OBJECTIONS TO THE IDEA OF MIRACLES

Everything in our common experience tells us that when we encounter highly complex, organized systems or information, they are the result of thoughtful design. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that when we encounter the same in biology or other sciences they too are the result of thoughtful design

• We no longer need miracles as an explanation for anything

• Science can explain everything

• Science can only study events and entities that have a natural explanation

• Science cannot explore the miraculous because science can only study that which is repeatable and regular

• Science and the miraculous are incompatable

• Is a worldview that includes miracles any less scientific than one than one that doesn’t?

BENEDICT SPINOZA

• 1 Miracles are violations of natural laws• 2 Natural laws are immutable• 3 It is impossible for natural laws to be

violated• 4 Therefore, miracles are impossible

DAVID HUME

• 1 A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature• 2 Firm and unalterable experience has

established these laws• 3 A wise man proportions his belief to the

evidence• 4 Therefore, “the proof against miracles….. is

as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined

IMMANUEL KANT• 1 Everything in our experience is determined by practical

experience• 2 Practical reason operates according to universal laws• 3 Miracles occur either (A) daily, (B) seldom, or (C) never• 4 What occurs daily is not a miracle since it occurs regularly• 5 What occurs seldom is not determined by any law• 6 All scientific knowledge must be determined by practical

reason which operates on universal law• 7 Therefore, it is rational to conclude that miracles never

occur

ANTONY FLEW

• 1 Miracles are by nature particular and unrepeatable

• 2 Natural events are by nature general and repeatable

• 3 In practice, the evidence for the general and repeatable is always greater than that for the particular and unrepeatable

• 4 Therefore, the evidence will always be greater against miracles than for them

ALASTAIR McKINNON

• 1 A scientific law is a generalization based on observation.

• 2 Any exception to a scientific law invalidates that law and calls for a revision to it

• 3 A miracle is an exception to a scientific law• 4 Therefore, a “miracle” would call for a revision

of a law and the recognition of a broader law. This would explain the “miracle” as a natural event

EMAIL

• If God will cheat or boast that he can or does intervene in our lives, in the natural order….. or for any purpose not even disclosed to us, it makes observation of the world and the affairs of the tiniest microbes to galactic catastrophe all futile, for they are then placed at the whim of a fickle God who will deceive us when it suits him. Therefore to test that God exists by appeal to observations of this world and it’s affairs is quite futile. If God has intervened in the world even once then no observation or consequent observation we can make is reliable.

2 COR 13:11

• And the God of love and peace will be with you

JER 33:20

• ….My covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night……come at their appointed time….

PSALMS 111:7,8

• The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. They are steadfast for ever and ever, done in faithfulness and uprightness.

1 COR 14:33

• For God is not a God of disorder but of peace

JOHN 17:17

• Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

• Purpose of the miraculous

• Ask “Why” alot

CONCLUSIONS

• Science does not exclude miracles• Miracles do not invalidate science• Miracles are not capricious or random• Miracles have a purpose• Miracles are one way of God communicating

with us