Evidence for God from Science

Alien, you're still confusing variability in an equation's solution (chaos and non-linearity) with the inabilty to solve that equation. If you can solve it then the system is deterministic, regardless of the variabilty and sensitity of the solution.

I'm completely with Marco on this and he's said pretty much everything that can be said in this regard. So I too, will take my leave.

Edit: OK, you're last post has cleared up some of this. I'll continue from your reply. 1 second.

Alien wrote: If you answerw yes, then I go on with my basic question to Marco (and to anyone):

How can you demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator only on the basis of physical laws that contain chaotic behaviour?

Dear Alien,

why should the presence of a chaotic behavior invalidate my argument for God's existence?

Chaos is only an estreme sensitivity to the initial conditions of certain specific systems. So, chaos creates no problems for any exact solutions of the given equations. Chaos only creates problems for those who want to predict the long-term evolution of the system, because our knowledge of the initial conditions is never exact. But the point is that the universe, independently from our capacity to make or not long-term predictions, is ruled by some specific mathematical equations; the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of such equations implies the existence of a personal God.

Your argument about chaos is inconsistent and irrilevant.

Ciao,

Marco

Alien wrote:Therefore, we continue with real systems only, because there is no disagreement (or misunderstanding??) about theoretical systems.

Ok, good. That's a start.

Alien wrote:As said above, I am not using the term "unpredictable" in absolute terms. It is not fully 100% predictable, therefore it is somehow "unpredictable". It's not playing with semantics: it's my attitude to avoid absolute quantities. You are probably more comfortable than me with absolute concepts.

Well obviously we could never measure exactly the properties (size, mass, velocity) of every body in the entire solar system, because you could always take this to a level of precision that's ludicrous - like how would we measure the position of jupiter to within 1 inch? So therefore, we can never know exactly the future state of the system.

But my question to you is why does this matter? In any real system we are taking measurements of what we can and using those values in our model of reality to produce meaningful predictions about the future state of the system. We don't require perfect precision, and we don't require omniscience. What we require is enough accuracy to act accordingly. In weather prediction, it would be great if we could predict it better. So if they can say whether it will sunny or raining I can plan my day better. If they get to the point where they can only tell me that the temperature will be between 24 celcius and 24.5 celcius rather than exactly 24.4 celcius, then why would that matter to me? If we could get to this point we would have the capability to effectively predict the weather in order for me to act appropriately upon this information, and beyond that I DO think that we're arguing semantics because the difference has no impact on our lives.

And in many real systems, we can currently model them such that any potential descrepancies are irrelevant - weather is not one of them yet.

Alien wrote:So a choatic system is more difficult to predict in practice because extremely small innacuracies in the measurements of our starting conditions causes large changes in the results of our predictions. In theory though, where we CAN define an exact starting state, a chaotic system is no less predictable than any other.

...

I don't disagree with the fact that we can start with a set of equations, a set of exactly defined initial conditions, and therefore come up to a set of time equations that predict the system.
I am saying that there is chaos even in deterministic systems. And here, I understood Marco was of a different opinion.

Yes, exactly. I think Marco would have no issue with this statement - he and I were questioning your relating this description of chaos to determinism.

Alien wrote:Would you agree that chaos is implicit in a deterministic system? As in my example of the three bodies and Solar System?
Would you agree that chaos is implicit in a non-deterministic system?

Is chaos implicit in a determinstic system? Chaos is implicit in some determinstic systems but not in others.
Is chaos implicit in a non-determinstic system? Chaos is irrelevant to a non-deterministic system because a non-deterministic system's future state is independent of it's initial state.

Alien wrote:How can you demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator only on the basis of physical laws that contain chaotic behaviour?

An intelligent creator is implied simply because those physical laws exist and their chaotic behaviour is certainly present but only to the extent that they preserve rather than destroy the capacity of the universe to sustain our existance.

Referring to Marco:

marcobiagini wrote:In fact, independently from the fact we are able or unable to predict exactly the evolution of physical systems, the fact that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations is sufficient to prove the existence of a conscious and intelligent God. The intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe implies the existence of a personal God.

Determinism and predictability are not the same. The former refers to the property of a physical system in which identical sets of initial conditions will always result in identical states at some future point in time. The latter refers only to our ability to know this through a combination of measurement and observation of physical processes. In any case, this is philosophy, not science.

All dynamical deterministic systems depend on initial conditions. In many (but not all) cases, nonlinear systems have a stronger dependence on initial conditions. Chaotic systems are no less deterministic than non-chaotic systems, but are often less predictable. It is incorrect (though common) to conclude that chaotic systems are not deterministic; they are just unpredictable.

However, the major problem with the argument given above is that lack of scientific predictability is being used to make conclusions (in this case about the existence of God). This is completely incorrect—science cannot conclude anything based on lack of prediction, other than the failure of the particular prediction.

From a philosophical viewpoint, there is a problem with using determinism to argue for any Christian concept of God. If everything is deterministic, then there is no free will; if there is free will, then the universe is not deterministic. If science is to show that free will is a quality of 'soul' or 'consciousness' then is must first define these concepts well enough to form a hypothesis and do an experiment which can potentially falsify the hypothesis; anything else is not science, just philosophy.

This is just a recycled argument: nature has order, order requires design, design requires a designer, and the designer is a Christian God. Everything else is just faulty logic hiding behind some scientific terms and contorted philosophic debate.

marcobiagini wrote: why should the presence of a chaotic behavior invalidate my argument for God's existence?

Marco,
your argument says that the existence of mathematical laws ruling the universe is a proof of the existence of an intelligent creator.

My objection is twofold.

1.
The presence of chaos in the deterministic laws of the universe looks like a sort of imperfection. In effect, chaos is just an interesting effect of the intrinsical imperfection of mathematic and logic. The absolute determinism does not exist. I cannot see how a set of "imperfect" laws can demonstrate the existence of a perfect ruler.
In other words, why didn't God create a perfect mathematical system for his universe?

2.
This one is a more general consideration.
Existence is evolution over time.
In principle any universe, in order to be able to evolve in time and therefore exist, must be based upon some sort of "rules". The existence of rules does not necessarily imply existence of a creator. This is simply because without any rule, nothing could exist.

Kelly wrote:Determinism and predictability are not the same.

In principle not, but they are closely interrelated.
Look at what Felgar posted:

Felgar wrote: (From Webster's def'n 1, 3rd entry)
Deterministic: <probability> Describes a system whose time evolution can
be predicted exactly.

Kelly wrote: However, the major problem with the argument given above is that lack of scientific predictability is being used to make conclusions (in this case about the existence of God). This is completely incorrect—science cannot conclude anything based on lack of prediction, other than the failure of the particular prediction.

This is why science cannot demonstrate anything (existence or non-existence) about God as an intelligent creator.

Kelly wrote: From a philosophical viewpoint, there is a problem with using determinism to argue for any Christian concept of God.

Kelly, it was my intention to arrive at your point, but you are very fast.
At the moment, I didn't want, yet, to explicitely refer to free will because this would be sufficiently off-topic.

At the end of the day, determinism cannot be used, and this is my objection to Marco, to demonstrate existence of God. My long discussion was intended to show that absolute determinism cannot exist, however.

But, even more, I am saying that any law, deterministic or not, does not imply any existence, apart of the existence of the law itself.

Felgar wrote: An intelligent creator is implied simply because those physical laws exist

And, once again, this implication is simply not scientific.

Alien wrote:
Marco,
your argument says that the existence of mathematical laws ruling the universe is a proof of the existence of an intelligent creator.

My objection is twofold.

1.
The presence of chaos in the deterministic laws of the universe looks like a sort of imperfection.

No, it isn't. Chaos represent only a limite for our capacity to predict future, because we do not know exactly the initial conditions.

Alien wrote:
In effect, chaos is just an interesting effect of the intrinsical imperfection of mathematic and logic. The absolute determinism does not exist.

Absolutely false. Absolute determinisn does exist. You go on confusing determinism with our capacity to predict future. I and others here have already expained this difference very well; I am surprised that you do not understand it yet.

Alien wrote: I cannot see how a set of "imperfect" laws can demonstrate the existence of a perfect ruler.

This is not my argument. My argument has nothing to do with the concept of perfection.

Alien wrote: 2.
This one is a more general consideration.
Existence is evolution over time.
In principle any universe, in order to be able to evolve in time and therefore exist, must be based upon some sort of "rules". The existence of rules does not necessarily imply existence of a creator. This is simply because without any rule, nothing could exist.

First of all, it is false that some rules must necessarily exist; there is no logical principle implying the existence of some rules: evolution could simply occur without any fixed rules.
Besides (and most importantly), your argument is not a valid objection against my argument. In fact, my point is that the laws ruling the universe have an intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature; hence, the existence of these laws implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God. Up to now, I have seen no valid objections to this argument.

Alien wrote: This is why science cannot demonstrate anything (existence or non-existence) about God as an intelligent creator.

But a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges lead to a valid proof of God's existence. In other words, it is not science, but our reason that proves God's existence; such a proof is scientific because it is not based on logics alone, as usual phylosophical arguments, but it is based on our scientific view of the universe. In other words, logics proves that atheism and agnosticism are incompatible with our scientific view of the universe.


Marco

Marco, your arguments are so fraught with logical inconsistencies and are so poorly expressed that it is not possible to pursue any meaningful discussion with you. However, I will refute your two essential claims, just so that others here less knowledgeable about science (but likely more intellectually honest) will not be mislead by false teachings.

1. Marco: “Science has in fact proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies then the presence in man of an unphysical element.
Such element, being unphysical, can be identified as the soul.

Completely wrong. First, no law of science “does not allow” consciousness. Nothing in science states that consciousness is unphysical. Second, lack of scientific explanation—“does not… account for the existence of consciousness”—does not make something unphysical. Science is incapable of proving that anything is unphysical. At best, science can only conclude that currently understood physical principles cannot explain an observation. Science can never conclude that it is impossible for any physical principle to account for an observation. By accepting the axiom of determinism, science cannot make any conclusions about non-deterministic systems, including that the system is non-deterministic.

2. Marco: “Science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations.”

Completely wrong. There is no evidence that mathematical equations *cause* any events in the universe to happen; there is only evidence that events in the universe cause the existence of mathematical equations. Every mathematical equation we know of has come into existence after the physical property or behavior it describes. There is no evidence whatsoever of pre-existing equations, therefore your claim of scientific proof is absolutely without any substance.

Marco, your very limited understanding of logic makes it impossible to debate this meaningfully. And even when/if you achieve a sufficient grasp of logic you still have a long way to go to define your terms: 'consciousness' 'soul', etc. Science cannot prove anything which is so ill-defined as to have no concrete meaning.

Your claims about scientific proof have absolutely no merit and are patently false. You are a false teacher.

Kelly wrote: First, no law of science “does not allow” consciousness. Nothing in science states that consciousness is unphysical.

As I have already said, it is a logical analisys of our scientific knowledges that proves the unphysical nature of consciousness; in fact no successions of elementary physical processes can generate consciousness since none of such elementary processes generates consciousness.

Kelly wrote:
Second, lack of scientific explanation—“does not… account for the existence of consciousness”—does not make something unphysical. Science is incapable of proving that anything is unphysical. At best, science can only conclude that currently understood physical principles cannot explain an observation.

The point is that consciousness trascends the laws of physics, because such laws do not account for the existence of consciousness; hence, materialism is incompatible with our scientific view of biological systems.
I would suggest you to read my answer to the question "can science explain consciousness in the future?" in the FAQ page of my site.

Kelly wrote: There is no evidence that mathematical equations *cause* any events in the universe to happen; there is only evidence that events in the universe cause the existence of mathematical equations.

Simply absurd. No events in the universe can cause the existence of a mathematical equation; in fact every mathematical equation is an abstract concept that can exist only a thinking mind.
Only a thinking mind can cause a mathematical equation to exist.

There is indeed an extraordinary evidence that some specific mathematical equations cause every event in the universe.
We have in fact billions and billions of systematic experimental data confirming this view. Thiose who deny that the events in the universe are caused by some mathematical equations are totally unable to account for the systematic agreement between our mathematical solutions and the experimental data.
I have already given the follwing example: no scientists would question the fact that the sun has a mass larger than the earth. Does this mean that we have an absolute logical proof for it? No, we haven't, but we have such a wide and consistent number of experimental data supporting such a view, that it is unreasonable to question it.
My point is that we have an even larger number of systematic and consistent experimental data supporting the idea that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations. It is then unreasonable to question this view; I think it would be less unreasonable to question that the sun has a larger mass than the earth.

Kelly wrote: Marco, your very limited understanding of logic makes it impossible to debate this meaningfully.

This is what I think of you; your statements are so absurd that I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Marco

Marco, this is your original thesis: “Scientific Proof of the Existence of the Soul and God”

This is absolute BS! You cannot provide a single peer-reviewed reference that makes this conclusion. Science has concluded no such thing.

Marco: “The point is that consciousness trascends (sic) the laws of physics, because such laws do not account for the existence of consciousness;”

This reasoning, if applied historically, would conclude that most of chemistry is unphysical, since prior to quantum mechanics, no one could “account for” the laws of chemical reactions.

Marco, I have looked at your website, and it is a bizarre concoction of philosophic garbage supported by cheap testimonials from supposed supporters of your ideas. You come across as a late night televangelist. This is not science.

I have no interest in debating this further. I am a practising theoretical physicist for the past 30 years. Anyone with an ounce of logical reasoning capabilities can see through your arguments. You are a tragedy. Finis.

Alien and Felgar, determinism is an axiom of science. That is to say, in order for the scientific method to be applied usefully in any situation, determinism must hold. Science requires that systems have reproducible properties in order that conclusions may be drawn; if there is no determinism, than the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion is of no use. It is not possible to absolutely prove determinism, since we are always up against the asymptotic limit of predictability. Chaos theory is not a failure of determinism; it is just a challenge to the 'conventional' methods of science, which are often based on the idea that complex systems may be modeled by solving simple systems, then applying this solution in an iterative way (assuming linearity) to complex systems. (This is the essence of Green's Function theory in mathematics.) Although it is true that, in a practical sense, chaotic systems are more difficult to model, they are nevertheless no less deterministic than any other system. Chaotic systems follow physical laws, and given infinite precision and accuracy, may be modeled with equal predictive power as any other system. Unfortunately, we do not have infinite precision in our measurement methods.

If you examine the history of science and religion, you will see that scientific failures are often cited as proof that God exists. However, science is a work in progress, and the corpus of scientific knowledge at any given time is only a representation of this work in progress. A bit of thought will tell you that science is incapable of concluding that any given observation is unphysical; in order for science to make this conclusion, it must first possess a provably complete understanding of our observable universe, and show categorically that the observation in question does not obey any physical law. Moreover, science must show that the observation obeys no laws at all; in other words, it is not deterministic. Determinism requires that identical sets of initial conditions for identical systems must be followed by identical time evolution for each of the identical systems. If this property holds, then the system is deterministic and can be accounted for on purely scientific terms. If this property does not hold, then the system is not deterministic and the scientific method yields no conclusion other than that system under study does not obey any known physical laws.

The problem with arguments like Marco's is that they are based on the premise that incomplete human knowledge or understanding—in many cases, just the absence of prediction due to the complexity of the system and the difficulty in specifying the initial conditions—suffices to demonstrate that a God must exist (Christian or otherwise). In Marco's specific example of consciousness, there is no evidence that there is anything unphysical about this property; no property of 'consciousness' has been shown to be unphysical. In order to show that consciousness is unphysical, it would be necessary to prepare a set of identical conscious systems, subject them to identical conditions, and demonstrate that the time evolution of each conscious being is different. Even supposing it was possible to do this, the only scientific conclusion one could make from this observation is that consciousness is not deterministic. Nothing further could be concluded.

Of course, it is very difficult to define what consciousness actually is, so it is impossible to state exactly what it is about consciousness that is unphysical, or carry out any of the experiments described previously. In the end, there are those who are uncomfortable with the limitations of the scientific method, and feel compelled to draw conclusions in the name of science which are not supported by the evidence. Science is really very simple: it requires that a well-formed hypothesis be generated, a set of experiments be designed and implemented which have the capability of supporting or refuting the hypothesis, and conclusions being drawn based on the evidence. If one cannot do an experiment, then it is not science. Period.

Most of us who are religious see the enormity of our universe—it laws and structure and unfathomable harmony—as sufficient evidence that God exists. It is not necessary to appeal to the scientific method to support our beliefs, for we know that any conclusion which may be drawn from this method is limited, and is but a single piece in the grand puzzle which makes us all believe in a power and force beyond what we are capable of understanding.

Kelly wrote:
Marco: “The point is that consciousness trascends (sic) the laws of physics, because such laws do not account for the existence of consciousness;”

This reasoning, if applied historically, would conclude that most of chemistry is unphysical, since prior to quantum mechanics, no one could “account for” the laws of chemical reactions.

This objection does not hold. Actually, the case of chemical reactions makes exactly my point. In fact, in order to account for the laws of chemical reactions, a new set of laws of physics was necessary (quantum mechanics). The same is for the case of consciousness: a new set of laws of physics would be necessary in order to account for consciousness.
But this hypthesis is unreasonable.
It is absurd to compare the present status of scientific knowledges with the situation before Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics represents a definitive turn in history, because for the first time in history, we have some mathematical equations providing a complete and consistent explanation of all low energy microscopic processes (which includes the case of biological processes).
All low energy processes (and therefore all biological and cerebral processes) consist only in kinetic and electromagnetic processes, and Quantum Electrodynamics provides a quantitative, complete and consistent explanation of such processes.
Before quantum mechanics, there was no general mathematical equations able to explain microscopic processes.

I add some considerations.
The laws of physics consist of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions. We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics; if we changed them, we would suddenly cast away all these correct solutions. On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence. In these last decades, we have done many more experiments than in all history, but the laws of quantum electrodynamics, discovered in the beginning of last century, have never been changed. On the basis of the number of experimental tests, we can say that quantum electrodynamics is the oldest scientific theory in history.
Since the laws of physics are the foundations of all modern science, I think that the hypothesis of a new set of laws of physics represents a jump out of science into the field of phylosophical speculations; the fact itself that those who want to deny the existence of the soul are forced to hypothesize a new set of laws of physics proves the incompatibility between science and materialism.


Advances in science has never dethroned and can never dethrone well established facts, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. It would be equivalent to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the earth does not orbit around the sun, but it is motionless at the center of the universe. The statement "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement, because of the wide and systematic experimantal confirmation obtained by the laws of physics. The laws of physics establish some firm points, which must always be considered when we make a rational and scientific hypothesis. To hypothesize that one day science will explain consciousness is more unreasonable than to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the sun is smaller than the earth.

Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamic. Since Quantum Electrodynamics does not account for consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.
Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.
There is another fundamemtal point; history shows that scientific progress has been possible only when scientists began to compare theoritical results with experimenal data. Since all our measurement instruments work and are designed on the basis of the laws of physics, and since consciousness transcends such laws, it is not possible to design any instruments able to measure consciousness. Without such measurement instruments, it will never be possible to reach any scientific progresses in the explanation of the existence of consciousness. It is useful to observe that, in spite of the great scientific progresses reached in the fields of the natural sciences, no steps have ever been done in history in such direction, as it is proved by the fact that science is not able to explain, neither in principle, the existence of consciousness, neither the existence of the most banal sensation.


Marco

Marco, it is not possible to debate this with you; there are just too many inconsistencies to address. In the end, you are too much of a moving target.

Your first statement: “Scientific Proof of the Existence of the Soul and God”

Your last statement: “It is not science, but our reason…”

First it is science, then it isn't, then it is, then it isn't… This isn't worth the time to discuss. Sorry--you need to sort things out a bit more in your mind before this can lead anywhere.

Alien: I would love to discuss the free will issue some more!

Kelly wrote: Chaos theory is not a failure of determinism; it is just a challenge to the 'conventional' methods of science, which are often based on the idea that complex systems may be modeled by solving simple systems, then applying this solution in an iterative way (assuming linearity) to complex systems.

Kelly, I agree with most of your long writings. At least, I would agree to the basic meaning. I am, however, still convinced that chaos is somehow intrinsically included into determinism in the sense that deterministic differential equations can definitely lead to a chaotic solution. And this is independent from considering iterative solutions. Look at the three bodies problem.

However, I agree with you that science can never prove God existence (opposite to Marco's statement).
Of course, science can also never disprove God.
In conclusion, science does not need God in its arguments and its progress. God is simply a non-scientific concept, and therefore I can't understand it.
You need faith, and not science, to believe in his existence. And therefore, it's a subjective concept. Personally, I don't feel this subjective need to believe in something with an act of faith only.

Kelly wrote: Alien: I would love to discuss the free will issue some more!

This is a more difficult topic.

We are mixing three concepts that are all different. Or, even four.

- consciousness
- free will
- mind
- soul

As a first glance, I can say that many people (here also Marco) think that these four concepts are all in one and coincidental.
I strongly disagree with this first consideration simply because the soul is defined to be something that exists outside the human being, while the other three do not necessarily imply this property.

In other words, I can imagine that consciousness, free will and mind are legitimate objects for scientific studies, but not the soul. Nobody can ever test any existence of any of the four items outside the human body.

As a first step, I would say that the mind exists only within a brain, and consciousness only within the mind. A brain might generate a mind, a mind might generate consciousness and free will is a concept that can be potentially applied to anything!

The mind is the ability of the brain to elaborate processes.
There are brains with no minds (eg when I am under the effect of an anesthesia, or in coma: I have a brain but no mind).
There are minds with no consciousness (eg if I am suffering of Alzheimer: I have a mind, but my thoughts are not sufficiently organised to be called consciousness. More or less when I dream).
Therefore, consciousness is the highest possible effect of a brain in terms of elaboration. This scale or ranking can be called intelligence, imo.

I understand the concept of free will as opposed to determinism. Philosophically, determinism implies that the future is already fixed and cannot be changed. Free will looks like an attempt to deny determinism. Nothing in the future is already written and immutable. Future cannot be predicted (again, not because we are not able to know initial conditions with a sufficient accuracy, which is true, but also because determinism does not exist).

When I say that free will can be potentially applied to anything, I mean applied to every single phenomenon that possesses more than one degree of freedom (DOF). A ball in unstable equilibrium on top of a hill might decide to run away on the right or on the left (two DOF). A swimming bacterium might decide to move upwards or whatever (three and more DOF). My cat might decide to sleep, to eat, to play with me, etc. (some hundreds DOF).
I can decide to write this post in many ways or other (unnumerable DOF).

Alien wrote:In other words, why didn't God create a perfect mathematical system for his universe?

My answer: If God created an universe which is absolutely deterministic, there would be no way He can influence us. He would not be able to perform miracles. God cannot do anything that violate physical laws, but He may perform miracles by manipulating the probability allowed by physical laws.


Related Links:

The string theory and miracles
True origin of our universe will be resolved soon

Frank2005 wrote:

Alien wrote:In other words, why didn't God create a perfect mathematical system for his universe?

My answer: If God created an universe which is absolutely deterministic, there would be no way He can influence us. He would not be able to perform miracles. God cannot do anything that violate physical laws, but He may perform miracles by manipulating the probability allowed by physical laws.

This is interesting.

If I understand you correctly, God had two choices:

1) to create an absolutely deterministic universe
2) to create an absolutely indeterministic universe

[I would put more options, like for example "to create nothing", but this is too much out of topic]

You say that option 1 would eliminate any influence on us. I can see the opposite. A set of deterministic laws would already be a huge influence on everything, us included. A different set of deterministic laws would produce a different kind of universe, and a different kind of creatures. I am saying that God, after having decided which set of deterministic laws to use, would have already infinitely influenced us. If you write a program in software, you write a deterministic set of laws and you have enormously influenced all what is going to follow that program.

In addition, you are saying that God cannot violate physical laws. I understand that you consider this as valid in both option 1 and option 2. Why would God not be able to violate his own designed rules?

Can I say that your viewpoint (being option 2) is totally different from those from Marco (more related to option 1)?

What I find really interesting is the last statement, however.
You are saying that miracles are not a violation of physical laws, but a "manipulation of probability allowed by physical laws". This would mean that every miracle can potentially be explained in scientific terms. Am I understanding correctly?
If a miracle is not a violation of a specific law, then it must be part of that law. But the probability of something happening without violation of any law is never zero by definition. Therefore, a miracle would be an event with nominally a very low probability, but different form zero. And, whatever event has a probability different from zero, even if very small, will eventually happen, before or after.

Therefore, miracles are just scientific events with a low probability. If I win some million at the lottery, am I entitled to call it a "miracle"?