Miracles Establish the Existence of God

What exactly is a ``miracle''? Several definitions are possible:

  1.  An event that transcends natural law
  2.  An event that cannot be explained without reference to a deity
  3.  An event that cannot be explained by known natural laws

Each of these definitions poses problems for the theist who would use
miracles to defend his belief in god. So far as I know, all proposed
definitions of the term ``miracle'' fall into these three categories.

Clearly miracles of the third kind occur. In fact, it is miracles of this
sort the fuel the advancement of science. Before any law of nature is
validated, a chain of ``miracles'' show that our knowledge of nature is
incomplete.

Of course, this sort of miracle is useless in defending the theist's case.
An atheist can safely admit that certain historical events were miracles
without having to worry that this admission has any theistic implications.

The first definition is more troubling. If we observe an event we believe to
be a miracle of this sort, that is, one that cannot be explained by
reference to all natural law, know and unknown, how would we know that it
wasn't really just a miracle in the third sense.

True we may not presently be able to explain it with reference to known
natural law, but this does not show that we will never explain it in that
manner. History is full of examples of events deemed miraculous (in the
strongest sense, as showing evidence of a god's intervention) that were
later explained by reference to natural law. Eclipses are an excellent
example.

Would a single instance of a miracle in the second sense clinch the theist's
case. All we need is the assumption that everything can be explained, and
the existence of a single event not explainable without reference to a god
clinches the theist's case.

But wait. Theists don't believe that everything can be explained, that is,
understood by man. If we grant the theist's premise that not everything can
be understood by man, a demonstration that no explanation but explanation
`X' can explain event `Y' could just as well prove that `Y' is unexplainable
as prove that explanation `X' explains event `Y'.

In other words, if a Christian claims that there is no way to explain
Christ's return from the grave except to propose that he is God, you could
agree with him. Then when he asks if you agree Christ was God, you can say,
``No. Though that is the only way to explain his return, it is possible his
return has no explanation and is just one more of those things man cannot
explain, such as what it would mean for him to be both man and God or both
God and the son of God.''

If the theist counters by claiming that there is nothing man cannot explain,
enjoy a huge belly laugh. For he will quickly claim many attributes for his
god that are beyond human understanding. This is exactly what
``transcendent'' was supposed to mean in the first place. What did you think
was being transcended?

So, if a theist wants to use miracles to justify a belief in God, he will
necessarily have to accede to the fact that all things are ultimately
explainable by man. This is too large a price for him to pay.

And of course, we have the further objection that anything that cannot be
explained without reference to a god cannot be explained at all. As
previously explained, attempting to explain a mystery by claiming it the
work of a god does not explain the mystery.

The mystery still remains as to why that particular event happened (as
opposed to something else entirely) and by what specific means it took
place. After all, when we want something explained that is what we want to
know.

Of course, we could equally well respond to the original argument (that an
event took place that cannot be explained without reference to god) by
denying that any miracles of this sort ever happened. Any claimed example of
an event that cannot be explained except as the act of a god may be
explainable some day by future known natural laws.

The use of miracles to establish the existence of God faces other obstacles.
Unless the arguer can perform the miracle before your eyes, what he is
talking about is a ``historical miracle'', that is, a miracle whose
occurance is supposedly justified by reference to historical record.

Unfortunately, the study of history is based on the principle that the
universe follows a set of natural laws that are largely known. Otherwise, no
evidence we could amass would in any way suggest what past events took
place.

As such, a ``historical miracle'' is an oxymoron.

To illustrate, consider the incident of the Sun allegedly standing still in
the Portuguese village of Fatima in 1917. The evidence presented is that of
several observers who claim to have seen the sun stand still. This is widely
reported as one of the ``great miracles'' of the twentieth century.

So, why should I believe that the sun stood still just because a few
observers say so? This is easily answered: in general, people do report what
they actually see, and if the Sun stood still, people would have seen it and
noticed it. (In other words, we assume that people in the past behaved more
or less the same way people in the present do)

The rebuttal is equally obvious. If the Sun stood still, that means the
Earth stopped moving with respect to it. This would have caused the Sun to
appear to stand still across the Earth (as well as having other dramatic
effects), so why are reports only available from Fatima? (In other words, we
assume the Solar System of the past behaved more or less the same way the
Solar System does in the present)

In other words, if the observers seeing the Sun stand still is evidence it
did stand still, why is the lack of observers outside Fatima not evidence it
did not stand still?

If we are allowed to assume that nature deviated from its course, we cannot
establish what actually happened. If we are not allowed to assume so, we
cannot ever establish that nature deviated from its course.

In addition, scholarly works can be referred to to refute the ``evidence''
supporting any particular miracle. The mind-set of alleged observers
including their beliefs and prejudices and historical texts that contradict
the alleged account of the miracle can all be used to attack any particular
miracle.

END***************************************************************************