Let us suppose for the moment that you're right and that there's nothing weird going on.

Why is it that most people need miracles to believe in God? Why do I say this? Just to make my case, I don't think there would be any Christians if Jesus hadn't done anything miraculous e.g. resurrect after death, etc. Nor would there be any Moslems or Jews without miracles. What we can infer from this fact is that the natural order is not sufficient evidence for God.

Andrewk mentions in his post about the relative worth of the two evidences, stating that miracles are ''stronger'' evidence.

So, why is it that way? In such a way of thinking (most everybody) isn't there the implicit assumption that natural order is NOT evidence of God and that its contradictory - miracles - is evidence?

Logically speaking the argument (C) is valid - anything follows a contradiction. But it is unsound because contradictions (N & ~N) are always false. — TheMadFool

There is nothing illogical about an object having a property at one time, and not having that same property at another time. So we may observe, at one time, natural order, and at another time, a miracle. There is nothing contradictory here, N at one time, not-N at another.

From the observation of natural order, we cannot conclude that natural order is necessary, that is the problem with inductive logic. So even if we conclude from observation, "there is natural order", this natural order is not necessary, it is still possible that at another time or place, there may not be natural order.

Therefore there is no contradiction between arguments A and B, they refer to the world at different times, or different aspects of the world.

By natural order I mean the laws of nature, which is currently the domain of science. By miracle I mean the violation of natural order. Note that natural order and miracles are contradictory with respect to each other. — TheMadFool

It's would only be contradictory if one were to say both (A) "There is only the natural order. Nothing aside from the natural order is possible" and (B) "Miracles are possible."

Religious believers are not saying that though. In their view--and this would obviously follow from the beliefs--God is both the creator of the natural order and God is transcendent to the natural order, which enables Him to circumvent the natural order within the context of His creation, including the natural order.

There are two mistakes you're making in your formal arguments that follow:

(1) No one who is arguing that miracles occur is arguing that there is no natural order. They're saying that there's a natural order, but miracles occur, too. It's fine saying that miracles violate the natural order insofar as they occur, but no one is saying that they violate the natural order wholesale. Or in other words, they're not making the claim (A) that I specified above. You're committing the fallacy of equivocation in that argument. N and ~N are not being claimed in the same respect, the same context, etc. Miracles occur because God transcends the natural order and is able to circumvent it in the context of the natural order. Again, this doesn't happen wholesale. That doesn't negate N in the sense that N is asserted, because N still exists in the sense in which N was asserted.

(2) Unless we're specifying that we're doing another species of logic than traditional bivalent logic, "God exists" follows from the argument just as well as "God doesn't exist" does, because everything follows from contradictory premises. (This is due to the definition of validity, which is this: "An argument is valid just in case it's impossible for it's premises to be true and/or its conclusion false." An argument with contradictory premises is an argument where necessarily, it's impossible for it's premises to be true, therefore the argument is valid regardless of what the conclusion is. Many people had a problem with this, hence the development of relevance logics.)

Why is it that most people need miracles to believe in God? Why do I say this? Just to make my case, I don't think there would be any Christians if Jesus hadn't done anything miraculous e.g. resurrect after death, etc. Nor would there be any Moslems or Jews without miracles. — TheMadFool

I don't believe that we know this, and I'm skeptical that we could know it.

We could attempt a survey of religious believers, but the problem with that would be that they'd have to make guesses about what their beliefs would be in a counterfactual situation.

What we can infer from this fact is that the natural order is not sufficient evidence for God.

Unless that's a bit of anthropology, where you're making a statement about what's sufficient evidence for individuals statistically, you're implicitly making a claim that what counts as sufficient evidence for something hinges on what the mob happens to believe relative to evidence. Is that really a claim you want to make?

Al least we're in agreement that contradictions are logically bad.

What is natural order? Rules and laws that govern all phenomena in the universe (every time and every place). I thought the bracketed clause was understood and needed not explicit clarification. Who in the world would think that natural order didn't implicitly include both temporal and spatial universality? Without these elements natural order would be meaningless.

What is a miracle? A suspension or violation of natural order. A miracle is an aberration of natural order and wherever and whenever it occurs, natural order collapses.

So, there is a contradiction since both natural order and miracles are mutually exclusive. They're not sufficiently separated, neither temporally nor spatially as you imply, to NOT constitute a contradiction.

What is natural order? Rules and laws that govern all phenomena in the universe (every time and every place). I thought the bracketed clause was understood and needed not explicit clarification. — TheMadFool

A lot of religious believers--probably most of them--don't believe in a natural order in that sense. They believe that there are rules that govern most phenomena that occur (which is what they often call the "natural order"), but they also believe that God created and transcends that natural order, and that He can change aspects of it to perform miracles and the like. Some might even say that the natural order does indeed govern all phenomena in the universe--but then they'd say that God created and transcends the universe. (They'd not agree that "the universe" refers to "everything there is, including God." And that "the universe" doesn't cover all that exists is a more popular view than ever, with all of the "multiverse" talk in the sciences.)

If you wanted to, you could say that "they don't really believe in a natural order," but it would be important to realize that a lot of people use terms like "natural order" in a way that you think is misconceived or wrong or whatever you'd say. And I wouldn't say that anyone is saying anything contradictory re saying that both the natural order and miracles are evidence of God, unless they explicitly agree with your take on what "natural order" refers to (and they explicitly agree that "universe" covers everything there is, including God).

counterfactual — Terrapin Station

I had to chuckle at this. "Counterfactual" refers here to a world in which there are not miracles. That's meta, dude.

What say you? — TheMadFool

I say you merely repeated yourself, and didn't address anything I (and probably the others) wrote. :-}

What is natural order? Rules and laws that govern all phenomena in the universe (every time and every place). I thought the bracketed clause was understood and needed not explicit clarification. Who in the world would think that natural order didn't implicitly include both temporal and spatial universality? Without these elements natural order would be meaningless. — TheMadFool

Do you understand the difference between descriptive laws and prescriptive laws? Descriptive laws such as the laws of physics describe the world as we know it. Prescriptive laws tell us how we must behave. To say that phenomena is "governed" by laws is to equivocate between these two uses of "laws". The laws of physics describe the physical universe, they do not govern it.

Clearly the descriptive laws of physics which are produced by human beings cannot govern the universe. Nor can the prescriptive laws of the various legal systems in the world, which are also produced by human beings, govern all the phenomena in the universe. If you are assuming that there are some prescriptive laws, laid down by God, which govern all the phenomena in the universe, how do you think that God would enforce these laws? Suppose some phenomenon refused to obey the laws, like human beings sometimes refuse to obey the laws. Do you think God would punish that phenomenon? Do you think God rewards phenomena for good behaviour (acting according to His laws)?

I think your conception of "natural order" is more than a little bit confused.