Miracles - is "thought" subject to the laws of science?

[RJT]

(Without trying to stir up a Protestant-Catholic debate, I need to use one of the big differences in our Faiths in an example. Also, I don’t really want to defend these particular examples against science. - Although, I will try, if need be. - This is just a way I look at the Mysteries of our Faith. It is a way that I can conceive of things. Obviously, if I "understood" them, they would not be “Mysteries” and I would not need faith.

Catholics believe in transubstantiation (I‘ll call A for simplicity.)
Protestants believe in B - I can’t think of the word they use off the top of my head.

Catholics believe that during our Mass, when the priest says the Eucharistic Prayers, bread and wine are literally changed into the Body and Blood of Christ (A).

Protestants ( and they can explain their beliefs better, but I think I am ok to say that they) believe the bread and wine do not literally change, that it is symbol (B).

Now Catholics don’t actually think that if a scientist were to perform DNA test on the bread and wine before and after, that there would be any difference. It is “another worldly” kind of thing.

I think we can look at Miracles like transubstantioan (and indeed we do believe it is a Miracle).

To give another analogy, we can view Miracles as we do our mind - our thinking. Thinking does not evolve anything that is subject to physical laws as we know them*. (Least I don’t think thinking does.) Thinking is not mass and energy that can be captured -am I not correct?

So, if thinking is certainly acceptable to science, then I think we can make the argument that Miracles can be too.

The following are two examples of how I like to understand Miracles, not sure if others do this way or not:

Miracles do not have to be literal in the sense that Jesus appeared physically to folk when He Resurrected as we understand the physical world. That is not to say He didn‘t actually Resurrect. But, if God is of another world so to speak, He could easily have let the witnesses see Him (almost like thinking they see Him) as we see things normally day to day. Again, this is not to say it was an illusion. It could be “understood” (at least to me) that he performed said Miracle, witnesses perceived seeing Him just as we perceive Joe Blow walking down the street. And that it was real - but not how we mean the word real when we use it normally. And some might not have been able to “see” Him at all.

A kind of sci-fi analogy that might be understandable to what it is I am trying to say: Let’s say God could stop time -like in the Twilight Zone. God freezes time. Pops in, says hi to the disciples, they only see Him, then He pops out. This all happens so fast that no one else sees diddly. Again, obviously I am not saying this is how it works, but I think one can better understand what the word Miracle can mean and still not be in conflict with science. And again Time was not stopped - that would go against physics (I assume). It is analogy.

Perhaps, this only makes non-believers think how ridiculous we sound. But, “that’s my story and I am sticking to it”.

*If science can explain thought -then perhaps this is a good topic for kbfc to write about. Kbgc, you would have, again, at least an audience of one (me again).