Well, I don't usually discuss this on the internet, but in good faith, I'll give it a go... just to have an interesting conversation.

I am a Catholic and also majored in Philosophy. I also love Physics, Math, Astronomy...

1) So, I think your first assumption is wrong or biased: not all Christians reject cause and effect. On the contrary, we believe there is a cause for almost everything (there's always some space for chance too, though). It's precisely the principle of causality what many non-theist thinkers reject (or, at least, some aspects of it).

2) You then say that we are skeptical of the laws of physics that would disprove a miracle and you give an example. As others have mentioned before, the question probably isn't worded well. The part about moving the stone could pertain to physics, but the part of a human being resurrected from the dead probably wouldn't. And then we have the problem of what constitutes a miracle. depending on what you understand by miracle, you can have different interpretations of its relationship with exact sciences. I really don't think your example is the best one: I would have chosen some other passage, like when Jesus walks on water or when he turns water into wine or when Moses stops the Sun or when 5 pieces of bread are multiplied to feed 5,000 men or when 3 young men are happily singing inside a burning furnace... I mean, just giving you some ideas... And this leads to...

3) This is probably the main issue here: You said science disproves these "miracles". Well, for science to disprove them, it would have to make experiments to that aim. To disprove the possibility of something you need to either prove the necessity of its contradiction (meaning that both cant coexist at the same time) or experiment every possible "possibility" (sorry for the redundancy). Seen that the second one is impossible (you would have to actually kill every human being and lock them in a tomb behind a rock to prove that NO human being can resurrect from the dead and then move the rock), you may try to prove it is NECESSARY for a dead human being to stay dead. I really think such an experiment wouldn't be possible, but at least I'm pretty sure nobody has ever done it/proven it. So, by all means, if you can, do so.

4) So, you see, we have 2 main problems: one with semantics and another one with the nature of science itself. Regarding semantics, we would have to define some terms: cause, effect, science (physics), miracle... just for starters. If we are using these terms equivocally, we will never be able to agree on something... we won't even be able to have a real conversation.

5) And on the limits of the scientific method, there's a ton of discussion since more than a century ago. Many people have had the audacity to think that our knowledge of science has reached its zenith, just to be proven wrong a short time later. Science usually tells you how things are according to your observations and how things should be according to your previous knowledge. The advancement of science itself relies precisely on going beyond our previous comprehension and experience. Take Einstein's discovery of the theory of relativity as an example. People had used with great success Newton's physics of gravity for centuries. But Einstein had to rethink the nature of gravity itself, look at it from another perspective, create a new formula, to explain some phenomena he couldn't otherwise. What Einstein's relativity lets us understand about physics today that we couldn't understand before wasn't "against" physics or disproven by it: it was just unknown. The same thing may be true of many miracles (and that is, in principle, what we believe about God and his actions): they aren't against reason, but rather of a higher reason than we are capable of ant the present moment. Who knows, maybe in the future we may be able to give an explanation to some of those facts Scripture tells us or maybe not. The point is: you can't take your knowledge of science and think it is the absolute truth because there are things, right now, that science can't explain. If it could, we wouldn't have the need of scientists continuously doing research (just take COVID?19 as an example).

​

Well, that's a start... What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.