las.So, your logic is that these supernatural miracles are given validity and seem more plausible since they are a recurring theme in the bible and not just one off events? What kind of thinking is that. Though of course it would be totally reasonable for you to have that thought process if you were actually there to recount these events first hand, but you weren't. Instead you're just taking the word of millennia old fairy tales written in the bronze-age.
Having recently finished C.S. Lewis' book on miracles, I'd like to add a few comments here. First off, I think the preliminary issue here is whether naturalism is indeed true. If naturalism is true, nature is "the whole show", and we could not expect anything from outside this system to act within the closed system of nature. The laws of nature which we observe must never be altered or violated. If naturalism is false, then it must be determined if there is something operating "outside" of the system, and whether or not that something (be it God or some other entity), would be able to intervene (or even want to intervene) with the laws of the universe. So I suppose we have a few things to figure out before we can even address the question of possibility of miracles.
Lewis rejects naturalism, using the argument from reason. This argument seems to have been popularized by Lewis, was heavily criticized by Elizabeth Anscombe, and was revised by Lewis thereafter. Recently, Victor Reppert has advanced this argument, and it seems that Thomas Nagel accepts a form of the argument as well.(I haven't read Nagel or Reppert yet, but I plan to at least read Reppert's book on the subject in the future). Anyway, I'm not going to pretend I am in the least bit "fully read up" on this argument, but here is the argument, (as formulated by Lewis), in a nutshell.
1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred (from 1 and 2).
4. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence
5. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism.
That seems to be how Lewis resolves the naturalism vs. supernaturalism issue in "Miracles". I suspect people will find parts of it disagreeable, but I'm just laying out a possible preliminary thought process here before we get to the question of miracles.
The following questions of "if a supernatural being exists, could it interfere with nature?" and "if a supernatural being exists, would it want to interfere with nature?", seem somewhat subjective to me and full of lengthy philosophical discussion, so I'll just jump ahead a little here. Lets just assume (for the sake of the discussion) that God exists, and we are trying to determine the case for miracles. To be sure, most miracles we hear about certainly have naturalistic explanations which tend to come out when they come under heavy scrutiny. I would agree that, if miracles do occur, they would certainly be extremely rare, and most of them would have happened close to the great events in Biblical history, which we are unable to seriously study some 2,000 or so years later. Perhaps one of the few alleged miracles of Biblical importance that we can assess in the resurrection of Christ, as His life, death, and empty tomb are well documented.
I suppose I've now made it to your objection, which seems to be that the stories of biblical miracles probably arose due to a lack of scientific explanation for certain phenomena that were inexplicable to the people of that time. I do not think that is the case for most miracles. I'll use the example of the alleged virgin birth of Christ by Mary. If anyone isn't familiar with the story, you can read about it in the Gospels of Mark or John.
Joseph of course, knew as well as anyone today where babies come from. He knew that Mary must have been unfaithful to him, so he decided to divorce her quietly. His scientific understanding of this matter was as good as anyone of us. However, as the account goes, he discovers that the conception was a miraculous act of God. He doesn't say "Well, everyone knows that virgins don't conceive, so God must be wrong on this". Instead was astonished by the miracle, because that is exactly what a miracle is, something that could not happen under the prevailing laws of nature as we normally observe them.
