Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marchionni to Rosen: Open note
Message-ID: <1029@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 11:02:35 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.1029
Posted: Tue Feb 19 11:02:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Feb-85 05:26:47 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 63

>Now that you  are reading this Rich.  What is your position on
>miracles?  The Roman Church goes to GREAT LENGTHS (it's in N.Dakota) to
>prove physically that a miracle took place.  We do this by trying to prove
>that no known physical laws could have accounted for said miracle.  Here we try
>to use science to prove that an occurance has no PHYSICAL explanation and MUST
>have come from God.

This is not a valid application of science. (See below) 

>We have three basic sources  for  things
>
>NATURE and therfore explainable by science
>GOD and the saints and angels for supernatural good things like grace and help
>DEVIL for supernatural bad things like Demonic Possession and temptations
>(see life ain't so difficult or complicated :-)  )

The last two are assumptions that are highly questionable. I assume that
the point of discussing miracles at all is to gain some insight as to whether
or not there exists something outside of nature. If so then you are already
assuming what you set out to prove. Otherwise read on.

>I KNOW that you define away God, angels, saints and devils. But what
>about explaining things that science can't?
>One way of looking of looking at miracles is an "experiment" which proves
>something by arguing to a contradiction.
>
>We want to prove that there is a God that has multiple properties.
>We agree that science explains the natural and it does so COMPLETELY.
>There are two planes of existence the natural and the supernatural.
>Our God rules all of existence (this is one of His properties above).
>We observe an occurrance that science CANNOT explain therefore it is not
>in the natural plane.
>There is only one plane left so it must be from God and supernatural since
>natural forces (weather for example) obey scientific laws and man accounts for
>other happenings also obeying scientific laws (unless it is a metaphysical
>problem which are not the point here since miracles are NOT metaphysical
>events).

Your argument seems to be:
   1) Events happen which can't be explained by science.
   2) Since they are observed to occur, then there must be something
      outside of science to explain (and hence cause) them.
   3) Therefore, God and the supernatural exist.

The flaws in this kind of reasoning are as follows:
   1) As you state, you assume that science explains the natural COMPLETELY.
      This is incorrect. Science makes no claims to explain everything
      at any stage of developement. 
   2) To reason that the failure of science to explain an event constitutes
      proof that the Supernatural exists is grossly in error. All that
      you can conclude is that our understanding of things leaves much
      to be desired. For example, in the past, static electricity would
      have been described as a supernatural event because it could not
      be explained. Nowadays there are few people who would believe this
      in the light of advances in our knowledge.  In a nutshell- 
      To argue that "we can't explain this event. Hence...." is an argument
      that is literally based on ignorance.

Because of the above flaws this argument fails to show the existence
of anything outside of Nature.

Incidentally, would you consider the "miracles" that "occur" at Lourdes
good examples (in the sense that they "prove" your point?)