Argument from miracles

Short description: Argument for the existence of God

The argument from miracles is an argument for the existence of God that begins by asserting that there are kinds of possible events the best explanation for which would be supernatural agency, if the existence of these events are first assumed. Traditionally, events of the relevant kind are known as miracles. All the argument requires is that miracles be such that the best explanations for them invoke supernatural agency.[1]

Defenders of the argument include C. S. Lewis,[2] Richard Swinburne,[3] Gary Habermas,[4] William Paley,[5] and Samuel Clarke.[6]

## Contents

* 1 Versions of the argument
* 1.1 Deductive argument from miracles
* 1.2 Explanatory argument from miracles
* 1.3 Bayesian argument from miracles
* 2 References
* 3 Further reading
* 4 External sources

## Versions of the argument

### Deductive argument from miracles

One deductive argument is proposed by William Paley broadly modeled on the version given by Richard Whately:

1. All miracles attested by persons, claiming to have witnessed them, who pass their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings in support of their statements, and who, in consequence of their belief, submit to new rules of conduct, are worthy of credit.
2. The central Christian miracles are attested by such evidence.
3. The central Christian miracles are worthy of credit.[5][7]

### Explanatory argument from miracles

Another approach to arguing for a miracle claim is to argue that it is the best explanation for a small set of widely conceded facts. A typical “minimal facts” argument for the resurrection of Jesus starts with a list of facts such as these:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. His disciples afterward reported experiences which they believed were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.
3. The disciples were transformed from fearful cowards into bold proclaimers who were willing to face persecution and death for their message.
4. Paul, who had previously been a persecutor of the Christians, had an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.[4]

None of these four facts are supernatural claims in and of themselves. The argument maintains that virtually all critical scholars with the appropriate expertise accept these facts, relying on standard historical methods and reasoning. The explanatory argument begins with this broad scholarly consensus, asserting that all alternative explanations for these facts fall short when compared to the one that asserts Jesus truly rose from the dead. As a result, the conclusion is usually presented in a definitive and categorical manner, claiming that the resurrection explanation is the most compelling.

One key advantage of this approach is that it explicitly contrasts the resurrection hypothesis with other potential explanations. By doing so, the argument directly engages with alternative interpretations of the data, addressing them head-on.[8]

### Bayesian argument from miracles

Another approach to arguing for a miracle claim involves using Bayesian probability to argue that certain facts or sets of facts make the conclusion more probable. In the case of a categorical argument, this would mean showing that the conclusion is probable given the facts in question. For a confirmatory argument, the aim would be to demonstrate that the conclusion is significantly more probable when these facts are taken into account, compared to what it would be without them. This kind of argument could be structured in a categorical manner by employing the odds form of Bayes's Theorem, which allows for a formal, quantitative comparison of probabilities in relation to the available evidence.[9] Several criticisms have been presented against this argument.[10][11][12][13]

## References

1. ↑ Bonevac, Daniel (2011), Kvanvig, Jonathan L., ed., "The Argument From Miracles", Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion Volume 3 (Oxford University Press), https://philpapers.org/rec/BONTAF-5, retrieved 2025-02-21
2. ↑ Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles. https://philpapers.org/rec/LEWM-6.
3. ↑ Swinburne, Richard (2003). The Resurrection of God Incarnate. Oxford, GB: Clarendon Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/SWITRO-3.
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Habermas, Gary (2024). "On the Resurrection, Vol. 1, Evidences". Philosophia Christi 26 (1). doi:10.5840/pc202426115. https://philpapers.org/rec/PAROTR-5.
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Paley, William (1851). Evidences of Christianity. CreateSpace. https://philpapers.org/rec/PALEOC.
6. ↑ Clarke, Samuel (1711). A Discourse Concerning the Being and Attributes of God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation.. Printed by W. Botham, for James Knapton, at the Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard. https://philpapers.org/rec/CLAADC-2.
7. ↑ Whately, Richard (1827). Elements of Logic. Delmar, N.Y.: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints. https://philpapers.org/rec/WHAEOL.
8. ↑ Craig, William Lane (1994). Reasonable faith : Christian truth and apologetics. Internet Archive. Wheaton, Ill. : Crossway Books. ISBN 978-0-89107-764-0. https://archive.org/details/reasonablefaithc0000crai_c2s7.
9. ↑ McGrew, Timothy; McGrew, Lydia (2009), Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P., eds., "The Argument From Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth", The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell): pp. 593–662, https://philpapers.org/rec/MCGTAF, retrieved 2025-02-21
10. ↑ Tsai, Sheng-Ta (2023-05-12). "Debunking the Use of Bayesian Statistics for Christian Miracle Claims" (in en). https://medium.com/deconstructing-christianity/debunking-the-use-of-bayesian-statistics-for-christian-miracle-claims-2b289ba17064.
11. ↑ Loftus, John W. (2021-01-01). "What's Wrong With Using Bayes' Theorem to Evaluate Miracles?". From Chapter 1 "In Defense of Hitchens's Razor" in the anthology "God and Horrendous Suffering" (2021).. https://www.academia.edu/62251183/Whats_Wrong_With_Using_Bayes_Theorem_to_Evaluate_Miracles.
12. ↑ Alai, Mario. "Bayesian “No Miracle Argument” and the Priors of Truth" (in en). https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23321/.
13. ↑ Carrier, Richard (2023-07-01). "Daniel Bonevac's Bayesian Argument for Miracles • Richard Carrier Blogs" (in en-US). https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/24227.

## Further reading

* David Hume (ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902 (ISBN 978-0-19-824535-3).
* Richard Swinburne (ed.), Miracles, London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1989 (ISBN 978-0-02-418731-4).

## External sources

* "Miracles". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
* "Miracles". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

* v
* t
* e

Arguments for and against the existence of God

For|

* Beauty
* Christological ( Trilemma ) ( Resurrection )
* Consciousness
* Cosmological ( Kalam cosmological ) ( Contingency ) ( Cosmological argument )
* Degree
* Intelligent Design ( Ontogenetic depth )
* Desire
* Experience
* Existential choice
* Fine-tuned universe
* Knowledge
* Love
* Miracles
* Morality
* Natural-law
* Necessary extent ( Seddiqin )
* Nyayakusumanjali
* Ontological ( Anselm ) ( Gödel ) ( Modal ) ( Mulla Sudra )
* Pascal's Wager
* Reason
* Reformed
* Teleological ( Junkyard ) ( Natural law ) ( Watchmaker )
* Transcendental
* Trademark

Against|

* 747 gambit
* Atheist's Wager
* Evil
* Free will
* Hell
* Inconsistent revelations
* Nonbelief
* Noncognitivism
* Occam's Razor
* Omnipotence
* Poor design
* Russell's teapot

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument from miracles. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Unsolved:Argument_from_miracles&oldid=4351180"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template