If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone
ARE MIRACLES IMPOSSIBLE BY DEFINITION?
Christians say that the laws of nature are not rigid rules or rules at all. It is not literally a law that a brick cannot be eaten. To say the brick cannot be eaten is merely to describe not to prescribe. They think that saves them from the argument, "Nature does not change so miracles which break nature cannot happen."
Miracles – meaning divine acts which alter/suspend the laws of nature – are impossible. Another way to state this is to say that miracles are actions of creation performed by God that nature cannot do. A miracle is what is not naturally possible. It is a supernatural occurrence. It is paranormal.
Those who deny miracles happen on the grounds that they are impossible by definition are supposed to be like people who argue, “God by definition is impossible therefore atheism is correct.” They are taking for granted the very thing needs to be proven or shown believable. The Christians say the right approach is to have no preconceptions but just look at the evidence for miracles and on that basis one may believe they have happened. But why would you look at the evidence for miracles to see if they happen? Why care?
And the Christians do nothing to eliminate preconceptions. They accept the testimony of those who want to believe a miracle has happened that it has happened.
Also, there are some things that are probably false or impossible just by definition. Religion would say that the notion that the Devil is God is by definition impossible. It says that magic is by definition impossible. If the supernatural is not by definition impossible then nothing is.
The person who says no miracle is believable or true is accused of being a dogmatist - a person who makes their mind up regardless of the evidence.
Who is the worst dogmatist: the person who says they don’t believe in miracles or the person who says they do or the person who is agnostic in this matter? The person who believes is the worst assuming it is really right to call the others dogmatists. All of us are dogmatists about most or all supernatural reports being untrue.
Religion may say that there are no laws of nature - just patterns. The so-called laws of nature can be ignored by God because they are not laws but descriptions of how we expect things to behave based on our observation. But the fact that say planets have gravity can be as rigid as a law. Just because it is not law in the usual sense does not mean it can be ignored. It could be functionally the same as law without being law.
If you want to us the word law for this, then God is not tied down to the natural laws he makes unless he binds himself to them. So the notion that God makes laws that he intends to suspend at times is merely a notion. Maybe he does and maybe he does not. It is wisest to assume that the laws are static. A wise God will be able to make static laws for they will be good laws.
We have shown the uselessness of the only answer to the declaration that miracles are impossible. We have shown, "Those who say that God makes nature work a certain way and will not change it are forgetting God can do what he wants" forgets that God making rigid laws of nature or regulating it without exceptions could be God doing what he wants! Their argument is an insult to God. Do they want to insult God to believe in the pope and other cranks who say miracles are real?
Is natural "law" God’s language? Is the natural law that a brick won’t talk to you to be understood as God communicating to you through nature that bricks do not talk? If there is a God then the laws are language. God then will not change them.
A miracle is thought to be an event that tries to touch the human heart and lift it to godliness. If that is what a miracle is about, then it follows that a butterfly charming you and making you feel spiritual is a bigger miracle than a bleeding statue of Mary that does not stir anything in you. Why would God have to act as if he is violating nature when he does not need to?