One violation of natural law overthrows all laws

Suppose a miracle is a violation of nature.

To say a miracle is against the law of nature implies that the laws of nature are not laws anymore for they have been changed. For example, nature says communion wafers do not bleed but if one bleeds that nature is wrong and will be wrong forever. Then you cannot say it is a law that communion wafers do not bleed. There is no way you can do science if you do.  If you cannot trust science and trust reality as consistent with reality then how can you know if something is really a miracle? You are accusing scientists of being wrong and you are slandering their profession. The doctrine that miracles are against nature makes the laws of nature less certain and reduces our faith in them while we are better off the more realistic we are. Why would God give us reason and senses if he wants us to be less certain?

It is not true that a miracle can be a violation of only one law. All the universal laws work together. If God makes a plant grow out of a grain of sand as in violation of nature then think about how many laws that contradicts. A country that is overthrown may still have elements that are overthrown but do not look it. What if the government stays in place but now has a dictator?

It is argued that occasional breaks of the law of nature are fine (page 137, Believing in God) so miracles should be very rare. But if communion wafers do not bleed then if they bleed once or a billion times it makes no difference for then it is no longer true that communion wafers never bleed. To say that miracles should be rare is to admit that the miracles of Jesus which are many according to the New Testament are dubious.  And if they are rare today will they still be rare in five seconds time?

To break one law of nature is to break them all. For example, if a black hole becomes a grapefruit that is not breaking one law but every single law of nature. Those who say it does not are forgetting that the rest of nature seeming normal is irrelevant. To be an honest believer in miracles drives you to some dangerous conclusions.

If God makes a secret law of nature that he can use to make a statue bleed then what happens to the law that statues do not bleed? Then it is not a law. If there is a law that 1 + 1 = 2 how can this be true if there is a law that 1+1=3? To believe in miracles one must hold that God changes his mind about the laws he created.
If 1 plus 1 is 3 in a village in Spain that calls for as much attention and examination as 1 plus 1 being 3 in the whole of the universe would be. A miracle challenges the way things happen in the same way that that would challenge mathematics. For example, if 1 + 1 = 3 is true anywhere it is true everywhere. It is a universal law. If somebody can instantly cure the incurable that means the diseases cured are no longer incurable and this becomes a universal law too.
Imagine that when two natural laws are brought together they result in a specific result that we will call result X. You could say that law 1 plus law 2 is equal to result X. If a miracle interferes with this then the two laws bring about a different result. It is the same scenario as 1 and 1 = 2 being changed to 1 and 1 = 3. Believers say that this is wrong. It is law 1 plus law 2 plus miracle law 3 = a different result from X.
It is a matter of worldwide concern when a miracle takes place.  Although the world would not be concerned it ought to be. The view that the bigger the miracle the greater the evidence is a mistake. True, you need almost unattainable evidence for a big miracle for it is big but you are no better off with smaller ones. Why? The manifestation may differ but the nature of the event is the same, it defies what we know of nature. This evidence is so difficult and time-consuming to verify that clearly all believers in miracles are inferring that evidence is not so important and if so, then we should believe crackpots who claim revelations about the end of the world! 

Believers say God can change nature but what use is a can?  It does not follow that he does.  It does not follow that if a miracle is accompanied by evidence that he meant to give it.  Satan could act and provide evidence for a miracle if the context can give a distorted view of what God has done.  Miracles are about trying to justify spiritual thought systems not reverence.  They are about what man wants.  For that reason, if Hume was right that miracles contradict nature, he is still right if there is a God for no God would let man use miracles to craft religions.  Man-made religion is inherently an abuse of power.

Lourdes etc
Free Books