(July 1, 2010 at 9:48 am)Jaysyn Wrote:(July 1, 2010 at 9:07 am)rjh4 Wrote: How would you distinguish something supernatural from something natural that you just don't have an explanation for yet?
Miracles, by nature & definition, cannot have a natural explanation. If they did, they wouldn't be miracles & would fall under the domain of science.
I don't know as I agree with such a definition of miracles but, even so, that doesn't answer my question. If you are open to the possibility of miracles, how would you know when you saw one? How would you, personally, distinguish a miracle from a natural occurrence or coincidence? What test would you use? If you are telling me that anything that "can" have a natural explanation is not a miracle or supernatural, then it seems to me you position boils down to an a priori position that there are no such things as miracles or the supernatural since man can always provide a possible natural explanation for something even though they cannot reproduce it (in which case it would seem like you are not really open to the possibility).
