Reply #9: There is no "problem" with the definition I gave [View All]

[Bear down under]

Don't forget, defining something doesn't prove its existence -- it is perfectly possible to define something entirely imaginary, like Beethoven's Tenth Symphony or the square root of minus two.

A definition may, however, set the necessary conditions for the thing defined to exist. In this case, one of the defined conditions for a miracle to happen is that the laws of nature are suspended.

Now, it is legitimate to argue that they cannot be, and therefore miracles do not happen; but that is moving from definition to argument which calls for proof. To define the laws of nature as inviolable -- "if they could (be suspended) they wouldn't be laws" -- doesn't offer proof but merely another definition.

Notice, I am not asserting that miracles can or do occur!