With regard to Lawrence Krauss' piece "The Problem With Miracles" (July 10 Perspectives), I think it's pretty safe to assume Mr. Krauss does not believe in miracles or in the supernatural. Mr. Krauss states that acceptance of miracles is an example of a "God of the gaps," whereby inexplicable events are used as evidence for God. He believes that all mysteries have, or will ultimately have, a natural explanation. That's fine, but there's a problem with that belief. How would Mr. Krauss explain the being or existence of things? As an example, let's consider the existence of our universe.
The following explanation is not limited to our universe, as it applies to anything within nature. For the purpose of argument, let's assume Mr. Krauss is correct -- there are no such things as miracles or the supernatural, and let's assume there is no God. Thus, it seems to me that the existence of the universe can be explained by one of two possibilities: 1) the universe originated from an infinite regression of causes (i.e., the universe had no ultimate beginning, since it was caused by an infinite series of events, or 2) the universe came from an uncaused cause (i.e., the universe came from nothing, where nothing means nonexistence).
The problem is that both of these are supernatural explanations. So it seems to me, whether Mr. Krauss believes in miracles or not, there is no denying the ultimate supernatural origin of our universe or anything within nature.
Explaining the ultimate origin of things is a very tall order for science, and it may never be possible. One might even say this represents an "unexplainable gap for science."
GEORGE M. TATASEO