The debate over miracles reduces to presuppositions. If we assume that God does not exist, or is an impersonal entity, or cannot or will not intervene in his creation, we have ruled out the possibility of the miraculous. If we assume that God does exist, that he is personal, and that he can and will intervene in the creation he owns, we have accepted the possibility of miracles. Which presupposition is more credible?

I would of course argue for supernaturalism, but not just because of my own experience with a personal, active God. You may well consider my experience to be misguided, manipulated, or misinterpreted. But consider the following objective facts.

: those who have never experienced miracles are by definition unqualified to pass judgment on their existence or nature. Miracles, like all experiences, are most credible to those who encounter them firsthand. It is impossible for a blind person to experience "red," or for a hearing impaired person to experience music. We can explain light and sound spectra all morning long, but the person may continue to reject the existence of color and sound. A blind scholar is less qualified to judge a new work of visual art than an uneducated sighted person.

Thomas Sherlock made a similar point nearly two centuries ago. In arguing for the miraculous, he asked whether it would be legitimate for anyone living in a warm climate to believe in the existence of ice. Growing up in Houston, Texas, my personal experience would require me to reject completely the possibility of an ice storm. In this light, a spiritual skeptic is less qualified to discuss the miraculous than one who has experienced personally the supernatural God.

: miracles are more probable than improbable. Science works with probabilities, not absolute certainties. Parallel lines never intersect, we're told; but we'd have to draw them forever to prove the assertion. In the calculation of "pi," three successive "seven"s do not appear. At least so far, in the millions of places to which the number has been calculated. But we cannot be sure.

Scientists must content themselves with probabilities. So let's ask: is it more or less probable that something miraculous sparked the Christian movement? Is it likely that men who were too afraid of the authorities to stand at Jesus' cross would soon die on their own rather than abandon their belief in his resurrection? That a scattered, frightened group of fugitives would lead a movement which would replace the Roman Empire as the dominant force in the Western hemisphere? That a faith held by just a few hundred would today be cherished by a third of the world's population? Is it more probable that this movement is founded on the lie that Jesus rose from the dead, or on the truth of his resurrection and divinity?

: miracles are part of that dimension of experience which is not susceptible to scientific verification. Scientists limit themselves to the proper method for the subject to be investigated. Test tubes work in chemistry, not quantum physics.

In the same way, it is important for us to use the proper tools in discussing the supernatural. In this regard, Ian Ramsey, a philosopher of language, makes a helpful distinction between the "first order" and "second order" of divine activity in the world. In the "first order," God is generally active in the universe. Here he operates according to natural, physical laws. The language of science is appropriate for describing and investigating the results of his creative activity.

In the "second order," God operates personally within his creation. Here his activity by definition is not subject to the natural laws which typically govern his universe. Since science can work only within these laws, it is unable to comprehend divine activity which transcends them.

Such inability is not the fault of science, but rather a result of its assigned field of study. We don't criticize a poet when her descriptions violate accepted laws of physical reality. We don't reject the laws of physics because they are unable to predict the behavior of people in love. Science and faith are no more at odds than geography and landscape art. Both describe the world from their own perspective. Neither is subject to the limitations of the other.