Scotsmen to right of me, necessity to the left

Mike,

You have several problems right from the start. I'm going to write a longer response to you because this was the next direction I was going anyway, but I'll point out a couple right off.

1) You are constantly assuming that God as the designer/creator of the universe defies some rules of logic or nature. You may not believe that nature requires some sentient being to control it, but look it at openmindedly and logically: IF a higher intelligence was behind the laws of nature, what purpose would there be in that higher intelligence violating his own rules? Why would he write them just to break them? For this reason, requirement A in your list bears no meaning. There is no reason to assume that a miracle will violate some law of nature, nor to make it a requirement to a miraculous event. Likewise, and as you point out, much of what we think violates nature may simply be something we can't explain yet. 100 years ago, IVF would have been considered a miracle (a virgin can have a baby!). Today it is common practice. That list can go on ad nauseum. But for these reasons, a miracle can't exclusively violate some law of nature. It also follows, then, that your point B is invalid because it relies on point A being valid.

2) If eye witness testimony is invalid, why is it adequate today to condemn a person to life in prison or even death? We rely on eye witness testimony all the time; in some cases all we have is eyewitnesses. Even the Constitution considers eyewitness testimony as valid in cases as serious as treason (2 eyewitnesses required to convict someone of treason, a crime punishable by death - article 3 section 3). Therefore, eyewitness testimony MUST be considered as valid evidence for a miracle. I'll grant that there can be some amount of condition upon which the testimony be considered, and perhaps there needs to be cooberating evidence from multiple sources or times, but we can't throw out eyewitnesses entirely. Therefore your point C is likewise moot.

In that vein, my next post was going to be regarding the bible as a historical text. There is ample evidence for the validity of the bible from a purely historical perspective, and this can be used to make certain ascertations regarding the divinity of Christ (this is the information we will get into in my upcoming post). But for purposes of this response, the 2000 year old text of the bible is not only perfectly valid eyewitness testimony of certain events, it is historically sound from a purely academic perspective. We can put the text of the bible through the same scientific, academic rigors as any other ancient text and it stands on its own as a verifiable piece of world history. Even if you reject its precepts and teachings, you can't reject it as a work of antiquity. That is unless you are allowing bias to color your arguments. But if we are being fair and openminded, there are certain conclusions we can reach from the bible that are academically sound since it is a verifiable work of history. I will expand on this idea more this weekend.

Point D I can accept as you have outlined. I should think that any miracle of divine nature would have a purpose; as we discussed during our debate over prophesy, God will not be mocked, and a miracle that has no meaning (like the underdog winning the superbowl) would fall under this category. So I can't think of any rational argument for this point and I will accept it as you have written.

That should suffice for the time being. I'll write more hopefully Saturday night, maybe Sunday, but in the meantime if you want to rebuke my arguments with your points or alter the definitions you outlined please feel free. I'll address your current argument as it sits at the time I sit down to write a response.

Cory