As we begin, I’ll start with my typical disclaimer. I’d like to give credit where credit is due. Much of the research that I’ve done has come from a variety of different sources, prominently among them is I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. In addition, I’ve relied upon much research from Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, and Dr. John Lennox. If you’d like more information, I’d suggest you visit their websites, CrossExamined.org, ReasonableFaith.org, or rzim.org.
As we’ve journeyed through our Prove It series, we’ve taken a look at the scientific and philosophical evidence in support of Christianity. We first looked at the question, “Does truth Exist?” Using the law of noncontradiction and the Roadrunner Tactic, we showed that it was self-defeating to say that there was no such thing as absolute truth.
For the last two weeks we’ve tackled the question, “Does God exist?” In so doing, we looked at the evidence for a theistic God. Among world religions we find three main categories, theism, pantheism, and atheism. Through the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments we determined that a theistic god matching the qualities of the God of Biblical Christianity must exist. Given this evidence, we determined that the theistic worldview was correct and that, via the law of noncontradiction, the pantheistic and atheistic worldviews must be false.
That means that theistic worldviews such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam may be true and non-theistic worldviews such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Confucianism, and Mormonism are wrong. It seems harsh to say, but if we have absolute, objective truth, somebody is right and somebody is wrong. We can’t all be right if we’re saying contradictory things.
Some may look at this list and wonder why Mormonism made the list. They’re an offshoot of Christianity, right? Sort of. They claim to be Christian, but they’ve warped it so much that honestly it’s not Christianity anymore. Mormonism isn’t a theistic religion. Instead, it is a polytheistic religion. In Christianity we believe in one infinite God. In Mormonism it is believed that the God of the Bible is but one god among many. Logically, there can’t be more than one infinite being. If there were more than one, they would have to be distinct or different in some way. If they were different, one must be lacking something that the other one has. Therefore, if one is lacking something, it cannot be infinite. There can only be one infinite being.
Plus, Mormons believe that their god was once a mortal being that achieved godhood. They believe that each person is capable of achieving this same level. However, if a finite being becomes a god, that being is still finite. We’ve seen that anything that has come to be must have a cause, so the god of Mormonism is still in need of a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial being to set everything in motion.
Having determined that the theistic worldview is the correct worldview, based upon our evidence and reasoning, we now must determine what kind of theistic god is out there. Is the Jewish concept of God true? Maybe the Islamic concept of god is true. If this theistic god wanted to tell us which one of these were true, what could he do? He could do something that only he could do, and that would be a miracle.
We’ve seen that this theistic god has already communicated to us through creation and conscience. This is called natural or general revelation. This is what the Bible speaks of when it says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1) or “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20). Just as we’ve demonstrated, you don’t need the Bible to know that God exists. He has revealed himself in all of creation. We can learn much about the creator by his creation. However, we can learn so much more by what he has revealed to us through his prophets. The question then arises, which people are his prophets?
Many people are averse to the idea of miracles. They think you’re crazy if you believe in stories such as Noah or Jonah. They’re likely to laugh at you if you tell them you believe people can be raised from the dead. We’ve all known people who have died and none of them have been raised from the dead, so why should we believe that anyone can be raised from the dead? We need to address these questions if we hope to assert that a theistic god has used miracles to confirm the truth of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
Many people have objections to miracles because, as they claim, the laws of nature are immutable. Benedict Spinoza, a Jewish pantheist, popularized this objection. His argument went like this:
- Miracles are violations of natural laws
- Natural laws are immutable
- It is impossible to violate immutable laws
- Therefore, miracles are impossible
His logic seems sound. If Spinoza is right and there is no way around the natural laws, then logic tells us that miracles are impossible. However, his argument begs the question. If you define natural laws as being immutable, then of course you’ll come to the logical conclusion that miracles are impossible. But who said natural laws are immutable? By definition, he has ruled out the possibility of miracles before we even look at the evidence.
Natural law tells us that something doesn’t come into existence out of nothing, yet that’s exactly what the evidence is showing us. The Big Bang demonstrates that natural laws are not immutable. Also, we know that it can’t be true that natural laws are immutable because natural laws are not prescriptions of what must happen but rather descriptions of what does happen.
We weren’t given an instruction manual for the universe that explains how everything works. Instead, as we’ve observed the universe at work, we’ve noticed that things happen in certain, predictable ways. Scientists wrote down these observations. Over the centuries they’ve repeatedly been proven true, so they are held as a natural law. Based on our observations, natural law tells us how the universe will function under normal circumstances. Miracles, by definition, are not normal circumstances.
Another popular argument against miracles was made popular by David Hume. His view on miracles has become one of the pillars of the Enlightenment (where we’re supposed to become enlightened enough to abandon our superstitious beliefs in miracles and put our faith in reason and the scientific method). Hume’s argument goes something like this:
- Natural law is by definition a description of a regular occurrence
- A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence
- The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare
- A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence
- Therefore, a wise man should never believe in miracles
His logic seems solid. If the premises stated in 1-4 are solid, then we naturally come to the same conclusion as Hume. However, one of these premises is a false premise. In our modern society, we see regular occurrences all the time. We throw a ball in the air and it comes back down. We mix two chemicals together and they always achieve the same result. However, to prove premise 3 to be false, we need only show one counterexample.
Fortunately for us, we have multiple examples at our fingertips. We all know that things don’t appear out of nothing. It is a regular occurrence that all things must have a physical cause. However, the origin of the universe is a rare occurrence that runs counter to regular occurrences. This event is clearly rare and unrepeatable, but the evidence for this rare event has convinced many brilliant scientists that conclude that it must have happened. Therefore, in this instance, the evidence for the rare event is clearly greater than that of the regular.
Likewise, the origin of life is a rare occurrence that happened only once. It is an unrepeatable event, yet every naturalist believes that all life arose spontaneously from non-life in some rare event. Regular occurrence would tell us that life doesn’t come from non-life, but there are many “wise men” out there that believe in this rare occurrence. More evidence could be presented, but it seems, based upon these two counterexamples, that premise 3 is false and therefore Hume’s conclusion must be false as well.
The major flaw within Hume’s argument is that it confuses believability with possibility. Just because something does or doesn’t happen regularly doesn’t indicate that it’s impossible. You may be justified in being skeptical or not believing it, but the possibility of it remains the same. We regularly see a person play the lottery and lose. Based upon this regular occurrence, we may not believe that they will ever win, but the regular occurrence of their losing doesn’t mean that it is impossible for them to win. A wise man may conclude that they will never win the lottery, but that belief doesn’t make winning the lottery impossible.
In addition, Hume confuses probability with evidence. He adds all the evidence for the regular events but fails to weigh that against the evidence for each rare event. If a friend claims to have won the lottery and is holding the winning ticket, while the probability of them winning is still extremely low, the evidence of the winning ticket in their hand must be taken into consideration.
Finally, looking over Hume’s argument, we see that he is actually arguing in a circle. Much like with Spinoza, instead of evaluating the evidence for each miracle, Hume rules out all based on lack of evidence. He disregards all evidence in support of miracles in order to systematically prove that miracles are impossible.
One thing that Hume did get right is the fact that miracles, by definition, are a rare occurrence. Many people don’t believe in miracles for this simple fact. They haven’t seen one, so they must not be possible. However, if miracles were common, there wouldn’t be anything special about them. If people rose from the dead all the time, Jesus’ resurrection wouldn’t be anything special. Miracles have to be rare to get our attention.
That’s why God chose to perform signs and miracles through the prophets and apostles. Throughout history kings and rulers have had a need to send messengers throughout the land with an authoritative message. However, what was to stop any peasant or rival leader from writing a message and claiming it has the authority of the king? The king’s seal. The king would have a special ring or stamp which was used to place his seal on the message. Nobody else could duplicate the seal. It was something only the king could provide. If the message had the seal of the king, everyone knew it was authoritative.
Likewise, miracles are God’s seal for his prophets and apostles. Nobody else can perform such miracles. When these chosen people came proclaiming the word of God, these miracles served as an authoritative seal from God himself. Why should we follow what Moses said? Because God chose to do miracles through him in order to verify his message. Why should we follow what Paul or Peter said? Because God chose to do miracles through them and subsequently verify their message.
Some scholars will say that we can’t trust the New Testament writings as being historically accurate because they contain miracles. It’s true that if miracles are not possible, then all miracles cited in the Bible or any other text must be false. Much like Hume and Spinoza, they haven’t seen miracles, so they deny the possibility and discredit any claim to the contrary. Our friends over at Lutheran Satire help us to put this argument into the proper perspective. However, instead of conversing with St. Patrick, this time Donall and Conall are speaking to world-renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins.
What is the greatest miracle of the Bible? Some will claim walking on water. Many will claim the resurrection of Jesus. That was a pretty good miracle, but it pales in comparison to the greatest miracle of the Bible. The greatest miracle of the Bible can be found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If that verse is true, then every other miracle has to at least be possible.
We have good scientific and philosophical evidence that Genesis 1:1 is indeed true. A spaceless, timeless, and immaterial being created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. If God can create the heavens and the earth out of nothing, can he do whatever he wants that’s not logically impossible inside the heavens and the earth? Of course he can! If he can create the universe out of nothing and create all life, can he raise Jesus from the dead? Of course!
C.S. Lewis said it brilliantly when he wrote, “If we admit God, must we admit miracles? Indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain.” If there is a supernatural being out there that created all of nature, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, moral, and personal being, then it stands to reason that such a being, having the power to create everything, would also have the power to manipulate said creation.
If our logic is sound to this point and, seeing as we have evidence for a miracle, we can determine that miracles are indeed possible, we must look at each miraculous claim based upon it own merits. If we want to determine if the resurrection really happened, we can’t rule out the possibility from the beginning. Instead, we must look at the evidence, particularly the eyewitness evidence, in order to determine, “Is the New Testament true?” Next week we will seek to answer this question and conclude our apologetic series.