(January 17, 2017 at 2:25 pm)robvalue Wrote: We can never know what the "laws of nature" are. We just model them. If something doesn't fit our models, that doesn't mean it's breaking a law of nature. This equivocation seems to be more invulnerable than God. How is it a law, if something breaks it? It's just dumb word games.
People are just trying to say "it does impossible things".
I would claim that we have a reasonable understanding of the "Laws of Nature" as opposed to an absolute understanding. We can say with reasonable certainty that natural law tells us that a human cannot regrow a severed head. "Absolute" certainty about anything is an intangible concept. We cannot claim to be absolutely certain about anything. However, claiming to be reasonably certain about natural law is a valid claim...