Aren’t Miracles Impossible?

Aren't miracles impossible, right? If miracles are defined as a violation of the laws of nature, and we know that the laws of nature haven't changed and they cannot change, then isn't it the case that miracles are impossible?

Well, when we frame the question in that way, then yes, miracles would be impossible. If you define a miracle as a violation of natural law, but then you go ahead and define natural law as something that is by necessity immutable and unchangeable, then it would follow that miracles as violations of those laws would be impossible, since you've defined from the very beginning that natural law is immutable.

This is not always the objection to miracles, but it has been historically by some.

For example, there's a thinker who flourished in the late 1600s, Benedict Spinoza, who posited the idea that the laws of nature are immutable.

They do not change, and since miracles are violations of the laws of nature, then miracles don't happen.

Okay? His conclusion really was valid if the premise that the laws of nature are immutable are true.

But why think Spinoza's correct on that point, and why think people who agree that the laws of nature are immutable are correct on that point?

What are the laws of nature? What are the laws of nature, if not mere descriptions of the regularities and patterns with which nature has behaved as we have observed them?

We need to be very careful with the logical leap that's inherent within that statement. For example, the continued and repeated observation of the regularities of nature, when we make those regular observations, there is no logical way to then therefore leap to the conclusion that because nature has acted in a particular way in the past, that it must act that way in the future.

Okay? Remember, the laws of nature are descriptive, and you cannot move from description, mere description, to prescription, right?

That because we observe it this way, then it must be that way. If you take that leap, that leap itself is not based upon a repeated observation, okay?

That would be something to the effect of saying, all of the crows that I've observed have been black.

All right, crows being birds, just in case you don't know. All of the crows that I've observed have been black, and so therefore, all crows are black.

You see, that conclusion doesn't logically follow, and like fashion, if it's true that we've observed regularity of the laws of nature in the past, it doesn't logically follow therefore that those laws must be the case in the future.

And even if they are necessarily immutable, you can't know that they're immutable merely by repeated observation of patterns of regularity and things like that, okay?

So again, I would disagree with the premise that the laws of nature are by nature immutable.

There's no way for you to know that, and if we understand the laws of nature as descriptive, then you can't draw that conclusion.

And if the laws of nature are just mere descriptive and not prescriptive, then it seems to be the case that we'd have to leave room for the possibility of miracles, and hence, leave room for the possibility of the existence of God.

Now again, showing the fallacious character of this line of reasoning, moving from repeated observation and regularities in the past, and then projecting the necessity of things being that way in the future, apart from recognizing the fallacious nature of that sort of reasoning, it doesn't mean therefore that miracles are possible, right?

There would be further argumentation, further reasoning, further things that we need to discuss and debate a little bit to get there, but I just wanted to kind of set the context for I guess popular objections to the possibility of miracles, right?

So we want to be careful, be able to point out those deficiencies in certain lines of reasoning.

We want to recognize it in the opponent, okay? And we also want to recognize it in ourselves.

Obviously, we do not reason perfectly all the time, and so we need to think clearly and make sure that we're understanding these issues rightly, okay?