Can Matter Be Separated From the Laws of Nature?

Edited by Lexi Bilous

Abstract

If there are such things as miracles, then the debate arises of whether or not they violate the laws of nature. Those on the side of miracles being violations of the laws of nature turn to the distinction between matter and the laws of nature for support, while those on the opposing side claim that matter in itself is defined through the laws of nature. It seems that to engage in the debate, first the question of matter and whether or not it is separable from the laws of nature needs to be asked. After such a question is dealt with, only then can one turn to asking if miracles are violations of the laws of nature. In this paper, I will be examining the views on both sides of the debate, and I will try to prove that miracles do violate the laws of nature. In this paper, I will first explain the discourse around miracles and whether or not they are violations of the laws of nature while referencing other philosophers' thoughts on the matter. Robert A. Larmer argues that miracles do not involve violations of the laws of nature, because God could create or annihilate matter, resulting in a sufficient enough change to the world to cause a miracle, while leaving the laws of nature untouched. To this, Neil W. MacGill raises the objection that a change in the amount of matter will result in a change to the laws of nature. To this, Larmer essentially replies that a universe with more or less mass would have the same laws of nature. This essay will dive deeper into Larmer’s reply to MacGill, and I will put forth the case for why Larmer’s reply is rather unsatisfactory. I argue that what Larmer needed to do to put to rest MacGill’s objection was to show how the laws of nature are not dependent on matter. I will put forth my attempt to provide a satisfactory reply to MacGill’s objection. Regardless, such a reply will bring with it flaws of its own, which I will address. Without my counterpoint, MacGill’s objection still holds, which means that Larmer has yet to show how miracles do not violate the laws of nature. Insofar MacGill’s objection holds, Larmer has yet to prove that miracles do not violate the laws of nature. With this lack of sufficient explanation for the phenomenon, it can be concluded that miracles do in fact violate the laws of nature.