Recently there have been in the journals a large number of papers on miracles. The issue debated centred on whether miracles, as violations of natural law by a deity, are possible. Alstair McKinnon, George D. Chryssides and P. S. Wadia contend that the concept of a violation of natural law is defective. Others like Guy Robinson and Malcolm Diamonds claim that the acceptance of miracles constitutes a challenge to scientific autonomy. There have also been defenders of miracles, to name just a few: R. F. Holland, Richard Swinburne and R. C. Wallace. What is, however, overlooked (at any rate not extensively considered) in these polemical discussions is whether theist religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) require miracles, and if they do, whether the concept of a miracle required is that of a violation of a law of nature by God. In the present paper I shall argue for an affirmative response to both questions.
In his provocative 'The Ontological Argument', 1 Stephen Makin I defends Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence found in ' Proslogion 3, which, according to him, is not open to the fatal objection that 'existence is not a predicate'. But since it has been held that thê notion of a 'necessary being' makes no sense, Makin felt the need to
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.