Can the Laws of Nature be temporarily altered or suspended

[ytrewq]

Modern science is based on the assumption that the so-called Laws of Nature are fixed, and that temporary and/or localized variations or suspensions do not occur.

A supernatural event may be defined as one that could only occur if the Laws of Nature were temporarily altered or suspended, so the question being asked is essentially the same as whether supernatural events can occur.

Here are some examples of supernatural events under this definition.

(a) You are holding a heavy (10kg) stone. Suddenly you feel the stone become lighter, then weightless, then it starts pulling upwards. In surprise, you let go, and the stone falls upwards, away from the earth rather than towards it, and accelerates upwards into the sky and out of sight. In scientific terms, the Law of Gravitational Attraction has been temporarily altered (reversed) for this stone. Is this possible?

(b) A massive (3000kg, or 3 ton) tree branch has fallen on your child. Although the main weight has been taken on the ground, your child is nonetheless pinned between the branch and the ground, and screaming out that they cannot breath. You attempt to lift the branch, but it weighs 3000kg, so you cannot lift it, but of course you try anyway. Only a supernatural event can help you and save the life of your child. The Law of Gravity could be temporarily altered, so just for a few seconds, the branch weighed only 50kg. Is this possible? Alternatively, you could temporarily acquire superhuman strength, and for a few seconds be able to lift the 3000kg, which would normally snap your tendons or bones. Is this possible?

(c) Your mobile phone stops working, but there is nothing whatsoever physically wrong with it. Instead, one of the Laws of Physics that make computers work become temporarily altered or suspended such that your computer stops working. Is this possible?

All of the $100 notes in your wallet sponaneously change into $10 notes, or your gold ingot spontaneously changes into a steel ingot, etc. Is this possible?

In my opinion, the answer to all these questions must surely be NO. As far as science is concerend the answer most certainly is NO, for all of the scientific knowledge gained over the past 200 years depends on fundamental Laws of nature being stable and reproducible, at different times and in different locations. It would be either a brave or foolish person that would dismiss the past 200 years of scientific knowledge with a wave of the hand.

However, regardless of what science says, through human experience, the very society in which we live has de-facto already answered answered NO to questions of this type. For example, our legal system will not (and could not possibly) allow or dispute evidence on the basis of a supernatural event having occured. Society would simply disintegrate into chaos if we had to seriously entertain the possibility of all potential supernatural events. Futhermore, almost every modern machine from cars to phones to computers simply could not work unless the underlying physical Laws were totally rock solid and reliable. Imagine taking your brand new malfunctioning computer back to the store, only to be told 'I'm terribly sorry sir, but there is nothing physically wrong with your computer. Unfortunately for you, the Laws of Nature upon which it relies for it's operation are unstable. Although unusual, this can happen.' Of course, nobody believes this. Do you?

There is, of course, a temptation to make 'exceptions' for the suspension or alteration of the Laws of Nature, when doing so makes possible an event that you wish to believe is possible. This is really just hypocrisy and wishful thinking. If your pet beliefs are entitled to such an exception, then of course so are mine, and so are everone else's, including the pet beliefs of every crackpot under the sun. Logical debate ceases altogether. Unless we can find evidence to the contrary, and none has ever been found, then (perhaps unfortunately) we need to accept that the Laws of Nature cannot be suspended or altered just because we would like it to be so, and get on with life.

[ytrewq]

Modern science is based on the assumption that the so-called Laws of Nature are fixed, and that temporary and/or localized variations or suspensions do not occur.

A supernatural event may be defined as one that could only occur if the Laws of Nature were temporarily altered or suspended, so the question being asked is essentially the same as whether supernatural events can occur.

Here are some examples of supernatural events under this definition.

None of the events you mention are impossible...
That is your unsubtantiated opinion.


NOR do they break or bend scientific principles ...
No. These particular examples were chosen because they specifically DO contradict well-established Laws of science or properties of matter.

Just because an event SEEMS miraculous, and just because science can't explain it right now, it doesn't mean that the event is impossible.
There are many things that science cannot 'explain', in the sense that there are many things that as yet are not fully understood, such as exactly how the human brain works, but that does not mean these things are impossible, so to that extent we are in complete agreement. However, claimed events that actually contradict well established Laws and properties of matter, such as the events in my examples, are in a very different category. While not 'impossible' in the strictest sense of the word, science certainly regards events of this type as extremely unlikely, and they have never been reliably observed to a scientifically acceptable standard.


Your light rock, for instance; I can think of several reasons why it might jump out of your hands and fly up---without breaking the laws of gravity.
Yes of course, like because a piece of string was attached to it, or a strong upwards wind etc etc, but my question was whether it could occur due to a reversal of gravity. Ironically, you are agreeing with me that this is extremely unlikely, by going to some trouble to come up with alternative explanations that do NOT violate science. I agree completely. If I ever observed a rock trying to fall upwards, I also would seek explanations that were within science.
I should mention here, with a smile, that for all his insistence that violation of well-established Laws is 'probably possible', in an earlier posting Mithrae also went to some trouble to explain the claim that Jesus walked on water by finding an explanation that did NOT violate science. Because he didn't really believe that humans can walk on water with their bare feet, he proposed that maybe the water had turned to ice.


We CAN transmute one element to another; it's more expensive than simply going out and getting the stuff we want in the first place, by a WHOLE bunch, but we can do it.
Actually, transmutation from one element to another cannot be done by chemical reaction, but only within the core of a star or nuclear reactor. Transmutation most certainly CANNOT happen spontaneously at room temerature. As a matter of scientific fact and universal observation, your house cannot spontaneously tranmutate into a completely different house. Anyone who seriously believes that is a real possibility is 'off the planet'.


Pump enough adrenalin into someone and you have no idea how much weight someone can lift; I know this one personally, my mother and I having picked a truck up off of my father and pulled him out from underneath. The firemen who showed up couldn't lift the truck. That didn't break any natural laws either.
I covered this point in a previous posting, and made exactly the same point as you have, that if your own life or that of a loved one is on the line, people can find physical strength beyond what they would normally be capable of. That is not supernatural per se, exactly as you say. However, my example of lifting a 3000kg branch was deliberately chosen. Just like a rope or steel cable, all materials, including our bones and tendons, have a maximum strength that is an intrinsic property of their chemical composition. Regardless of how much strength we can get from the muscles, we are ultimately limited by the mechanical strength of our bones and tendons, which would simply snap long before we were able to lift the 3000kg in my example.


Oh yes, and people CAN walk on water, too. You just have to have the right shoes:
I already covered this point. Of course we can walk on water with big floatation shoes, or whatever, and of course we will look for an explanation of this type before resorting to the much-more-unlikely possibility that science was contradicted. Precisely my point.


Oh, and virgins can give birth.
...........no breaking of scientific principles going on there, either.
Ditto. eg, by artificial insemination, no sexual intercourse so still a virgin. Of course we seek explanations that do not contradict science, as we know (at least I hope we do) that human conception requires male sperm to fertilize the female egg.

[dianaiad]

<snip the whole thing>

Oh, and virgins can give birth.
...........no breaking of scientific principles going on there, either.
Ditto. eg, by artificial insemination, no sexual intercourse so still a virgin. Of course we seek explanations that do not contradict science, as we know (at least I hope we do) that human conception requires male sperm to fertilize the female egg.

What the heck IS your point?

[ytrewq]

<snip the whole thing>

Oh, and virgins can give birth.
...........no breaking of scientific principles going on there, either.
Ditto. eg, by artificial insemination, no sexual intercourse so still a virgin. Of course we seek explanations that do not contradict science, as we know (at least I hope we do) that human conception requires male sperm to fertilize the female egg.

What the heck IS your point?

You brought up the topic of virgin births, not me, and you did so on a thread entitled 'Can the Laws of Nature be temporarily altered or suspended', so the real question is to ask what is/was your point?.

You stated that virgins can give birth without breaking of scientific principles, presumably meaning not contrary to the well established bilogical fact that human conception requires males sperm to fertilize the female egg.

I agreed that this could indeed happen by artificial insemination (or IVF), both of which result in a 'virgin birth' (no sexual intercourse), but without contradicting the science of Biology.

However, a belief (for example) that the female egg could be fertilized without male sperm, and without any means of physically introducing the said sperm to the egg, clearly contradicts very well established and understood biological/scientific knowledge, and we should therefore doubt that it is possible.

This all seem right on topic to me, and I agreed with you, for you clearly referred to 'virgin' conception that was NOT in violation with biological science, just as you gave an example of walking on water that did NOT contradict the physical sciences.

[dianaiad]

Oh, and virgins can give birth.
...........no breaking of scientific principles going on there, either.
Ditto. eg, by artificial insemination, no sexual intercourse so still a virgin. Of course we seek explanations that do not contradict science, as we know (at least I hope we do) that human conception requires male sperm to fertilize the female egg.

What the heck IS your point?

You brought up the topic of virgin births, not me, and you did so on a thread entitled 'Can the Laws of Nature be temporarily altered or suspended', so the real question is to ask what is/was your point?.

You stated that virgins can give birth without breaking of scientific principles, presumably meaning not contrary to the well established bilogical fact that human conception requires males sperm to fertilize the female egg.

I agreed that this could indeed happen by artificial insemination (or IVF), both of which result in a 'virgin birth' (no sexual intercourse), but without contradicting the science of Biology.

However, a belief (for example) that the female egg could be fertilized without male sperm, and without any means of physically introducing the said sperm to the egg, clearly contradicts very well established and understood biological/scientific knowledge, and we should therefore doubt that it is possible.

This all seem right on topic to me, and I agreed with you, for you clearly referred to 'virgin' conception that was NOT in violation with biological science, just as you gave an example of walking on water that did NOT contradict the physical sciences.

Ok, my apologies. I didn't leave that small paragraph in because I was particularly worried about virgin births over and above everything else. I left it in there so you would know that it was your post to which I was responding.

I can see where it was confusing. My fault.

Ok, let me try this question again. Let us, just for kicks and giggles, agree with each other that the 'Laws of Nature cannot be temporarily altered or suspended." My question to you, especially given the forum in which you posted this is still...

what's your point?

Consider this: IF God exists, then He INVENTED those laws of nature. Thus anything He does is within those laws, since in a very real way, He WOULD BE those laws.

I personally don't think that there is any miracle or 'supernatural' happening that can be the result of the violation of natural law, because as soon as they happen, they ARE 'natural law.'

Like the folks my sister ran into when she was a missionary in Chile. She had an interesting time with Spanish, but, being either brave or reckless, would simply put together syllables that sounded like they should work in order to get her point across. She would sometimes ask, after trying one of 'em, "Is that word?" The answer would usually be, said with a grin, "It is now."

Well, that is what, I think, it would have to be when God does something. If it wasn't a natural law before He did it, it became one as soon AS He did it.

.............and we can figure out how those events 'fit' into all the other natural laws.

That's why I'm asking what your point is.

Are you talking about the events yourself....or are you insisting upon dictating to God that He MUST do it this way or that way, or it's not 'real?' And then, of course, after dictating to Him HOW He must do this, determine that doing 'it' THAT way is impossible, therefore so is God.

So I'll ask again.

What's your point?

So eventually we figure out how Christ could have walked on water without pontoon shoes. Does that mean that He didn't walk on water? WE know now that it is quite possible for a virgin to give birth. Does that mean that Mary did not?

WHAT, in other words, IS YOUR POINT????

[TheTruth101]

Oh, and virgins can give birth.
...........no breaking of scientific principles going on there, either.
Ditto. eg, by artificial insemination, no sexual intercourse so still a virgin. Of course we seek explanations that do not contradict science, as we know (at least I hope we do) that human conception requires male sperm to fertilize the female egg.

What the heck IS your point?

You brought up the topic of virgin births, not me, and you did so on a thread entitled 'Can the Laws of Nature be temporarily altered or suspended', so the real question is to ask what is/was your point?.

You stated that virgins can give birth without breaking of scientific principles, presumably meaning not contrary to the well established bilogical fact that human conception requires males sperm to fertilize the female egg.

I agreed that this could indeed happen by artificial insemination (or IVF), both of which result in a 'virgin birth' (no sexual intercourse), but without contradicting the science of Biology.

However, a belief (for example) that the female egg could be fertilized without male sperm, and without any means of physically introducing the said sperm to the egg, clearly contradicts very well established and understood biological/scientific knowledge, and we should therefore doubt that it is possible.

This all seem right on topic to me, and I agreed with you, for you clearly referred to 'virgin' conception that was NOT in violation with biological science, just as you gave an example of walking on water that did NOT contradict the physical sciences.

Ok, my apologies. I didn't leave that small paragraph in because I was particularly worried about virgin births over and above everything else. I left it in there so you would know that it was your post to which I was responding.

I can see where it was confusing. My fault.

Ok, let me try this question again. Let us, just for kicks and giggles, agree with each other that the 'Laws of Nature cannot be temporarily altered or suspended." My question to you, especially given the forum in which you posted this is still...

what's your point?

Consider this: IF God exists, then He INVENTED those laws of nature. Thus anything He does is within those laws, since in a very real way, He WOULD BE those laws.

I personally don't think that there is any miracle or 'supernatural' happening that can be the result of the violation of natural law, because as soon as they happen, they ARE 'natural law.'

Like the folks my sister ran into when she was a missionary in Chile. She had an interesting time with Spanish, but, being either brave or reckless, would simply put together syllables that sounded like they should work in order to get her point across. She would sometimes ask, after trying one of 'em, "Is that word?" The answer would usually be, said with a grin, "It is now."

Well, that is what, I think, it would have to be when God does something. If it wasn't a natural law before He did it, it became one as soon AS He did it.

.............and we can figure out how those events 'fit' into all the other natural laws.

That's why I'm asking what your point is.

Are you talking about the events yourself....or are you insisting upon dictating to God that He MUST do it this way or that way, or it's not 'real?' And then, of course, after dictating to Him HOW He must do this, determine that doing 'it' THAT way is impossible, therefore so is God.

So I'll ask again.

What's your point?

So eventually we figure out how Christ could have walked on water without pontoon shoes. Does that mean that He didn't walk on water? WE know now that it is quite possible for a virgin to give birth. Does that mean that Mary did not?

WHAT, in other words, IS YOUR POINT????

I think the OP has a set of beliefs that cannot be changed through the debate being done here Dianiad. I think therein lies the problem. He simply posted a thread with a made up mind before doing so, which alot of members do on this forum actually. It's usually the ones that do NOT participate in debates that goes to sleep at night with an altered perception or a convinced view. Go figure..

[ytrewq]

I think the OP has a set of beliefs that cannot be changed through the debate being done here Dianiad. I think therein lies the problem. He simply posted a thread with a made up mind before doing so, which alot of members do on this forum actually

I think Truth101 has a set of beliefs that cannot be changed through the debate being done here ... I think therein lies the problem. He simply posts threads with a made up mind before doing so, which alot of members do on this forum actually

Sorry mate, I just couldn't resist.

It's usually the ones that do NOT participate in debates that goes to sleep at night with an altered perception or a convinced view. Go figure..

I agree, and that is why I am not fussed about whether the person I am directly debating agrees with me, though finding common ground is always good. As you say, it is the silent majority that actually matter .... and the 'swingers' are likely to be swayed by politeness, tolerance, and a sound argument based on evidence rather than emotion and blind faith.

[ytrewq]

dianaiad wrote:

Ok, let me try this question again. Let us, just for kicks and giggles, agree with each other that the 'Laws of Nature cannot be temporarily altered or suspended." My question to you, especially given the forum in which you posted this is still...

what's your point?

Consider this: IF God exists, then He INVENTED those laws of nature. Thus anything He does is within those laws, since in a very real way, He WOULD BE those laws.

I personally don't think that there is any miracle or 'supernatural' happening that can be the result of the violation of natural law, because as soon as they happen, they ARE 'natural law.'

I agree entirely. Science has to conform to what is actually observed, NOT the other way around. The problem for many theistic beliefs, especially those that rely on 'supernatural' events, is that scientists have observed with absolute consistency that the said supernatural events do not actually occur. For example, walking on water. And you are right. Scientists have no option but to accept the experimental evidence available to them. As soon as an 'apparently supernatural' event is reliably observed, then science damn well has to accommodate it. Fortunately for scientists, it has been found that the most fundamental and well established 'Laws' and 'properties of matter' that have been discovered are stable, and do not unexpectedly change at different times or locations. However, you are absolutely correct. If this 'stable' nature of the Laws that we have observed should ever be found to vary according to time, location, or some unknown variable, then Science will just have to be re-written to accommodate it, and that is all there is to it.

Like the folks my sister ran into when she was a missionary in Chile. She had an interesting time with Spanish, but, being either brave or reckless, would simply put together syllables that sounded like they should work in order to get her point across. She would sometimes ask, after trying one of 'em, "Is that word?" The answer would usually be, said with a grin, "It is now."

Well, that is what, I think, it would have to be when God does something. If it wasn't a natural law before He did it, it became one as soon AS He did it.

.............and we can figure out how those events 'fit' into all the other natural laws.

That's why I'm asking what your point is.

Are you talking about the events yourself....or are you insisting upon dictating to God that He MUST do it this way or that way, or it's not 'real?' And then, of course, after dictating to Him HOW He must do this, determine that doing 'it' THAT way is impossible, therefore so is God.

So I'll ask again.

What's your point?

So eventually we figure out how Christ could have walked on water without pontoon shoes. Does that mean that He didn't walk on water? WE know now that it is quite possible for a virgin to give birth. Does that mean that Mary did not?

WHAT, in other words, IS YOUR POINT????

The 'point of all this' is that many of the claimed events that are a key part of religions, have never been observed by science, and their occurence is made even less likely by the observed stability of the Laws that we have deduced, which are themselves underpinned by observation and experiment.

As you say, we simply have to take the Laws as we observe them to be, not as we would guess or wish them to be. If we believe in a God, then we have to accept that God has his reasons for making the Laws the way we observe them to actually be, and neither you, not I, nor any person on earth should have the arrogance to suppose we know the mind of God.

But wait a minute, I hear you say, what about what is written in ancient documents? There are many problems with this approach. Firstly, exactly WHICH document, as there are a bewildering number of them. Then you have the problem that these documents were written a long, long time ago, and have been translated and doubtless embellished and altered through multiple translations, and (even worse) we have no way of really knowing whether some or all or none were actually written or inspired by a God anyway and, even if they were, which God?? Many of these Gods do seem suspiciously human in nature and temperement as well, which is odd, as the observed properties and behaviour of the Universe besides ourselves is notably free of temperement or human qualities at all.

Trying to establish anything firm about the Laws of nature from such a tangled, inconsistent conglomeration of old books is hopeless in my view, so it makes whole lot more sense to accurately measure the way Nature actually DOES behave, which is otherwise known as science. That way, we avoid all problems of which God, and whether the old documents are really from a God anyway, and so on, and cut straight to the chase, by accurately measuring how God's Laws actually operate. By this approach therefore, if a God exists, I believe in His Laws completely and absolutely, and I feel priviliged to be a part of discovering the Laws that he has created. So far it seems as if God (if he exists) has created some very clever yet stable Laws and rich, stable properties of matter right at the outset, and then sort of 'let it go', in the knowledge that an incredibly rich and interesting Universe would evolve as a result of his extraordinary Laws and properties of matter.

[Mithrae]

As soon as an 'apparently supernatural' event is reliably observed, then science damn well has to accommodate it. Fortunately for scientists, it has been found that the most fundamental and well established 'Laws' and 'properties of matter' that have been discovered are stable, and do not unexpectedly change at different times or locations. However, you are absolutely correct. If this 'stable' nature of the Laws that we have observed should ever be found to vary according to time, location, or some unknown variable, then Science will just have to be re-written to accommodate it, and that is all there is to it.

However, as I pointed out post 70 and again as a key point of post 72, reliable observations in the case of science means testable and/or repeatable.

Your comments in post 78 meet that criterion, since you said you were "talking about consistent, repeatable exceptions to very well established scientific laws and properties of matter."

But obviously that is not what religious folk are talking about if they say that Balaam took advice from his ass, or that Jesus' spit made blind men see, or that Zeus turned into a bull to seduce a confused young lady. They are talking about more or less singular events which were never implied to be testable or repeatable. At best, if they were observed by a few Nobel laureates and captured on video, they might be acknowledged as incredible mysteries. They could never legitimately alter the canon of scientific knowledge - and nor should they.

[TheJoshAbideth]

dianaiad wrote:

Ok, let me try this question again. Let us, just for kicks and giggles, agree with each other that the 'Laws of Nature cannot be temporarily altered or suspended." My question to you, especially given the forum in which you posted this is still...

what's your point?

Consider this: IF God exists, then He INVENTED those laws of nature. Thus anything He does is within those laws, since in a very real way, He WOULD BE those laws.

I personally don't think that there is any miracle or 'supernatural' happening that can be the result of the violation of natural law, because as soon as they happen, they ARE 'natural law.'

I agree entirely. Science has to conform to what is actually observed, NOT the other way around. The problem for many theistic beliefs, especially those that rely on 'supernatural' events, is that scientists have observed with absolute consistency that the said supernatural events do not actually occur. For example, walking on water. And you are right. Scientists have no option but to accept the experimental evidence available to them. As soon as an 'apparently supernatural' event is reliably observed, then science damn well has to accommodate it. Fortunately for scientists, it has been found that the most fundamental and well established 'Laws' and 'properties of matter' that have been discovered are stable, and do not unexpectedly change at different times or locations. However, you are absolutely correct. If this 'stable' nature of the Laws that we have observed should ever be found to vary according to time, location, or some unknown variable, then Science will just have to be re-written to accommodate it, and that is all there is to it.

Like the folks my sister ran into when she was a missionary in Chile. She had an interesting time with Spanish, but, being either brave or reckless, would simply put together syllables that sounded like they should work in order to get her point across. She would sometimes ask, after trying one of 'em, "Is that word?" The answer would usually be, said with a grin, "It is now."

Well, that is what, I think, it would have to be when God does something. If it wasn't a natural law before He did it, it became one as soon AS He did it.

.............and we can figure out how those events 'fit' into all the other natural laws.

That's why I'm asking what your point is.

Are you talking about the events yourself....or are you insisting upon dictating to God that He MUST do it this way or that way, or it's not 'real?' And then, of course, after dictating to Him HOW He must do this, determine that doing 'it' THAT way is impossible, therefore so is God.

So I'll ask again.

What's your point?

So eventually we figure out how Christ could have walked on water without pontoon shoes. Does that mean that He didn't walk on water? WE know now that it is quite possible for a virgin to give birth. Does that mean that Mary did not?

WHAT, in other words, IS YOUR POINT????

The 'point of all this' is that many of the claimed events that are a key part of religions, have never been observed by science, and their occurence is made even less likely by the observed stability of the Laws that we have deduced, which are themselves underpinned by observation and experiment.

As you say, we simply have to take the Laws as we observe them to be, not as we would guess or wish them to be. If we believe in a God, then we have to accept that God has his reasons for making the Laws the way we observe them to actually be, and neither you, not I, nor any person on earth should have the arrogance to suppose we know the mind of God.

But wait a minute, I hear you say, what about what is written in ancient documents? There are many problems with this approach. Firstly, exactly WHICH document, as there are a bewildering number of them. Then you have the problem that these documents were written a long, long time ago, and have been translated and doubtless embellished and altered through multiple translations, and (even worse) we have no way of really knowing whether some or all or none were actually written or inspired by a God anyway and, even if they were, which God?? Many of these Gods do seem suspiciously human in nature and temperement as well, which is odd, as the observed properties and behaviour of the Universe besides ourselves is notably free of temperement or human qualities at all.

Trying to establish anything firm about the Laws of nature from such a tangled, inconsistent conglomeration of old books is hopeless in my view, so it makes whole lot more sense to accurately measure the way Nature actually DOES behave, which is otherwise known as science. That way, we avoid all problems of which God, and whether the old documents are really from a God anyway, and so on, and cut straight to the chase, by accurately measuring how God's Laws actually operate. By this approach therefore, if a God exists, I believe in His Laws completely and absolutely, and I feel priviliged to be a part of discovering the Laws that he has created. So far it seems as if God (if he exists) has created some very clever yet stable Laws and rich, stable properties of matter right at the outset, and then sort of 'let it go', in the knowledge that an incredibly rich and interesting Universe would evolve as a result of his extraordinary Laws and properties of matter.

1. There are plenty of things we do not know about the laws of the universe/ nature.
2. If something happened that seemingly defied our current understanding of said laws, then the occurrence would only be rationally validated as being a part of nature that has not yet been observed.
3. A supernatural event - by definition - is un-falsifiable, and so to label an event as such would require a presuppositional understanding of the events cause.
4. a claim that any event is supernatural would be an argument from ignorance.

[dianaiad]

The 'point of all this' is that many of the claimed events that are a key part of religions, have never been observed by science, and their occurence is made even less likely by the observed stability of the Laws that we have deduced, which are themselves underpinned by observation and experiment.

Ok, problem: and here is where that epitome of miracles, the virgin birth, comes in. "Science has observed" that it is perfectly possible for a virgin to give birth. It's actually fairly easy, compared to some other things we do. Shoot, nowadays a virgin can give birth to the child of a man she's never known--she could also give birth to a child that is not genetically hers, either.

But for close onto 2000 years, non-believers were convinced that Mary's experience had to be false BECAUSE a virgin birth was scientifically impossible. Well, guess what; it's not. True, the fact that it is not only possible, but even rather 'ho hum' as scientific things go, does not prove that Mary did it, or that Jesus was the Christ. But if her story is not true, it's not because it's scientifically impossible.

OK, so....

I've never heard of a religious miracle that had a rock flying straight up into the sky, $100 bills suddenly becoming $10 bills, or the sudden cessation of cell phones, but I suppose you had some point to make with those examples. So if your point is that events claimed to be supernatural are impossible because science says so, you might begin by talking about miracles/supernatural events that some religion actually claims HAPPENED.

As you say, we simply have to take the Laws as we observe them to be, not as we would guess or wish them to be. If we believe in a God, then we have to accept that God has his reasons for making the Laws the way we observe them to actually be, and neither you, not I, nor any person on earth should have the arrogance to suppose we know the mind of God.

That is incredibly insightful. Do you understand what you just wrote, here?

But wait a minute, I hear you say, what about what is written in ancient documents? There are many problems with this approach. Firstly, exactly WHICH document, as there are a bewildering number of them. Then you have the problem that these documents were written a long, long time ago, and have been translated and doubtless embellished and altered through multiple translations, and (even worse) we have no way of really knowing whether some or all or none were actually written or inspired by a God anyway and, even if they were, which God?? Many of these Gods do seem suspiciously human in nature and temperement as well, which is odd, as the observed properties and behaviour of the Universe besides ourselves is notably free of temperement or human qualities at all.

Ok....I see your point...but then I'm a Mormon. You have to understand us in order to understand that we wouldn't have any problems with your statement, above.

Trying to establish anything firm about the Laws of nature from such a tangled, inconsistent conglomeration of old books is hopeless in my view, so it makes whole lot more sense to accurately measure the way Nature actually DOES behave, which is otherwise known as science.

So who is suggesting that religious scripture be taken as a science text? I'm not!

That way, we avoid all problems of which God, and whether the old documents are really from a God anyway, and so on, and cut straight to the chase, by accurately measuring how God's Laws actually operate. By this approach therefore, if a God exists, I believe in His Laws completely and absolutely, and I feel priviliged to be a part of discovering the Laws that he has created. So far it seems as if God (if he exists) has created some very clever yet stable Laws and rich, stable properties of matter right at the outset, and then sort of 'let it go', in the knowledge that an incredibly rich and interesting Universe would evolve as a result of his extraordinary Laws and properties of matter.

Is this the way you think? If so, I rather agree with you.

Here's the problem, though, with the position so far; you seem to believe that science is all done with observing; that if science doesn't think that something is possible right this minute, then it's not possible.

If you really mean it about letting God tell YOU what His laws are, through those laws and the way they work, through evidence taken from the rocks, the oceans and the cosmos around us, then deciding that any event is scientifically impossible is hubris, don't you think?

Consider all the years in which Science absolutely DECLARED that the earth was a solid thing; that continents were where they always were, and are where they always will be............and just how long it took for science to accept the idea of tectonic plates. Can you even imagine NOT accepting the evidence for those plates? That evidence has been around for a long time, but my father's college geology book doesn't mention it, and my own college geology class talked about it as 'highly controversial' (though my professor thought it was fact).

What if Sodom and Gommorah got nailed by a meteorite the size of the one that hit Russia the other day..or one somewhat larger? It happens to the earth all the time. Voila, not scientifically impossible. Shoot, until a hundred or so years ago, even though we had the bible continuously to help us find those cities, 'science' didn't think the cities ever existed!

They did. And the archaeological digs show evidence of a pretty big conflagration. This doesn't prove that God nuked 'em, but it certainly shows that there were cities there, and they burned.

The miracles of Jesus, or the other biblical miracles...science can repeat the majority of them.

They may not repeat them by pointing at something and saying 'break all the laws of physics because I'm God and can only do anything by breaking the laws of physics in order to BE God...because human scientists say so."

But then I don't think God did it that way, either.