, political scientist and economist trapped in a deep hole. The first two say what are we going to do? The economist replies not a problem. The first two say what do you have in mind. The economist replies “first assume a ladder.”
If God decides to turn water into wine is it impossible for water to turn into wine. Clearly not. Well you assume the story to be true, you assume a God to do the act, you assume supernatural explanations are correct – the probabilities notwithstanding, etc.
Interesting thought. Note that question is meaningless. It’s like asking: Can God create a square circle? Omnipotence does not allow Him to make the logically impossible possible.
I think you’re right that it is the same kind of illogical question Bob is posing. Can God create laws of physics that he cannot violate (or is bounded by)? The question is illogical.
Whereas the question “Can God Violate the Laws of Physics?”, does have an answer if we use the “typical” understanding of what the laws of physics applies to (the universe and its animate/inanimate things within). The answer is yes.
Answer:
But I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.
‘All agents’ here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power.
–The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis
Oops, my last post was supposed to be nested under Knox’s…
In other words, your position is that nothing in the Bible can be said to violate the laws of physics because….you claim that humans don’t know enough of physics to be able to make the claim that events in the Bible contradict the laws of physics.
What is the basis of your assertion that humans don’t know enough of the laws of physics to argue that events in the Bible contradict the laws of physics? Why, the bible of course! To wit, “If the H2O molecules didn’t obey “the laws of physics” when they were turned into wine, then those aren’t really the laws of physics are they?”
You say “when they were turned into wine” like it actually happened. Sure, if water was in fact turned into wine, then that would invariably imply that the physical laws of the universe would not prevent such an event from taking place. But then it is incumbent upon you to prove that such a thing can in fact take place. “Faith” isn’t good enough. Referencing an unknown future is not good enough. Scientists who prove to each other their theories do not say “OK fine, you might not see what I am saying now, but 100,000 years from now, it will be an almost certainty!” They prove to each other their theories by ratiocination, not whimsical references to an unknowable future.
In contrast to that (typical) view, I prefer to view every event in the natural world as being equally willed by God. Everything is a miracle in that sense, and everything is natural–in accordance with the true laws of physics.
Suppose that my theistic friend told me that he is certain that he saw an apple that was green all over and red all over and purple all over and black all over and white all over, all at the same time, and it was also Buick LeSabre. Suppose he is so devoted to God that he tells me that God has given him the power to see incredible miracles like this, and that his visions are a sign that the laws of physics make it possible for such entities to exist, and that anyone who says that his visions contradict the laws of physics must be speaking nonsense, because clearly if God allowed for such a thing to be observed, then clearly these things cannot violate the laws of physics!
Would you consider this man’s visions to be an observation of something that has truly transpired? If not, why not? Wouldn’t your answer to that question undercut your own thesis?
In fact, don’t even bother answering that.
We can go even further to see the weakness in your position. We can analyze your statements in and of themselves, in order to see what you are presupposing by the mere holding of them as valid ideas in your mind, and then compare those presuppositions with the content of your statements.
You argued that it is wrong for someone to say that events in the Bible contradict the laws of physics. Your have given two reasons for this position:
1. Humans do not know enough about the universe in order to make apodictic physical law pronouncements (science).
2. Humans do know enough about the universe in order to make apodictic physical law pronouncements (religion).
In other words, humans know enough to say with certainty that the physical laws of the universe make the events in the Bible possible, and yet humans don’t know enough to say with certainty that the physical laws of the universe make the events in the Bible impossible.
In other words still, you are just saying that the only knowledge of the universe that humans are capable of apprehending with certainty are those laws that do not contradict any event in the Bible. All knowledge claims that contradict events in the Bible are suspect. All knowledge claims that do not contradict events in the Bible are permitted past the initial checkpoint.
In other words yet again, if anyone claims to know of a physical law that does not contradict anything in the Bible, then you will be open minded to it and not reject it and not try to rationalize it away. If anyone claims to know of a physical law that does contradict something in the Bible, then you will be closed minded to it and you will reject it and you will try to rationalize it away.
You’re engaging in a contradictory cosmic double standard. If there is any doubt of this, you go on to write that humans:
“…have only the most miniscule ability” to take what they learn as individuals and “turn them into statements about the macroscopic world.”
This is your position when confronting those who claim to have knowledge that would make events in the Bible physically impossible. But in order to even advance that claim, you yourself have to presume to have God-like knowledge when you claim that NOTHING in the Bible violates physical laws. You are definitely NOT presuming to “have only the most miniscule ability.” All of a sudden, you’re considering yourself to be a demi-God who has such vast knowledge, that he can say that others are wrong to claim that events in the Bible contradict physical laws.
As Rothbard never tired in pointing out:
“Typically, determinist schema [meaning social conformity determinists] leave convenient implicit escape-hatches for their creators and advocates, who are somehow able to rise above the iron determinism that afflicts the rest of us.”
I can’t believe someone actually posted something like this. lmao This is the best comedy blog ever!
Thank you.
I have another deep question for you Bob. Can a winged unicorn leap rainbows?
They can generate enough alternative energy to power our cities, so why not let them leap rainbows as well?
Fun with belief systems 🙂
Only if the government prints more money would that be possible.
Bob,
I highly recommend reading “The Problem of Pain” by C.S. Lewis. The second chapter on the Omnipotence of God is related to this topic.
I’ve read that book (and his one on miracles), but it’s been a while. I should go back to them.
Lets put aside all the possible broken laws of physics. My question about the story of Jesus is about after the resurrection.
In the very end it says that Jesus ascends into heaven. No matter what translation he is said to move upwards into the sky.
Where was he going when he went up? Did he move in a straight line away from the Earth? Was he pointed at a particular star? Did he go up so far and disapear when no one could see him anymore? It seems strange to bother with the going upward if he was just going to ‘leave this plane of esistence’ or whatever.
Bruce M. Metzger: “[T]hough Jesus did not need to ascend in order to return to that sphere which we call heaven, yet in fact he did ascend a certain distance into the sky, until a cloud took him out of sight. By such a miraculous sign he impressed upon his followers the conviction that this was now the last time he would appear to them, and that henceforth they should not expect another manifestation, but should realize that the transitional period had ended.”
Second, and more relevant to the theist reader, I think this typical view of God–where the religious person believes he is puffing up God’s strength by saying He can violate the “laws” of physics–is actually much less flattering to God than my own conception of His genius. It’s a bit weird to say that God setup a clockwork universe, running on autopilot, but then He has to come in every once in a while and break the rules because the physical machine He built was going down a path He didn’t like.
One of the (many) reasons I’m an atheist is because I reject reasoning like this. It just seems ridiculous to think that an omniscient and omnipotent god needs to “intervene” all the time to correct errors that he made and predicted.
Of course, the opposite view – that all events in the universe are predetermined by God’s mind, like a television show – has no more merit than traditional hard determinism, and in fact has much less. If everything is determined (except for human action apparently!), why the need to introduce God into the mix? Can’t we just say that the universe has been cycling forever and matter keeps re-exploding? At least that thesis has some evidence and plausibility to it.