Miracles are Possible

Pro is equivocating the concept of "Natural Law" Pro Said - "As we can agree, scientific laws are really only generalizations that we humans make." No! We absolutely do not agree! You are equivocating the definitions of Natural Law and Scientific Law. Furthermore you are attempting to build your own Staw-Man to argue against. Scientific Law is a principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement or mathematical construct that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present. In other words is a testable, repeatable concept. A Scientific Theory is an empirical generalization requiring further study or testing. Natural Law is a philosophical construct based on empirical inductive generalizations that cannot be tested. Pro is intentionally using concepts of Natural Law as vague unknown human guesses. Furthermore, Pro is seamlessly moving back and forth across these concepts as if they are all the same, mean the same thing, and have the same outcome. Lets take Pro's example of the bouncing ball. This is an example of Epistemic Uncertainty. If I bounce a ball I can predict the outcome (I can even bounce it numerous times like in a basketball game and control the bounces at my will), even though I don't know the variables and natural processes at work, I can still go outside right now and successfully bounce a ball. Pro assumes that because we don't know the all variables and natural processes at work (epistemic uncertainty) then, by default, that gap in our knowledge allows for the possibility for supernatural intervention. This is not a logical position. Pro uses this analogy to create the illusion of an incomplete understanding of natural law, and the possibility of the existence of supernatural intervention. However this is nothing more than a warmed over "God of the gaps" argument, which is logically unsound, and is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science. Supernatural intervention cannot apply merely because there is epistemic uncertainty, especially since Pro has offered no logical argument that the god of theism even exists. Pro next looks at an example of chance, illustrating the concept of Aleatory Variability. Pro uses the example of flipping a coin. In this case we again have a number of variables. But I can still project the outcome of the flip. If I flip a coin, one of the two sides will be facing up. Exactly which side is up is the aleatory variability... or random outcome. Again, pro assumes that because there is the existence of this aleatory variability, that there is some gap that would allow for supernatural intervention. This is not a logical argument, again especially since Pro has offered no logical argument that the god of theism even exists. Pro is furthermore equivocating the concept of "violation" of natural law. With no specified definition of what a "violation" entails, Pro is able to sculpt the meaning to fit his argument. I will use the classic example of cigarette smoking: Our lungs contain cells that function according to natural processes that are quantifiable and justifiable. They grow, maintain and replicate following known parameters. Cigarette smoke contain carcinogens that can alter the cellular dna of these lung cells, thus violating the natural laws that bind these cells. These cells then begin to grow and replicate in drastically different processes that are not quantifiable. However, not every cigarette causes cancer, not every smoker gets cancer, not everyone that gets cancer dies and not everyone that dies with cancer dies from the cancer. These variables are Epistemic Uncertainties as they exist outside the natural processes of cell function and are not quantifiable, and thus are a violation of the natural law of cells. However, we are not helpless in the face of cancer, even with Epistemic Uncertainty we can gain knowledge and treat cancers successfully. Pro assumes that if any violation of natural law is possible, that the possibility of miracles exists. However, without a discernible definition of what a violation would entail Pro is able to tiptoe around Natural Law at will. Epistemic Uncertainty (unknown causation) does not in itself open the door to the possibility of miracles. Pro also assumes that since a natural law could possibly be proven incorrect at some point in the future than the possibility of miracle is then justified. However, this again is a "God of the gaps" argument that is not logically justified. Pro's entire argument is based on equivocation and vague definitions of the concepts at play. Furthermore, Pro's argument is merely to cast doubt on Natural Law, and then in insert the "possibility of miracles" into these fictitious gaps.