The Term 'Miracle' is a Misnomer--No Such Thing Exists

I appreciate the the conduct he has shown thus far in the debate, polite and civil discourse is something that this organization desperately needs. On with the argument. Semantics at the CoreMy opponent has clarified that we are indeed not arguing the actual existence of whether miracles exist. Rather we are arguing if the definition of the word /miracle/ allows itself to be actualized in reality. That is, my opponent is arguing that since the definition of miracle is that it defies natural law, and all we can observe is natural law, then necessarily anything that we observe cannot be called a miracle. Underlying this argument seems to be an assumption that things which we see now only apparently contradict natural law and that at some point in the future we may understand the phenomena using naturalistic scientific categories. Redirecting the ArgumentMy opponent seeks to redefine the term miracle to refer exclusively to things that defy natural law, with the absence of a divine influence as part of the definition. I have no problem accepting this definition for the sake of the debate. Rather, using this definition I shall prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the term miracles refers to something that indeed exists. Types of ExistenceIf I say to you, think of a unicorn. What comes to mind. Every single person reading this debate will think of the same basic thing. While there may be variations (color, size, temperment, etc), everyone reading this will invariably picture the same basic animal. That is, an animal that is essentially a horse with a single spiral horn extending from the forehead of the beast. Why is this? This is what might be called, subjective existence. That is, the item concieved of exists in your mind. Subjectively it exists, just not objectively. Consier the following analogy: If I am a painter and I concieve of the painting I wish to create. First I see it in my mind. This is the subject of my thought. Once I commit that paint to paper, it has become an object and exists objectively, independent of my thought. I would argue that miracles exist in the same way. We can all concieve of something that defies natural law. Perhaps it is an object that floats ddespite all other reasoning to the contrary. Whatever it is, we are able to concieve of an event that defies natural law. That event therefore exists subjectively in your mind. Response to "In clever anticipation. .. "My opponent claims that "Every single mathematical formula that has ever existed has depended on sense data. " My opponent has done nothing however to substantiate this claim. He gies a single example of the Pythagorean Theorem which necessarily relies on sense data, because the formula is an explanation of an object. However, the concept 2+2 does not necessitate any sort of sense data. He also refers to the concept that A is A. How can we have sense data of theoretical numbers that do not exist. Furthermore, the very concept of negative numbers cannot be explained using sense data. Can you show me -1 of anything? Of course not! By definition, -1 of an object does not only does not exist (0) but has an existence that draws away from something else. How would one show this in sense data? In addition, theoretical formulae exist that require no sense data. The proof that [A+B=C and A+D=C therefore B=D] relies on no sense data what so ever. The very fact that something exists called "imaginary numbers" that defy actual existence proces this as well. EpistemologyMy opponent is right to point out that I did not provide arguments for competing epistemology. This was due to space limitations. In the dialogue "Meno" Plato demonstrates A Priori knowledge through a story of Socrates questioning a young boy about how to make a square twice as large. You can find the account at . http://www.mlahanas.de...;. I am still limited for space, so I will expound upon this in my final round. Thank you.