Religion

I am wondering if there is a flaw in the following reasoning: If an event occurs, then that event now becomes possible and able to reoccur. If the event can reoccur, then the event is not "super natural" nor is the event a "miracle". Therefore, there is no possibly way for the "supernatural" or "miracles" to exist. If there are no "supernatural" things or "miracles" that exist, then there is no God. I find that the argument is weird because the criteria eliminates the possibility of what is in question in the first place: the "supernatural" or the "miracle". Basically if something does not fit into the science mold the arguer won't allow the conversation to continue. I can ask "What would God have to do to convince you he exists?" The honest answer I received was "He can't do anything to prove himself!" The reason is because as soon as God acts in a physical way, there is a scientific explanation. So if God were to levitate the entire state of Texas in the sky 15,000 feet for 7 days this is not a miracle nor is it supernatural. What is the flaw in this reasoning or is this acceptable?

Comments

Your argument and questions are excellent. Some things to consider: I do not think any religions that acknowledge that God acts miraculously (that is, God brings about events of religious significance that would not have occurred if God had not acted) entails that miraculous events could not be repeated. There is nothing conceptually odd given the concept of a miracle if God were to miraculously lift the state of Texas 15,000 feet every Monday in December, though perhaps the event would seem to fall short in terms of other factors: such a feet would seem pointless and scary and perhaps make people think God is more like Zeus or a clown or a Texan than a God of justice, love, and goodness.

Still, there is an interesting issue in play if God were to repeatedly and comprehensively act to bring about something that would not occur by "nature" alone or without God's will. Some Christians believe that the emergence of consciousness in each person is partly due to God's willing that when biological organisms reach a certain level of complexity and composition, the consciousness comes into being / emerges. This is a fascinating case in which we might say that there is not observable distinction between recognizing that consciousness emerges under certain conditions due to the laws of nature (perhaps as willed by God?) or that such emergence constitutes an everyday miracle.

As for comparing scientific and religious explanations, I highly recommend Alvin Plantinga's book on science and religion; where the real conflict lies. It was praised by the (at least currently) atheistic philosopher Thomas Nagel is a recent New York Review of Books. Plantinga argues that science actually needs theism or something like theism in order not to undermine its own practice. I must also recommend the outstanding recent publication of The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity ed by J.B. Stump and Alan Padgett (Blackwell, 2012) and the Routledge Companion to Theism.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Religion