The Coherence of Road Runner
If you've never seen the Road Runner cartoon then just think of any other cartoon you've seen - they all do the same thing. They all depict 'worlds' that mostly appear to have our laws of physics but then carry on to break them. One classic example is when the Coyote chases Road Runner off a cliff who happily runs through the sky. Coyote follows at first, until he realises that he's in the air, looks down, eye pop out, and then gravity kicks in and he starts falling.
What I'm pointing out here isn't that the imaginary world doesn't have gravity, it's that it doesn't even make up its mind whether or not it has gravity. It seems to have a 'gravity' (where things fall to the ground) depending on whether the writers want it to have 'gravity' at that moment in time. Basically, there's no consistent rule on whether there is or isn't a force of gravity.
What is coherent is the possibility that no such consistent rules exist.
This would suit the theist as it would mean that there's 'room' for miracles that violate our accepted laws of physics. Many theists use this line of argument, that we have no reason to believe that the Laws of Physics that our models of the world follow are absolute and never broken.
I'm curious to how we could answer such an objection.
One possibility is that the consistency demanded by our models has been empirically verified. The theist might argue that this shows that the rules we predict are mostly consistent and that it doesn't give us reason to rule out anomalous claims. Would this be a valid objection.
I think that our reasons for accepting this kind of consistency are more transcendental. It's a grounding principle necessary for a rational picture on the world. One example is our structure of space-time. If space-time holds then the physical laws of conservation follow a priori. That is, if space-time is uniform as physicists treat it then the law of conservation is unbreakable. If someone was sceptical that this was so, then what else would they be sacrificing in the process? Wouldn't a scepticism of this kind require a rejection of nearly all of modern science?
So if I was to defend the absoluteness of space-time and the laws of conservation that follow from it, I'd probably point out that it is transcendentally necessary for any scientific worldview.
Am I right in this?
Is there a better way of going about this?