Merriam-Webster(2025)defines a miracle as “an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.” In practice, however, Merriam’s theological definition is one of two common ways of defining a miraculous event. In secular society, a miraculous event is more often defined as an event that is so extraordinary, unexpected, or unlikely that it seems all but impossible to have occurred under normal circumstances.” Events such as these include surviving a horrific accident or an extremely deadly disease. While the world at large seems to accept the secular definition, it is in the theological sense of the word that it has been so heavily criticized over the millennia.
One of the most outspoken critics of the theologically miraculous is the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776). In fact, Hume penned an entire chapter in his book Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in which he disputes that miracles can or have ever occurred in history. Hume defined a theological miracle as an event that violates a law of nature, concluding that since the laws of nature are all but impossible to violate, then a miracle cannot happen. In other words, since it is all but impossible for midday to turn to night, the miracle of midday turning to night can never happen. Further, Hume, who held that belief should be based on observation of the evidence, concluded that the miraculous is impossible because the evidence against it having occurred is always stronger. For that reason, a person should never assume that a miracle has indeed occurred.
Evidence, in the form of eyewitness testimony, also fell under Hume’s scrutiny, saying that “it is no strange thing that men should lie in all ages.” Obviously, Hume had little trust in human testimony, believing that even the strongest eyewitness account of a miracle was not enough. The likelihood of people being mistaken, or lying, was far greater than the probability that a miracle had actually happened. Funny, I wonder if he was critical of his own eyewitness testimony, which he no doubt gave countless times in his life. Or, how did he trust anyone’s word about anything? Nevertheless, at its core, Hume’s argument against miracles comes down to this: “no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that the falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.” In other words, Hume believes miracles never happen.
Unfortunately for Hume, his stance on miracles is full of holes. First, his reasoning violates one of themostbasiclawsoflogicinthathe assumes what he is trying to prove. In philosophy, this is called a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning and is necessarily false. By its very nature, a miracle is an event almost impossibletooccur.Humetakesthe definition of a miracle and uses it to argue that a miracle is impossible. That is circular reasoning because that is why it is called a miracle in the first place.
Further, Hume confuses probability with possibility. Sure enough, a miracle is an event that is all but impossible to occur. That makes its occurrence an improbability. But it does not make it impossible. After all, a miracle would cease to be a miracle if its occurrence were expected.
In addition, Hume’s critique of eyewitness testimony is off base. Courts of law couldn’t function without eyewitness testimony. Almost all criminal attorneys rely upon eyewitness testimony to make their case, and it is often decisive in the jury’s decision-making. Not only that, if eyewitness testimony is untrustworthyasHumewouldhave us believe, then we cannot claim to know anything about anything that happens outside of our sight. In fact, none of the articles found in this newspaper edition would be possible without having some confidence in eyewitness testimony. How would we know our history, or anything else for that matter, if eyewitness testimony is not valid? More than that, according to this line of reasoning, even Hume’s testimony itself is highly suspect.
Hume’s bias here cannot be overstated. Since he assumes that God is not only dead, but that He never existed in the first place, he assumes the discussion of miracles is really over before it even begins. Hume’s math is simple: no Miracle Worker, no miracles! That, of course, is all well and good if it is true. But there is abundant and compelling evidence that not only such a Miracle Worker does exist but has intentionally intervened in human affairs. And, it is the exact typeofevidence,throughtestimony, that is accepted every day in courts of law throughout the world.
All of this inevitably brings us to the point of it all: the Christian Bible records the account of an empty tomb and over 500 eyewitnesses, five of whom (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) independently wrote about the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. That is a lot of eyewitnesses. That is a lot of evidence.
I hope you join us again next time as we continue to address the question: Is God Dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.