I think I can follow the general thought that religion and belief in God occupies areas that are beyond the scope of the physical natural world. I have trouble when those solid beliefs contradict natural laws, IN the physical world. Such as Jesus walking on water, or turning water to real actual wine, or really positively bringing Lazarus back to life (all still in a very real, non-metaphorical; non-mistranslated sense)
As far as walking on the water goes, he just knew where the rocks were. I’ve read enough by twentieth century theologians like Rudolf Bultmann, John Robinson, and James Pike to be comfortable not taking the miracles as literal events and still identifying as a Christian. IIRC, Pike stirred things up several decades ago when he said he didn’t believe in the virgin birth.
Natural laws describe what happens within the “system” of the natural world, provided that no one from outside the material universe interferes. Science assumes that the world operates according to natural laws, but it doesn’t and can’t answer the question of whether Someone could or did or does ever “reach in” from outside the natural world.
If no murder has been committed, is there any reason to question the witnesses?
This, exactly.
A Slashdot thread today indicates that it wasn’t a friendship for the ages.
Old Ron took off with Mr. Parsons life savings.
Assumes in the sense that despite countless tests we have seen no evidence to the contrary. Perhaps it was assumed that Newton’s Laws could explain the position of Mercury - when Mercury was not where it was supposed to be, we turned to relativity.
All that has to be done is to show us evidence of someone reaching in.
Let’s be clear: no one is denying that the world operates according to natural laws. Everyone, or at least everyone involved in this discussion—Christians, atheists, scientists, believers in miracles—agrees on that. Where there is disagreement is over “the question of whether Someone could or did or does ever ‘reach in’ from outside the natural world.” And no amount of tests of what happens when Someone doesn’t reach in can tell you that.
Miracles, if you accept them, are precisely such evidence. You may not acccept them. But it’s circular, and hence bad reasoning, to say “I know things can never happen except according to natural laws because they never have done so except for these purported instances which I know couldn’t have really happened because things can never happen except according to natural laws.”
It is true that there are no modern, well-attested, documented, unequivocal examples of miracles (i.e. of “someone reaching in”). I can think of several potential explanations for this, one of which is of course the possibility that this never happens because there is no “someone” to reach in.
No one knows if there can be external influences - but it is reasonable to default to no unless we get data. As for if anything has, again no until we see some.
What you say is true, but there have been many examples of proposed miracles, all of which are undocumented, fraud, or absurd like the image of Mary on the church in the neighborhood where I grew up. Did you notice the miracles proposed to support the canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II? Pretty weak sauce.
The spiritualists used to use almost the exact same argument you are using. Just because Houdini exposed a seance as a fraud didn’t prove the other seances the medium did were fraudulent? Just because that UFO was a tossed pie plate doesn’t mean they all are.
The cases aren’t very different, except it is okay to laugh at saucer nuts but not at the religious.