I find that this argument, by completely disregarding polytheism, is both offensive & wrongheaded.
In a polytheistic universe, the mark of a “god” could well be the ability to alter the normal laws of nature at will.
Then again, Powell may have been using a definition of “god” which denotes a Supreme Being by definition. Ho hum. One more reason for the best answer to the query, “Do you believe in God?” to be, “Define '‘god’.”
Yay! another free will debate.
Since free will needs a non deterministic universe, there would already be room to need corrective miracles, even without free will. So no, no proof.
My understanding is not that God “alters” the laws of the universe to perform miracles, but that he has a perfect knowledge of those laws, and we do not.
Miracles are in the eyes of the beholder. Many things that we do on a daily basis, such as turning on a light switch, driving a car, talking on a telephone, using a computer, and many other things, would be considered “miracles” to someone living in the middle ages.
Because God has an understanding of some of the higher laws of physics and chemistry that we haven’t discovered yet does not mean that he is “breaking” the law, only that he knows how to use it.
How “miraculous” were jesus’ miracles? i don’t find them to be earth-shattering events. take the loaves and fishes-the Gospel accounts doesn’t say that a full buffet table descended from heaven. it was really a low-key thing-people opened up and shared with eacthother. That’s it-what is so miraculous?
Ah, The God Of The Gaps. Color me unimpressed with a Supreme Deity who is ever-retreating into cracks of ignorance like an escaping octopusas a result of greater knowledge and understanding of the natural world. This is a complete turnaround from Christian theology of a century and a half ago when “natural philosophers” and “scientific theologians” concerned themselves with seeking greater order in physical and biological forms in order to illuminated and glorify their Creator.
On the other hand, if you can just admit that your God (if he exists) is imperfect, then the imperfections in the world and required corrections and fudge factors that comprise “miracles” are entirely explicable. This seems like a much stronger rationale to me.
Stranger
A ‘miracle’ is either a misrepresentation of something that really happened within the boundaries of natural laws, or something that happened that is very very unlikey (when looked at in terms of the odds), but none-the-less was capable of happening, when considered in context of natural laws.
Defined as above, acknowledging ‘miracles’ would be atheistic.
If we define a miracle as something along the lines of ‘‘God interupting and superceding natural law’’, then all bets are off.
Taking a very sceintific approach to studying what is considered a miracle, and then proving it either never happened (or didn’t happen as described), or if there was a rational explanation, then documenting that…well, acknowledging these ‘miracles’ is very atheistic.
A miracle isn’t godly/ogly; a miracle is a rare event. Still a miracle. Still within natural law. Something to accelerate knowledge/number of natural laws and something to bolster the scientific method.
Definitions are important.
I’ve never heard of the “God of the Gaps” theory before, but that does not square at all with my beliefs.
I think a good analogy would be the relationship of a parent to a young child. As the child learns more and more about the world around him, and the way things work, that in no way diminishes the knowledge or experience of the parent.
As humans we have gone from the stage of knowing almost nothing about the universe to having a “reasonable understanding” of many things. I don’t think you will be able to find a scientist anywhere who will venture to say that we now have, or will have anytime soon, a “complete knowledge” of everything in the universe.
However, just like many teenagers who think they know more than their parents, we sometimes think we know more than God, and we don’t.
That’s a fascinating take on God I hadn’t heard before. Are you saying that while we were huddling in caves, God manipulated fire and weather to do His will, and as we progressed to higher science, God is now mostly doing His will manipulating Tachyons and other processes we don’t fully comprehend?
If I’m reading you correctly, you’re rejecting a supernatural component to miracles, at least. Right? The God of the Gaps argument is usually that because we don’t have a natural explanation for some phenomenon, we must assume a supernatural explanation, involving God. You’re saying we must assume a natural explanation. Now you seem to say this involves god, but I don’t see why it couldn’t equally involve an alien or time traveller.
My position is that you need to show me a miracle before I’ll run around trying to explain it. Miracles in the Bible which are unsubstantiated, need no more explanation than magic in The Lord of the Rings and The Wizard of Oz. You might rename the Skeptics Annotated Bible as the Nitpickers Guide to the Bible, if you ask me. 
No, I’m saying that whatever God has done in the past, is doing now, or will do in the future is accomplished according to his understanding and knowledge of the “laws of the universe.” Some of them we (as humans) understand, and some we don’t even have a clue about.
Just because we know a little more about fire, or weather, or whatever now than we did thousands of years ago doesn’t mean that God can’t use fire or weather to accomplish his purposes.
What we know, or don’t know, doesn’t restrict what God has available to use for his purposes.
But what was holding up the turtles? 
I think my answer is going to hinge on how you define “supernatural”. Depending on whether you mean “contrary to the laws of nature” or “contrary to the laws of nature as we understand them”.
Consider the miracle of turning the water into wine. If Jesus pulled from his sleeve a packet of “instant wine powder” and poured it into the water vessels when no one was looking would it still be a miracle? It would to the people of that time, because no one had ever seen instant wine powder. To anyone in our day who has ever made Kool-Aid, not so much of a miracle.
Now take it one step further. If Jesus used his knowledge of natural laws to command instant wine powder to be assembled from the ingredients in the air and to be transported into the water vessels, is that a miracle, even to us? Yes, but maybe in a few hunded years we may be able to come up with technology to do just that.
So, where is the need for a god of any type in this? This argument undermines it’s own premise; to wit, your god or his servants can only do things that are physically possible, but beyond current science and technology to reproduce. By that logic, I’m a “god” for bringing antibiotics to a cargo cult, or fixing a miswired lighting fixture in my non-home-repair-inclined friend’s house.
Stranger
Well, maybe when you learn enough that you know how to create a universe and everything that entails, then you can be a god, too. It will be a long, long time before I’m that smart.
:rolleyes: Stranger, I’m not sure whether you misunderstood FatBaldGuy’s point, misunderstand the point of “God of the gaps,” or are making a connection between them in a leap that I just missed.
A “God of the gaps” is a God who exists to explain/govern the unseen at all times, as if physical laws were not sufficient, & has nothing to do with historical miracles. FBG was talking about a God who can manipulate the world (with divine, i.e., perfect, understanding) to perform miracles, using preexisting & pertinent (but unknown to us) physical laws–not the same thing.
Thanks, foolsguinea, I couldn’t have said it better.
I was assuming that supernatural went beyond Clarke’s Third Law. It sounds like it doesn’t for you.
Now creating the universe is something else. I’m not sure that creating a universe is impossible, but I’m pretty sure that creating one and then wandering into it is.
Clarke’s Third Law, BTW, is “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” My apologies if I’m telling you something you know already, but since you didn’t know God of the Gaps, I thought I’d define it.
It’s worth mentioning here that, of the miracles attributed to Jesus, the one which is generally reckoned by theologians to be the second-greatest (after the Resurrection) was calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee. “See, even the winds obey him.” Jesus was trying to take a nap in the boat, but there was a storm raging, so Jesus said “Hey, storm, would you knock it off? I’m trying to sleep here!”, and the storm ended.
But of course, it’s quite possible for a storm to end naturally. It’s even quite possible for a storm to end naturally and abruptly. The miracle here is that it ended on demand, but even that doesn’t require anything supernatural.
No, I understand FatBaldGuy’s point; however, his explanation (that all phenomena can ultimately be explained by a complete understanding of physical laws) lacks any necessity for a god at all. There’s no reason, in that case, to have a god doing anything participatory (other than, perhaps, sitting back and watching the show). Note that this isn’t an argument against the existence of a supreme power or Creator or whathaveyou, but it demonstrates the lack of necessity for such. Certainly you can invoke your deity to explain the otherwise inexplicable (by application of current knowledge) but that is a logical fallicy, specifically argumentum ad ignorantiam.
A “god” in the sense that FatBaldGuy speaks of is merely an intelligent organism weilding Clarke’s sufficiently advanced “indistinguishable from magic” technology, and thus not the omnipotent, omnisicent, and otherwise supreme being that is generally considered as God/Yahweh/Allah in the Judeo-Christian tradition. One could apply such definitions to the pantheons of Greek, Roman, or Norse Gods (ascribing them as merely being very advanced beings with hereto unexplained control over natural forces and commanding vast sources of energy), but even that doesn’t validate their existence and more than having a copy of Superman #1 proves the existence of Kryptonians.
Stranger
Sorry. According to Baden Powell a belief in miracles is sufficient to make you and atheist, but it isn’t necessary.