On God and piggy banks

I was reading some things, and I had some ideas. I asked my friend what he thought about miracles. Sometimes asking someone else's opinion helps to clarify your own. I said I wasn't so sure science could disprove the existence of miracles. I asked how he'd define a miracle. He said something like "divine intervention." So I asked "intervention of what?" He said they could be called God's intervention of reality. I didn't like this so much; it wasn't workable. After all, to say that God interrupts reality would be to say that he exists outside of reality. If He's not part of reality, then He isn't real, and that wouldn't help him to accomplish much of anything, even miracles. Following this logic, it's impossible to interrupt reality, since only something nonexistent could do so. And nonexistent things are lazy, they don't do anything. But who can blame them? They don't even exist! I decided that to define anything, you must assume it's actuality.

Define "unicorn." I'd call it a horse with a horn. To say that a unicorn is or has anything is to admit to its existence, if for nothing but the purpose of definition. Now, no part of me believes that unicorns are in any way real, but in order to give it meaning, I have to pretend. So if you don't believe in God, or miracles, suck it up while we play dictionary. Entertain the idea, and it will certainly return the favor.

Miracles, as I've come to conceive them, are God's intervention of nature. More than that though. I interrupt nature when I mow the lawn. That's no miracle. You might say of miracles that they are God's suspension of natural law. To be real, and for miracles to be real, and for this discussion to be real, God must exist within reality. Just as for me to be American, I must exist within America (this is just an example, I impose no spatiality or nationality on God, and of course, I can leave America and still be American). But for God to have created the universe, time, and nature, he must exist outside of it. Beyond nature, or in a word, supernatural. Easy example:  If I've built a house, I had to have lived outside of it during and prior to its construction.

Now, as I see it, humans exist within nature, within the universe, the house God built. Science studies this house. Science, all sciences really, aim to identify, define, and test natural law. That is, science can tell you that, according to the law of gravity, a ball thrown into the air will undoubtedly become a ball falling to the ground. Assuming no interference. Mind that statement.

Likewise, the laws of arithmetic will ensure you that if you drop five pennies into your piggy bank one day, and another five pennies the next day, there will be in your piggy bank ten pennies. Now what if I snuck in while you were at work earning more pennies, and I stole three of them (I'd never do this). When you came home, you'd count seven pennies. Would the laws of arithmetic tell you why there are only seven and not ten? Of course not. But all arithmetic could tell you is the amount you should find in your bank, assuming no interference. A miracle, being an interference of natural law, God's intervention of science, could not be explained by science or natural law anymore than math can tell you about criminology.

What I'm getting at is this: just because science shows no evidence of miracles, gives us no reason to believe in them, and in fact gives us every reason not to, this is not at all because they aren't real. It is because science studies nature, whereas God exists independently of it. Expecting to find evidence of miracles with science would be like asking the dentist for his professional opinion about your broken leg.  Having such an expectation would be unfair to yourself, to science, to miracles, and to unicorns.