To quote Michael Martin in his TANG (Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God): "[Science] presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false."
I see this line of thinking as fundamentally flawed. First, natural laws are not commandments, they're simply descriptions for observed regularities. While miracles could be interpreted as mere irregularities and vice versa, I see no logical impossibility in one presupposing regularity for the sake of doing science while also allowing for violations, or divine intercession, from time to time, particularly if there was such persuasive evidence for an irregularity so peculiar (such as a resurrected body) that appeal to an outside power appeared to be the most probable solution.
I see this line of thinking as fundamentally flawed. First, natural laws are not commandments, they're simply descriptions for observed regularities. While miracles could be interpreted as mere irregularities and vice versa, I see no logical impossibility in one presupposing regularity for the sake of doing science while also allowing for violations, or divine intercession, from time to time, particularly if there was such persuasive evidence for an irregularity so peculiar (such as a resurrected body) that appeal to an outside power appeared to be the most probable solution.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
