If you would rather read this message, the words are provided below:
For Jesus to have fulfilled prophecies by being born of a virgin, dying on a cross, and rising from the dead, miracles would need to be possible. But are miracles possible? The short answer is, “Yes!” In fact, my personal testimony involves five different miracles. See my testimony here: “My Testimony: From Agnosticism, to Atheism, to Christianity“
Is there any other evidence for miracles apart from my own testimony? Yes. Let’s examine the evidence…
Judaism and Christianity are both supernatural religions. From GOD revealing Himself in a burning bush to the resurrection of Christ, miracles are essential to their very nature. There are over 250 miracles reported in the Bible. If, however, miracles are not historical events, they have no evidential value and prove nothing; consequently, if miracles are not actual historical events, both Judaism and Christianity could only be viewed as myths that are meant to entertain and act as moral guidance.
There have been many intelligent critics who have posed different arguments in attempts to prove the possibility of miracles as an impossibility. However, all opposition or rejection of miracles essentially boils down to two main arguments:
- Miracles are an impossibility and cannot occur.
- Miracles have not occurred and thus will not occur.
Before examining the arguments against miracles, it is important to understand the definition of a miracle. Simply to say that a miracle is a singularity is insufficient. Singularities occur in nature without obvious divine intervention. A miracle is a divine intervention, a supernatural exception to the regular course of the natural world. The Bible uses three basic words to describe a miracle: sign, wonder, and power. From the human vantage point, a miracle is an unusual event (“wonder”) that conveys and confirms an unusual message (“sign”) by means of unusual power (“power”). The purpose of the miracle is never for entertainment. One result of miracles (though not the purpose) is condemnation of the unbeliever (cf. John 12:31, 37). The true purposes of a miracle are:
- to glorify the nature of GOD (John 2:11; 11:40)
- to accredit a messenger and/or confirm the message of GOD (Acts 2:22; Hebrews 2:3-4)
- to provide evidence for belief in GOD (John 6:2, 14; 20:30-31)
To sum up the definition of a miracle, I’ll use the words of a former atheist, Antony Flew: “A miracle is something which would never have happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices.”
[Extra curricular reading: “There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind“]
Natural laws describe naturally caused regularities. A natural law is a general description of the usual orderly way in which the world operates. It follows, then, that a miracle is an unusual, irregular, specific way in which GOD acts within the world; a miracle is a supernaturally caused singularity.
While philosophy makes supernatural events possible and the nature of a theistic GOD shows they are probable, only history reveals whether miracles are actual. To know if miracles actually happened in history depends on the following questions:
- Are miracles possible?
- Is the Bible reliable?
- Is the Bible historically accurate?
Being though the second and third questions have already been investigated and confirmed for reliability and accuracy, the focus of this investigation will be on the possibility of miracles.
Response to argument #1: (Miracles cannot occur)
Many critics contend that miracles are not contrary to nature but only contrary to our knowledge of nature. For if a miracle is only contrary to our knowledge of nature, then a miracle is nothing more than a natural event that does not yet have an explanation. Many critics demand that nothing be called a miracle simply because it is currently unexplainable. For if something is currently unexplainable, it is simply not yet known; however, the current unknown does not mean that it is supernatural. Those who oppose or reject miracles assert that what is currently unknown will be known by science and natural laws eventually. They insist that when scientists come upon an irregular or anomalous event they do not posit a miracle; rather, they broaden their understanding of natural processes to take in that event. In other words, anything unexplainable must automatically be absorbed into the scientific field and filed into the “unknown-but-will-eventually-be-known” category. Regardless of how long the unexplainable occurrence sits in the category of “unknown-but-will-eventually-be-known,” that actual event supposedly belongs to natural laws even if that actual event is evidently beyond natural laws. To do otherwise would be to forsake the scientific method. Essentially, a belief that certain events are miraculous erects a bar against science. Hence, acceptance of miracles violates the proper domain of science. But is that true?
To eliminate miracles before allowing an objective investigation seems prejudicial and lacks integrity. A wise person does not legislate in advance that miracles cannot occur; rather, the wise person examines the evidence to see if a special irregularity did occur. Scientific explanations are not the only kind of explanations. This is the error of methodological naturalism. Miracles do not need to change our view of scientific laws; they simply step outside of them. Not every event in the world has to be of the world. After all, was the creation of the world from within the world? For a miracle can be an effect in nature by a cause that is beyond nature. For the mind that creates a complex watch is beyond the watch (and also this), and yet the watch is in the world. And since natural laws deal with regularities and miracles with singularities, miracles cannot possibly be violations of natural laws. To claim that a miracle cannot happen because it does not fall into the class of natural events is a category mistake. By the same logic, we might as well say that no painting, book, or sculpture has an intelligent cause because its origin cannot be explained by the operational laws of physics and chemistry. It’s a category mistake.
Science as such does not deal with singularities but only with regularities. No prediction can be made on the basis of a singular event. It takes a pattern to make a projection. Hence, the scientific method as such is not applicable to miracles. Empirical science deals with regularities, and miracles are not part of a regular pattern in nature. All a scientist needs to hold is the premise that every event has a cause and that the observable universe operates in an orderly way.
A scientist who encounters an anomaly does not automatically revise previously held laws. If the exception is not repeatable, there is no right to use it as the basis for a new law. It is inappropriate to demand that all exceptional events be naturally caused, but it is appropriate to demand that repeatable events be explainable. It is wrong to assume that natural laws have dominion over every event rather than every regular event. To argue that every exception to a known natural law demands another natural explanation simply begs the question. Such an argument goes beyond science and reveals a naturalistic bias. Certainly, naturalists who rule out miracles on the basis of a faith commitment to naturalism are in no position to forbid theists from simply believing that GOD exists and, hence, that miracles are possible and identifiable. Anti-supernaturalist arguments presuppose naturalism; however, as I have shown in my other article, naturalism is not able to explain either itself or the universe on a purely naturalistic premise.
Biblical miracles are past events. We cannot observe them, and they are not being repeated in the present. Hence, past biblical miracles are not the object of empirical science but rather that of forensic science, which deals with past singular events. Forensic science as such does not deal with predictions but with retrodictions. In addition, the greatest of all past miracles was the creation of the universe. No one observed the beginning (big bang) and no predictions can be made as to when another big bang will occur in the future. The same is true of the spontaneous generation of first life. Creation itself was an irregular event that cannot be explained by the current regular laws of nature.
Response to argument #2: (Miracles have not occurred)
Some critics oppose or reject miracles based on how rare or unbelievable they seem to be. Because natural laws are the regular occurrences and evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the irregular, some critics assert that wise individuals should not believe in miracles due to probability and incredibility of miracles. Those who oppose or reject miracles based on probability do not honestly weigh evidence objectively; rather, they add up evidence of the regular and then weigh that against the evidence of the irregular. Truth, however, is not always determined by regular occurrence, especially when the belief is contrary to an actual occurrence. Wise people base beliefs on facts, not odds. Evidence based on regular occurrences and probability eliminates belief in any sort of unusual or unique event.
The satire of Richard Whately’s “Historical Doubts Concerning the Existence of Napoleon Bonaparte” sheds some light on the ridiculousness of basing a belief off odds rather than facts. Whately wrote that since Napoleon’s exploits were so fantastic, so extraordinary, so unprecedented, no intelligent person should believe that these events ever happened. After recounting Napoleon’s amazing and unparalleled military feats, Whately wrote, “Does anyone believe all this and yet refuse to believe a miracle? Or rather, what is this but a miracle? Is not this a violation of the laws of nature?” If the skeptic does not deny the existence of Napoleon, he “must at least acknowledge that they do not apply to that question the same plan of reasoning which they have made use of in others.” After all, the Nazi regime was incredible and irregular. Without historical documentation to prove that it happened, who would believe that millions of Jews were exterminated by the mastermind of one Adolf Hitler? Think about it!
In evaluating the historical argument against miracles, it must be noted that there is a crucial difference between the principle of uniformity (or analogy), on which all valid inquiry is based, and the principle of uniformitarianism. The latter is a naturalistic dogma that rules out in advance by its very methodological principle the credibility of the miraculous. According to the reliability and historical accuracy of the Bible, miracles have occurred. If one were to oppose or reject past miracles cited in the Bible, one must also oppose or reject the vast majority of all history due to the overwhelming amount of actual historical confirmation of the Bible. Only if one approaches the world with a kind of invincible bias against anything that has not been personally perceived in the past can all claims for the miraculous be discounted. Only an anti-supernatural bias would hinder a person from honestly considering reliable testimony about the occurrence of a miracle. In addition, I (Trenton Gill) personally experienced two miracles that were very different from each other and also separated in time. The two miracles I experienced most definitely violated the laws of nature. Furthermore, there have been many documented cases in the medical field of people being cured of what was considered to be incurable and also people coming back to life after being considered dead for a considerable amount of time.
Conclusion:
The laws of nature tell us what is regular or normal; consequently, it is possible for us to recognize miracles if they occur because we have the natural laws as the standard of regular or normal by which to compare the irregular. GOD is the author of the natural laws and exists beyond the natural laws; therefore, GOD cannot be constrained by the natural laws He created. The very cosmological argument, by which we know GOD exists, also proves that a supernatural event occurred. I will boldly declare that the universe itself is a miracle. In addition, the creation and existence of the human race is a miracle; moreover, each individual is a continuation of the initial miracle. Consequently, if one were to deny miracles, that person denies his/her existence. The ex nihilo creation is the greatest supernatural event of all. If the theistic GOD exists, miracles are possible; if the Creator GOD exists, then the miraculous is not only possible but actual. If there is a GOD who can act, then there can be acts of GOD. If GOD exists, then we should come to human history with the expectation of the miraculous, not with a naturalistic bias against it. The only way to show that miracles are impossible is to disprove the existence of GOD, and that cannot be done.
[Extra curricular reading: “The Case For Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural”]
Quest For Truth 
37 thoughts on “Miracles or Myths?”