The Physics of Miracles

for miracles small and great.

Even "violation of the laws of nature" is not an argument against a frankly supernaturalist view of miracles (e.g. the physical intervention of angels, or the fresh creation or transformation of matter or energy where none had been before). The laws of nature have to be there and they have to be understood in order for a "miracle" to be defined. If nature had no laws, then to speak of an event that defies laws of nature would be to speak of nonsense. This does not rule out the coexistence of "miracles of coincidence" with supernaturalist miracles, of course.

The problem is that there are no "laws of nature", but rather regularities that we interpret as indicative of something permanent in reality. But if reality is itself an expression of person, as Genesis would say the Creation is the expression of God, or St Paul would say that Christ upholds the universe, then "laws of nature" turn out to be "attributes of divine personality". Well if it is God's attribute that is being broken in a supernatural event, what does it mean to say "God over-rules (super-natural) himself?"

I find it easier to think of "laws of nature" in the same way as "knowing a friend". We think we can predict our friend's behavior, but we are often surprised. Then "supernatural" really is just a description of our response, our surprise, not some sort of mental accident of the friend. So I would prefer to replace the definition of miracle with "an improbable event that bears a divine message."

The act of having miracles exist outside of the 'laws of nature' was touched upon in the book "The Physics of Christianity" and Tipler, too, pinned the blame for the misperception of what a miracle actually is squarely on Hume.

Also: great post!

extraordinary/unexpected divine providence that carries a personal message from God?

You seem to substitute "regularities of nature for "laws" of nature. And you seem to define "regularities" as patterns "that we interpret as indicative of something permanent in reality." However, can we not use the term "law" used to express that "permanence"? Of course, as a Christian, I'd want to say that this "permanence" is governed by the personal, triune God. Yet, I'd not say that "laws of nature" are "attributes of God," but that God governs his creation according to his attributes, i.e., he does nothing that would make him deny himself. In short, I want to uphold the Creator-creature distinct that Van Til rightly emphasized.

Wow. I had no idea that many things went into me not becoming a quadreplegic or dead. God is a God of wonders. That huge rooftop carrier packed with duffel bags smashed, it must've taken a whole bunch of momentum that would've gone into our heads and necks.
God is so amazing!
And I think that "Science is", to quote another Sheldon (no. 4) , "The observation of repeated miracles"