1 minute ago9 min read

Arguments Against Miracles Examined

The Skeptical Foundations: David Hume’s Influence on Modern Doubts About Miracles

In Christian apologetics, one of the most enduring challenges to miracles has come from the arguments of the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776). His objections have shaped modern skepticism, particularly in the realms of philosophy, history, and science. Hume's approach to miracles involves three principal objections: philosophical, historical, and religious, each grounded in the belief that miracles are incredible and irrational. He famously asserted that “a wise person proportions belief to the evidence,” claiming that miracles defy natural laws and therefore cannot be believed by reasonable individuals. Hume's skepticism arises from an empirical framework, where experience and observation become the ultimate arbiters of truth.

The core of Hume’s challenge lies in his philosophical rejection of miracles as violations of natural laws. According to Hume, a miracle must be understood as an event that contravenes the regular and repeatable patterns of nature, established by firm and unalterable experience. His objection thus rests on the principle that natural laws are based on uniform experience, and because miracles are rare and unique, they must be less credible than everyday events governed by natural laws.

From a Christian perspective, Hume’s argument oversimplifies the complexity of both nature and divine action. Scripture itself presents a world sustained by Jehovah, where natural laws are part of His creation (Colossians 1:16-17), yet Jehovah retains the sovereignty to intervene miraculously when it serves His purpose. In fact, Jesus' ministry and the early Church were confirmed through miracles (Acts 2:22; Hebrews 2:3-4). Rather than contradicting natural laws, miracles are special acts of divine intervention in a created order that is ultimately under God’s control.

MIRACLES: What Does the Bible Really Teach?

Buy Now

Understanding Hume’s Philosophical Argument Against Miracles

Hume’s philosophical critique of miracles is often regarded as one of his most formidable challenges to Christian supernaturalism. He lays out his reasoning by arguing that a miracle is, by definition, a violation of the laws of nature. These laws, he claims, have been established by uniform and repeated human experience. Consequently, any event that appears to contradict these laws is deemed improbable, if not impossible. Therefore, for Hume, the likelihood of a miracle being real is so slim that it should not be accepted by a reasonable individual.

Hume’s argument can be summarized in three key points:

A miracle violates the laws of nature.
The laws of nature are based on consistent and repeated experience.
Therefore, miracles should not be believed because they are less probable than natural occurrences.

This reasoning, however, can be critiqued by recognizing that Hume presupposes naturalism as an absolute framework. By defining miracles as violations of immutable natural laws, he essentially eliminates their possibility from the outset. However, from a Christian perspective, this argument begs the question by assuming a closed system where God cannot intervene. In reality, natural laws are simply the regular patterns that Jehovah has established, but they do not constrain His ability to act within His creation (Psalm 135:6; Isaiah 46:10).

The Bible presents miracles as rare but real interventions that confirm God’s power and purpose. For instance, the resurrection of Jesus, which is central to Christian faith, is presented as an extraordinary event that broke the pattern of death (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Hume’s rejection of miracles assumes a worldview where God’s existence and involvement are excluded from consideration. This assumption, however, is not shared by those who recognize God’s sovereignty over creation.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS: for Pastors, Teachers, and Believers

Buy Now

Historical and Empirical Critique of Miracles

Another dimension of Hume’s argument is historical. He asserts that there are no credible historical witnesses to miraculous events. According to Hume, testimonies of miracles are often contradictory, vague, or come from individuals who lack credibility. He further argues that because miracles tend to be reported in “ignorant and barbarous nations,” they cannot be taken seriously by modern, enlightened individuals.

This historical critique is flawed for several reasons. First, Hume’s argument assumes that the absence of miracles in certain cultures disproves their existence altogether, which is an example of special pleading. It overlooks the fact that different cultures may not experience or interpret divine interventions in the same way, but that does not mean miracles never occur. Second, the New Testament documents provide strong historical evidence for the reality of miracles, particularly the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As the apostle Paul wrote, the resurrection was witnessed by more than five hundred people at one time, many of whom were still alive to testify to it (1 Corinthians 15:6).

From an apologetic perspective, the credibility of the New Testament miracles, especially the resurrection, is supported by several factors:

The accounts were written within a few decades of the events, allowing for eyewitness testimony.
The early Christian community, including skeptical individuals like James and Paul, were convinced of the resurrection through personal encounters with the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:7-8).
The apostles and early Christians were willing to endure persecution and martyrdom for their testimony, demonstrating their sincere belief in the miracles they witnessed (Acts 4:33; 2 Timothy 4:6-8).

The argument against credible witnesses is further weakened when we consider the archaeological and historical reliability of the New Testament. Numerous archaeological findings have corroborated the historical details of the Gospels and Acts, lending further support to the trustworthiness of the biblical accounts. Scholars such as archaeologist Nelson Glueck have affirmed that “no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference” (Glueck, Rivers in the Desert). This historical credibility extends to the testimonies of miracles, which were embedded in a context of verifiable events and places.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE BIBLE: Alleged Errors and Contradictions

Buy Now

The Religious Argument: Do Miracles Cancel Each Other Out?

Hume’s third argument against miracles is a religious one. He claims that since miracles are reported in various religions, they cancel each other out. For instance, if one religion claims a miracle to prove its truth, and another religion claims a different miracle to support its doctrine, then the miracles must invalidate each other, leading to a stalemate.

This argument, however, misrepresents the nature of miracles in different religious traditions. Not all miracle claims are created equal, and the quality of evidence for miracles varies significantly across different religions. For example, in Christianity, miracles like the resurrection are foundational to the faith and supported by historical evidence, while in other religions, miracles are often anecdotal or based on later legends.

The Bible emphasizes that true miracles are signs from Jehovah, confirming the truth of His message. For example, in Exodus, Jehovah performed signs and wonders through Moses to demonstrate His power and authenticate Moses’ leadership (Exodus 4:1-9). Likewise, Jesus performed miracles to confirm His identity as the Son of God and the Messiah (John 20:30-31). The uniqueness of biblical miracles lies in their theological significance and their role in redemptive history. They are not random events but serve to reveal Jehovah’s plan of salvation.

In contrast, many other religions rely on miraculous claims that lack the historical and theological grounding of biblical miracles. For instance, Islamic traditions contain miracle stories about Muhammad, but these were written centuries after his life, with little historical verification. By evaluating the nature, timing, and theological purpose of miracles in Christianity, we can see that they are not self-canceling but stand as unique validations of Jehovah’s truth.

BATTLE PLANS: A Game Plan for Answering Objections to the Christian Faith

Buy Now

The Problem of Uniform Experience: Is It Really Universal?

A key aspect of Hume’s argument is his appeal to “uniform experience.” He asserts that since natural laws are based on consistent and repeatable observations, the uniformity of human experience stands against the possibility of miracles. According to Hume, every person’s experience confirms the regularity of natural laws, while miracles, being rare or singular events, lack the necessary weight of evidence to be credible.

However, Hume’s appeal to uniform experience either begs the question or is based on selective reasoning. If he assumes that all experience confirms naturalism, then he is dismissing miraculous claims without considering the evidence for them, which is circular reasoning. On the other hand, if he acknowledges that some people claim to have experienced miracles, then his appeal to uniformity collapses, as it is no longer universal.

The Bible presents a different understanding of human experience. It acknowledges that miracles are rare but real, and that Jehovah has acted throughout history in ways that defy natural expectations. For example, the parting of the Red Sea during the Exodus was a singular event that demonstrated Jehovah’s power over nature (Exodus 14:21-22). Similarly, the resurrection of Jesus was a unique event that overturned the natural law of death (Romans 6:9). These events are exceptional precisely because they point to Jehovah’s sovereignty and His purpose in salvation history.

Moreover, the Christian worldview does not require uniform experience in the sense that Hume suggests. Instead, it recognizes that Jehovah can and does intervene in His creation for specific purposes. Therefore, the rarity of miracles does not diminish their reality but highlights their significance as divine acts that transcend ordinary experience.

CREATION AND COSMOS A Journey Through Creation, Science, and the Origins of Life

Buy Now

Can Science Disprove Miracles?

Another major argument against miracles comes from the realm of science. Critics often claim that miracles are unscientific because they violate the laws of nature, and science is based on the assumption that natural laws are inviolable. This objection, however, misunderstands both the nature of science and the nature of miracles.

Science operates by studying the regular, repeatable patterns of nature. It seeks to understand how natural laws govern the world under normal conditions. However, science does not—and cannot—disprove miracles because it is limited to the study of natural processes. A miracle, by definition, is a supernatural event that goes beyond the scope of natural explanation. As such, it falls outside the purview of empirical science.

Moreover, many of the most important scientific discoveries in history were made by Christians who believed in the possibility of miracles. Scientists such as Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler saw no contradiction between their faith in a Creator who could intervene in the natural world and their study of the laws that governed it. They recognized that natural laws were descriptions of how Jehovah ordinarily sustains the universe, but they also believed that He could intervene when necessary to accomplish His purposes.

The Bible affirms this understanding of miracles. For example, in the case of the resurrection, the natural law of death was temporarily suspended by Jehovah’s power (Acts 2:24). This does not mean that the laws of nature were abolished, but that Jehovah, as the Creator and Sustainer of those laws, has the authority to act above and beyond them. As Psalm 135:6 declares, “Whatever Jehovah pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.” This verse underscores that Jehovah’s sovereignty extends over all creation, and He is not bound by the natural laws He has established.

In conclusion, Hume’s objections to miracles, while influential, fail to account for the reality of a sovereign God who can act within His creation. The historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments against miracles ultimately rest on assumptions that exclude divine intervention from the outset. By contrast, the Christian worldview embraces both the order of natural laws and the extraordinary acts of Jehovah, which serve as signs of His power and purpose in redemption. The miracles recorded in Scripture, particularly the resurrection of Jesus, provide compelling evidence that Jehovah has acted in history to reveal His truth and accomplish His plan of salvation.

REASON MEETS FAITH: Addressing and Refuting Atheism's Challenges to Christianity

Buy Now

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).