But isn't that just the problem - what _do_ you mean? The Bible
uses various terms - signs, wonders, mighty acts &c - for events which
we loosely call miraculous, but it does not say which are "natural"
though surprising & which (if any) are completely beyond the
capabilities of nature.
In fact, that latter phrase seems to be what you're looking for
- "phenomena completely beyond the ability of nature to produce". (It
is better than your later proposal, "events which contradict
naturalism", which defines the miraculous as an exception to a certain
philosophical position.) BUT - in a Christian view _all_ phenomena are
beyond the ability of nature _in itself_ - i.e., without God, for
without God nature itself would not exist. God acts both in phenomena
which can be explained in terms of natural processes alone (_etsi deus
non daretur_) _and_ in those that can't.
Beyond the question of terminology, the deeper issue is why it
is so important to some people that there be events which can't be
explained in terms of natural processes. I freely concede that there
may be, & in fact suspect (as I've noted here before) that Goedel's
theorem seems to indicate that there must be at least one such event.
But I can see no dogmatic reason to insist that any given phenomenon,
miraculous as it may be (& yes, I include the Resurrection) is
completely beyond the capability of natural processes sustained by &
cooperated with by God.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@imperium.net
http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy