God does not arbitrarily manipulate the laws of physics and perform miracles.

I believe the key to an effective means of communication is the capability to accurately and elegantly convey information from one intelligence to another. " My point in submitting the ball example was that if we, as finite human beings could serve as a force, surely God's infinite power would be enough to do miracles." Con has made this specific objection in response to my statements regarding Newtonian physics, in which I assert that gravity as a force (F=ma in which the force of gravity is equal to the mass of an object times acceleration) acting upon an object can be overcome in accordance with newtons laws of motion that specifically state that an object in motion will stay in motion (in the same direction at the same velocity) until acted upon by some outside force. We may serve as this force by picking up an object and projecting it. Con asserts the existence of supernatural forces which acts in accordance with the scientific laws of the universe, and rejects the definition of miracles I have provided as the arbitrarily manipulation of the laws of physics in order to achieve desired results in the known universe. What we have accomplished is an understanding of the opposing speaker's personal views on miraculous events. However, I may ask, at which point does the supernatural forces interact in the known universe without being confused with the fundamental forces of nature. Aristotle believed that all of matter in the universe was made up of four basic elements- earth air, fire, and water. These elements were acted upon by two forces; gravity, and levity. In addition he believed that matter was continuous, that is, one could cut a piece of matter into smaller and smaller bits without limit. On the other hand, the Greeks, such as Democritus, held that matter was inherently made up of large numbers of Atoms. (Meaning "indivisible" to the Greeks.) For Centuries the arguments continued without supporting evidence on either side. Later, in 1803 British chemist and physicist John Dalton pointed out that the fact that chemical compounds always combined in certain proportions could be explained by the grouping together of atoms to form units called molecules. However, this argument was not settled in favor of atomists until 1905, by Albert Einstein. Before his paper on special relativity (not to be confused with the general theory of relativity) Einstein pointed out that what was called the Browning motion- the irregular random motion of small particles of dust suspended in liquid- could be explained as the effects of atoms of the liquid colliding with liquid particles. By this time there were already suspicions that these atoms were not, after all, indivisible. Trinity College, J.J. Thomson. http://www.biography.com... 1911, Ernest Rutherford. http://www.biography.com... Cambridge, James Chadwick. http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk... Before 1969, it was thought that protons and neutrons were elementary. However, experiments indicated that, they too were made up of smaller particles- called quarks. Caltech physicist Murray Gell-Mann. https://the-history-of-the-atom.wikispaces.com... http://m.particleadventure.org... So the question is: What are the truly elementary particles, the basic building blocks from which everything is made? Since the wavelength of light is much larger than the size of an atom, we cannot hope to "look at the parts of an atom in the ordinary way. Quantum physics tells us that all particles are in fact waves, and the higher the energy of a particle, the smaller the wavelength of the corresponding wave. (http://www.pitt.edu...). So the best answer we can give to our question depends on how high a particle we have at our disposal, because this determines how small a length scale we can look. These particles are measured in units called electron volts. (https://www.princeton.edu...). In the nineteenth century, when the only particles that people knew how to use were the low energies of a few electron volts generated by chemical reactions such as burning, it was thought that atoms were the smallest units. In Rutherford's experiment, the alpha-particles had energies of millions of electron volts. More recently, we have learned how to use electromagnetic fields to give particles of at first millions and then thousands of millions of electron volts. And so we know that particles that were thought to be "elementary" are, in fact, made up of smaller particles. Using wave/particle duality, everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles. These particles have a property called spin. One way to think of spin is to imagine the particles spinning on it's axis. However this can be misleading, because quantum mechanics tells us that particles do not have any well-defined axis. (http://spinningparticles.com...). The matter particles obey what is called the Pauli's exclusion principle. This was first discovered in 1925 by Australian physicist Wolfgang Pauli- for which he received the Nobel prize in 1945. (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...). A proper theory of the electron and other 1/2 spin particles did not come until 1928, proposed by Paul Dirac. (http://www.nobelprize.org...), and ( http://www.pha.jhu.edu...). We now know that every particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate. In quantum physics, the forces or interactions between matter particles are all supposed to be carried by particles of integer spin" 0, 1, or 2, which, as we see, give rise to forces between the matter particles. What happens is that a matter particle, such as an electron or a quark, emits a force carrying particle. The recoil from this emission changes the velocity of the matter particle. This collision changes the velocity of the second particle, just as if there had been a force between the two matter particles. It is an important property of the force carrying particles that they do not obey the exclusion principle. This means that there is no limit to the number that can be exchanged, and so they can give rise to a strong force. On the other hand, if the force particles have no mass of their own, the forces will be long range. For more information see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... and http://grandunificationtheory.org.... Con states that, " Accepting the possibility of supernatural intervention merely requires that scientists recognize that every once in a great while they may encounter something clearly impossible that nevertheless happens and further recognize that these exceptions are the work of God." Con provides an anecdote in support of his claims, which ultimately is the topic of this debate. Unfortunately, for con, his example provided is not impossible, nor is it's occurrence limited to a group of people with a specific set of beliefs. And I quote, " For example, I personally have heard of a Christian's broken leg healing far faster than the doctors thought possible. Now, must the doctors throw up their hands at this and declare that they cannot make any more predictions regarding broken bones? No. They simply call it a "miracle" and move on, confident that in the vast majority of cases their predictions will come to pass." On the other hand, his example is an appeal to hearsay in which I would argue direct from Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, "Question everything." I never mentioned the Bible, Pro. Check again. And I quote, " I would claim that there is evidence for miracles, such as the miracles worked by Jesus and primarily his resurrection from the dead." Implications of the bible is directly cited from the mention of the resurrection. However, now he attempts a different approach in support of his claims: " 1) Jesus lived 2) Jesus was crucified 3) Jesus died 4) Jesus' disciples claimed he rose again 5) Even when Jesus' disciples were killed for their belief, they refused to deny they were speaking the truth about what they had seen. 6) No one ever saw Jesus' dead body again. 7) Despite persecution, christianity grew rapidly and even the emperor became a Christian in the end." May I see a source of information, that when traced back to it's original source, does not rely upon the authority of the dogmatic claims of the bible? Logically, why would the disciples die for something they knew to be false? Assuming that in your next post, you can provide me with a reliable source of evidence in support of your claims, I would like to recognize the validity of your question. https://www.aclu.org... may be a good place in search for your answer. "And finally, why did Christianity spread so fast?" I see that you were homeschooled, so I'm not really sure what kind of information you were presented with, but in public school, I was presented with a history of Christianity where "holy wars" and crusades occurred. http://www.usu.edu... How would Pro explain the universal presence of cultural tales of angels and demons? And I respond, "Pure imagination!" "However, the simple answer to your question is that healers cannot heal whenever they want." Firstly con presents me with yet another anecdote- same objections. However, his objection presented has a major issue for reliability. We are looking for a method in which can be repeated following peer review. As I mentioned above, his arguments have ultimately curled back around in attempt to support God's decisions as arbitrary originally opposed by himself. And I quote, " I object to your definition that God "arbitrarily" "interferes" with the universe." Concurrently, con goes to explain his objection, "If you or I can have reasons for our decisions it is hardly fair to claim that the Creator of the Universe does miracles "arbitrarily." Actually, I think you may be slightly confused as to what it means to arbitrarily make decisions. Let's say for example, I go to work and I have a detailed checklist of things to do for that day. If I follow that checklist, my actions are defined as in accordance to my tasks. If, for example, I automatically say, "f**k this, I'm going home." then my actions would be defined as insubordination and my decision as arbitrary. So, in other words, your God has made a choice to either heal or not heal an individual with no real way to determine why, and therefore we can only speculate his reasoning. The only way to avoid arguing against the existence of a god who's decisions are defined as arbitrary is to give a short explanation that would allow us to understand what decisions he will make in the near future and why. "We still speak of shooting "stars" that are actually meteors falling and burning in earth's atmosphere." Since your objection to a talking snake falls under the same line of logic I will kill two birds with a single stone. Firstly, the bible makes many preposterous claims when taken with a literal interpretation of it's content. In contrast, you do not accept that a snake can produce vocal vibrations that can be understood by humans through means of communication so you state that Satan has manifested himself in the form of a snake in order to deceive eve, in the early chapters of Genesis. However, your objection to a star falling to the earth is a lack of information itself. I would respond that gaining information about the future, especially from a form of intelligence that is omniscient, then I should be able to gain enough information to help me understand it as well. And if this intelligence is omniscient, then he would also understand the importance to be able to accurately convey this information. " A flood distributes seeds around the earth, and those seeds can grow when the waters recede." I'm not sure if you realize this, but the floods mentioned in the bible would have never receded below the top of Mt. Everest, and I would cite Genesis Chapter 7 verse 19-24, "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.. Fifteen cubics upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of ever creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: And in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was on the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:"" and as incredible as this story is, it continues to say that Noah and all that were on the ark with him survived, and even populated the whole earth. We do not find trees older than the flood, in Sweden or elsewhere. http://www.smithsonianmag.com... I highly doubt you did your research!