The subject of miracles has been gone over by many philosophers, recent and ancient. I tend to side with that strain of philosophy which strictly speaking denies there is such a thing as "natural law", in the sense that there are autonomous "laws" somehow floating around in a more subtle reality than the one we regularly experience and which must be coarsly "violated" in order for the "miraculous" to occur. Rather, I believe God sustains the universe (which would collapse into utter nothingness were He to withdraw His will for it's continued existance), and in doing so "orders"/administers it in a typically predictable way. With that said, if He chooses to do something out of the ordinary, it is no more amazing for Him to do such, no more "difficult" for Him to do such, than it is to keep it all chugging along in the fashion we ordinarily experience things. IOW, it is no more difficult or violent for God to raise the dead, instananeously remove disease, or fold the universe up like a garment, than it is for Him to cause the sun to rise or your kid's basketball to bounce according to ordinarily predictable principles.
I guess this view would be called a denial of causality. The "common sense" of men, and the natural sciences, imho are tenuous - for the simple reason that their rational is ultimatly based on what is typical, not what is absolutely possible/impossible (which strictly speaking, is anything and everything.) This is why, while I can see it's utility, ultimatly logic/reason are limited, and are (when all is said and done) "inductive" to some degree. Uniformism (particularly in science) is based on an assumption - the assumption being that because party-x has never observed a case of something, that their collective general observations betray a "law" or absolute rule.
IOW, I see no credible reason to deny outright the "miraculous", even if one does not already accept the totality of the Christian revelation.
Seraphim
