Why shouldn't we necessarily discontinue scientific investigation simply because any or all of our current laws may be stunted? Because the general philosophy of science assumes only that the ultimate answers will be rationally principled and theoretically observable. Within those bounds, science is a process of definition. The "laws of science" are not "the laws that encapsulate science" but merely "the best laws suggested through the conduct of science so far." Positively speaking, we necessarily should continue scientific investigation because the demonstrated accuracy of scientific laws correlates positively with changes to those laws over time, whereas the demonstrated accuracy of non-scientific ideas do not correlate positively with changes to those ideas over time.



I don't agree with that last statement. The fundamental criticism is not that supernatural theories don't play by the laws of physics, but that supernatural theories don't play by the same meta-rules by which natural laws may be rationally accepted. If you wouldn't accept a natural law that asserts X, then why would you accept a supernatural theory that asserts X? And so if you are going to assert X, then you might as well accept it as a natural law, not a supernatural theory.

Say I owe you money and you ask me, "Where's the money you owe me?" And in reply, I suggest, "Maybe my bank has already paid you with supernatural coinage. It's not observable, so we can't prove it's not in your account now." You criticize me saying, "That's a ridiculous theory: it doesn't play by the laws of economics!" And I reply, "Maybe you're right, but it isn't obligated to do so. That's the beauty of supernatural money." When all and said and done, supernatural money is a cop-out. If I'm willing to assert a transaction at all, then I ought to be willing to back that assertion up with observable currency. Or, just because a theory is logically possible, that isn't sufficient to make it rationally acceptable.



For me it's not about assuming that unobservable things can't exist, but rather about conceding our experiences will always be as if there were no unobservable things. Even if they do exist where they themselves are concerned, they don't exist where we are concerned. Whether or not Bob exists, if you know he'll never eat with you, then there's no point in setting a place for him at the table. (And in fact, to do so may be poor thing to do if it means paying less attention to Rita, who might or might not eat with you now, but at least you know she does so on occasion.)

The fact that you did observe all those anecdotal miracles and horrors is proof enough that they were natural, independent of meaning. We don't need to accommodate the supernatural to interpret those events as divine or demonic.



But it does not follow from "the First Cause is inescapable" that the First Cause is of a different substance or higher plane than the First Effect. The entire cosmos may be God willing His body to dance. Divine creation is possible without supernatural separation.