> Aren't miracles contrary to the laws of modern science?
>
> The philosopher Benedict de Spinoza
> formulated the classic argument against
> believing in miracles:
>
> * A miracle is a violation of the laws
> of nature.
>
> * Natural laws are immutable.
>
> * It is impossible for immutable laws to
> be violated.
>
> -------------------------
>
> + Therefore, miracles are not possible.
>
> The problem with Spinoza's formulation is
> that it contains an anti-supernatural bias;
> it presupposes that neither God nor
> anything else exists beyond nature or if
> something beyond nature exists it is
> impossible for it to intervene into nature.
>
> Therefore, the essence of the question of
> miracles is whether God exists and if God
> exists does he intervene in human history.
> The issue of God's existence is discussed
> in the paper entitled "The Atheistic Faith
> versus the Theistic Faith." Assuming God
> exists, let us deal with the question of
> his intervention in human history.
>
> A foundation principle of natural science
> is that the universe operates according to
> uniform natural causes. It is a closed
> system in which phenomena can be observed
> and if they behave in a uniform manner be
> determined to be "natural laws." As an
> example, consider the natural law of
> gravity. We observe the law of gravity all
> around us every day. Indeed we can reduce
> the law of gravity to a mathematical
> equation (gravitation force between two
> sufficiently large massive bodies is
> proportional to the product of their masses
> and inversely proportional to the square of
> distance between them.) Based upon this
> formula we can calculate gravitational
> force on the moon, the planets and other
> celestial bodies. Thus we see that gravity
> occurs because of two natural causes: mass
> and distance.
>
> In a closed system as is presupposed by
> natural science, gravity always has, always
> will, and indeed must always operate on the
> basis of the two natural causes, mass and
> distance. The question is whether God is
> able to intervene in the closed, cause and
> effect, system we call our universe.
>
> If God exists, and is the creator of all
> that exists, then God is the creator of the
> closed system and the natural laws by which
> the system operates. As creator of the
> system it would follow that God could
> intervene in the system or change the
> natural laws which operate within the
> closed system. That is to say that while
> the laws of nature operate uniformly in a
> closed system, God can and has, opened the
> system for His purposes.
>
> Actually, the burden of proof is not on the
> Christian to demonstrate that miracles are
> possible. The burden should fall on the
> naturalist who claims either God does not
> exist or God cannot intervene into the
> closed system which He created.
>