, , , , ,

As Dr. Keener explains, the argument that miracles violate the laws of nature is based upon a presupposition as to the nature and actions of God:

Even when it appears that God works otherwise, one would speak of violation technically only if one viewed God as subject to such laws, or “interfering” as if nature were autonomous and God did not normally act there. If one defines miracles as involving the supernatural, this aspect of the definition must be taken into account when defining what is naturally “impossible,” since on theistic grounds it could remain supernaturally possible (cf. Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27). One could allow (with deists) that God established natural activity as a norm. Yet one could without any inconsistency also allow (against deists) that God can also act in nature in ways that differ from the norm without articulating this discretion as if it must be subject to the norm. One could view God as an agent modifying causal conditions (as agents by definition can) without “violating” natural law.”

Craig Keener, Miracles