top of page
Miracles are possible


In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

The Bible is saturated with miracles. Miracles are found in both the Old and New Testaments. For believers, miracles are understood as confirmation of the Word of God. On the other hand, for unbelievers, miracles represent a stumbling block to believing in the Bible. Therefore, the latter is considered a collection of fairy tales for some while others try to eliminate supernatural events from the Bible to make it more acceptable to the modern mind. But, are miracles possible or credible? In this article, I will examine the arguments against the appearance of miracles and produce counter-arguments in favor of the plausibility and credibility of miracles.


The Miracles: Arguments and Counter-Arguments


How miracles are defined has a lot to do with accepting their manifestation. Miracles are often defined as a violation of the laws of nature which are considered immutable. When the universe is ultimate reality, it leads to the belief that its laws are fixed and unchanging and because they are so, all supernatural activity is naturally impossible. Such a conception of the laws of nature has been informed by a deistic conception of God as the creator of the universe, but which leaves him to act alone or ruled by immutable laws which cannot be separated from his will. This view was defended by Benedict de Spinoza who argued that: “If an event contrary to these laws could occur, then the divine will and knowledge would be in contradiction with nature, which is impossible. To say that God is doing something contrary to the laws of nature is to say that God is doing something contrary to his own nature. Therefore, miracles are impossible ”.


The problem with Spinoza's argument, about the laws of nature being immutable, is related to the fact that it borrows from the mechanical worldview of Newtonian Physics. Modern science has proven that the laws of nature are not immutable. The laws of nature are today understood as descriptive rather than prescriptive. They don't tell us what needs to happen but rather what usually happens. In this context, these are statistical probabilities, not hard facts. While it is true that it is impossible to violate immutable laws, thus excluding the possibility of miracles, it makes a world of difference when the laws of nature are understood as statistical probabilities. Therefore, they allow the possibilities of the manifestation of miracles.


Another common argument against miracles is that they are contrary to human experience. It is simply not possible to prove that a miracle happened. David Hume who argues against the manifestation of miracles affirms that: "A wise man proportion his beliefs to the evidence". Hume's definition of proof is what is repeated more often. Therefore, any evidence considered to be a singularity with respect to the patterns must be rejected as false. It seems frequency is what would solidify evidence to make it acceptable. With such a conception, a miracle would never provide enough evidence to be accepted by the sage, for it is not part of ordinary or everyday life. Geisler & Brooks flaunt the weakness of the argument as follows: "It's like saying you shouldn't believe it if you won the lottery because of the thousands of people who lost".


Once we admit the existence of God, the possibility of miracles cannot be ruled out. Geisler & Brooks define miracles as: "a divine intervention in the regular course of the world, or an interruption of it, which produces an intentional but unusual event which would not have taken place otherwise". This definition implies that the laws of nature are not violated with the appearance of a miracle but also that the latter is an unusual event orchestrated by God. Therefore, the high frequency of occurrence of certain events is not a necessary argument against the occurrence of the event in question. Frequency of occurrence should not be confused with weight of evidence.




As regards the miracles performed by Jesus, they were indeed extraordinary but they took place in front of many witnesses who testified to their manifestation. Therefore, they can be studied using the historical method. Thus, these miracles are credible as long as the historical credibility of the gospel has been proven. While all religions claim miracles to support their worldview, it is important to note that not all religions have historical evidence to back up their claims. On the other hand, Christianity has been proven "testable". The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a miracle for which the evidence abounds. And it is also a proof of the existence of God. For without God there would be no explanation for the resurrection of Jesus. And without the resurrection of Jesus, there would be no explanation for the birth of the early church, the fact that Sunday became the first day of worship, the transformation of fearful disciples into bold publishers, the conversion of a skeptic like James and a fanatic of Judaism like Paul, etc. Once agreement is made as to the existence of God, the possibility of miracles cannot be excused.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Lesly Jules, Ph.D.



In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Geisler, Norman & Brooks, Ron. When Skeptics Asks. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996



bottom of page