Miracles are impossible because they break the laws of nature

Why Hume's argument is powerful

Hume's essay "Of Miracles" is one of the most influential arguments in philosophy. His point is about probability: our experience overwhelmingly tells us that nature behaves regularly. Reports of miracles come from people who could be mistaken, gullible or dishonest. So when we weigh a miracle report against the regularity of nature, nature should almost always win. That's a sensible rule of thumb for everyday life.

It depends on whether God exists

The key question is what you already believe. If there's no God, then miracles really are effectively impossible, because there's nothing outside nature to act on it. But if God exists, the situation changes. A God who created nature could act within it. Laws of nature describe what happens when nothing outside nature intervenes. A miracle wouldn't break a law; it would be a new factor entering the system, like a hand catching a falling apple. Gravity still works; something else was added.

So the miracles debate really depends on Is there a God? If that's an open question, then miracles are at least possible.

Hume's argument may prove too much

Critics have noted that Hume's rule seems to rule out any truly unprecedented event, no matter how strong the evidence. The philosopher John Earman, who isn't a Christian apologist, wrote a book called Hume's Abject Failure, arguing that Hume's reasoning misunderstands how probability works. Strong, independent testimony can make an unlikely event credible. That's how we accept surprising scientific discoveries.

Examining the evidence

Once we allow that miracles are possible, the question becomes historical: is there good evidence that a particular one happened? Christianity centres on one: the resurrection of Jesus. N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God is a major scholarly study of that question. The evidence includes the empty tomb, the appearances to many people including skeptics, and the sudden transformation of the disciples (see Is Christianity true?).

Miracles aren't random magic

In the Bible, miracles are rare and purposeful. They cluster around key moments and point to something beyond themselves. That makes them different from the random, trivial wonders often found in legends.

A fair concession

Skepticism about miracle reports is healthy. Many have turned out to be false. A careful believer should be just as critical as a skeptic, while not ruling the possibility out in advance.

How to explain this to a friend

A friend who says miracles are impossible usually assumes there's no God. A gentle way to surface that is to ask: "If there were a God who made the universe, could he act in it?" Most people say yes. Then the conversation moves from "impossible" to "is there good evidence that one happened?" which is a fair and interesting historical question.

The bottom line

Miracles are impossible only if God doesn't exist. If God exists, a resurrection is a live possibility, and the question becomes one of historical evidence. Explore that on Is Christianity true?