But unless we know the whole extent of those laws, and of what are commonly called the powers of nature, we are not able to judge whether anything that may appear to us wonderful or miraculous, be within, or be beyond, or be contrary to, her natural power of acting.
Disagree. Ik shocker. You do not have to be an expert on every nuance of a feild to recognize a basic irregularity within said field. In fact it's almost the same thing he keeps doing. Presupposition. The only difference is, with an assumption the likes we just mentioned, there's way more basis for the assumption. Whereas in Paine's form of pressuppossition, he assumes one very debatable and multilyered aspect of religion can be dumbed down to his farcical parochial way of looking at it. He pulls a presupposition out of his ass, and calls it gospel. This is why almost all of his propositions stated with certainty, are absolutely laughable to anyone who has dabbled in the study of logic or bible.
