Miracles are Possible

It has been enjoyable and I look forward to more. With the concept of a miracle as an "extraordinary event", Con has attempted to cast doubt on the reliability of Scientific Law as the basic premise of creating a possibility for the occurrence of miracles. Overlooking the fact that this can simply fall under the fallacious "God of the gaps", a cynical argument against the future advances of science, Con's argument is fundamentally flawed in its portrayal of Scientific Law as it relates to miracles. In order for a miracle to truly be an "extraordinary event" that surpasses natural powers, then a true natural law must therefore be violated. Not merely the man-made generalizations we humans make of our empirical world. But a true Law. A violation of Archimedes' principle, for example would be a truly extraordinary event. Archimedes' Principle states that a floating body always displaces an amount of fluid the weight of which is equal to its own weight. A man walking on water would therefore be a violation of Archimedes' Principle and thus would be a miracle, right? Science, however, has too violated Archimedes' Principle. We know that Archimedes Principle does not take into account surface tension, and also is not valid in all complex fluids. Nano-science has also proven Archimedes' Principle to be invalid when the buoyant partial is of a certain size and geometry in relation to the dispersed partial. However, this none the less would not detract from the extraordinary miracle of a man walking on water, as this would in fact violate Archimedes' Principle. A miracle, by definition, is a violation of a true Law. However, if a generalization (or current law) is violated by an event, then it cannot be a true Law of nature. .. for example we have successfully violated Archimedes Principle. Therefore, it is impossible for any event to violate a true Law of nature. [1] A man walking on water, however, is still a "extraordinary event" and would be considered by most to be a miracle. But by what dynamic? Is it our human interpretation that makes the event "extraordinary"? For example, if God secretly moves a few atoms on a remote planet for a moment and then moves them back, would we marvel at this miraculous event? ? No, we would not. How could we? It is our human interpretation of the event that makes it extraordinary. A miracles relationship to Scientific and Natural Law is superfluous. It is merely an interpretation of an event given our know natural realm. "Today's widespread scientific illiteracy, even an outright attitude of anti-science, is concurrent with the spread of magical thinking even in our own relatively enlightened culture. "[2] So a miracle, then, is simply a violation of our known natural understanding. So when then is the possibility of an event to truly be a miracle verses an occurrence of an event that simply enters our know natural realm that can thus add to our understanding of natural law. .. irregardless of how extraordinary we think it is? The fact is Con has produced no evidence that supernatural events can occur, and in fact has in my opinion not produced any logical possibility that a miracle can occur. Con's entire argument is based on a Straw-Man against Scientific Law, there is little understanding in Con's position on how empirical deduction forms our logical understanding of the world around us and what is possible. Argument of Causation: The argument of causation is a fallacy. It is indeed logical to assume a basis of causation, this argument dates back to Aristotle. But where the fallacy come in is to assume that causation is your god of theism. As I stated with your other positions this is a cynical argument, and doesn"t prove anything. The conclusion of this argument is that there is an initial starting point, but where the argument stops making sense is to deny the self assertion of nature, but then to grant self-assertion to your god of theism. What your doing is explaining to me that everything in nature has its cause, adding up one thing to the next. Then your assuming that nature cannot be self-caused, thus leading to an unproven "thing", then interjecting your god of theism as this unproven "thing". Again, this is an argument of cynicism, assuming that science can't, and never will, explain this causation or that the universe even has one. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Examining Miracle Claims, Joe Nickell; Doelog, March 1996.