Miracles do not violate Physical Laws

How could Physics explain Jesus walking on water?

If Jesus had a mas of 178 pounds, or about 80.8 kilograms, the the force that must be exerted to support his weight against the force of gravity is F = Mg = (80.8 kg)(9.80 m/sec2) = 792 newtons. But force is the momentum p carried away by neutrinos per unit time, and for nearly mass-less particles, such as neutrinos, the momentum equals the energy divided by the speed of light.

But if the energy of the neutrinos comes from the annihilation of matter, then this energy equals mass of matter annihilated times the speed of light squared (E = mc2). Thus p/t = (E/c)/t = (mc2/c)/t = mc/t = Mg. Thus, the amount of mass that must be annihilated per second, or m/t, must equal Mg/c = (792 Newtons)/(3.00 X 108/sec) = 2.64 milligrams per second.

This, if the field responsible for converting matter into neutrinos extends a short distance into the water below Jesus’ feet and if this field is capable of directing all neutrinos downward, Jesus would walk on water

Source: The Physics of Christianity, 2007, Frank J Tipler


8 thoughts on “Miracles do not violate Physical Laws

  1. Pingback: St. Augustine Virtue Suffering Natural Family Planning | Big Pulpit

    • The question is not how Jesus walked on water but how did Peter walk on water for a short period of time and did Peter gain weight as he lost faith.

  2. To try to explain a miracle scientifically is essentially a deconstruction of the supernatural and thus diminishes the mysterious aspect of God. I’m sure that it’s possible that Jesus could’ve used nature to work miracles, but trying to explain it via scientific phenomena reeks of appeasing the materialists.

  3. The explanation is not a scientific one.

    It is a metaphysical one; that is, it attempts to account for a miracle by means of describing the secondary causes which might conceivably have been employed.

    That is interesting metaphysics, but it is certainly not science.

  4. Speaking as a Ph.D. physicist: What a load of >…

    This is like finding a shopping list Shakespeare wrote and trying to argue that it doesn’t violate the rules of iambic pentameter. Of course it does. Shakespeare COULD write in iambic pentameter, but he didn’t HAVE TO.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s