Someone disprove this logic, please! I can’t believe that it was this easy. I must have gotten something wrong.
This is a proof of possibility, not a proof of occurrence in fact.
- Does science explain phenomena before they occur or after they occur?
- If before they occur, explain how (Hint: prediction is not explanation)
- If after they occur, go to 2
- Is science required before a feat can be performed?
- If Yes, explain most athletic feats, which are performed by non-scientists without a scientific understanding of the feat
- If No, go to 3
- Is it possible that science will figure out a way to walk on water sometime in the future?
- If No, what’s your proof?
- If Yes, go to 4
- Would walking on water be considered a miracle by today’s standards?
- If No, describe non-miraculous walking on water
- If Yes, go to 5
- If walking on water is possible, might other feats considered miracles by today’s standards also be possible?
- If No, explain why walking on water is an exception
- If Yes, go to 6
- So, to recap:
- Yes, feats can be performed before science can explain them.
- Yes, feats be performed without explaining them scientifically.
- Yes, feats be performed by people without scientific understanding of the feat.
- Yes, walking on water could someday be scientifically possible.
- Yes, walking on water is considered a miracle by today’s standards.
- Yes, if walking on water is possible, other feats considered miracles by today’s standards are also possible.
- Therefore, feats considered miraculous by today’s standards are scientifically possible.
Prove me wrong, I dare ya! 😉