FIRST
A miracle is generally understood as an event that appears to defy natural laws. In religious contexts, miracles are often described as exceptions to the regular functioning of nature, sometimes attributed to a divine cause. Examples could include claims of extraordinary births or events that do not occur under normal circumstances.
Extraordinary claims, including miracles, carry a higher burden of proof than ordinary claims. By “proof,” we mean evidence sufficient to establish plausibility beyond reasonable doubt. Complete certainty is not required, but a claim must be supported adequately relative to its significance.
All claims, including those about God or miracles, require justification. Both positive claims (“X happened”) and negative claims (“X did not happen”) imply evidence and reasoning. The more extraordinary or impactful the claim, the stronger the supporting evidence should be.
Several principles can guide evaluation of miracle claims:
Focus on unusual claims first – Claims that are highly unusual or extraordinary, such as reports of supernatural events, require stronger corroboration than ordinary events.
Demand reasons and evidence – A claim should be supported by evidence, reasoning, and responses to potential objections.
Account for credibility of the claimant – Making a claim also implies that the claimant has the knowledge, judgment, and honesty to present it accurately.
Small or seemingly minor miracles should be evaluated as rigorously as large ones. Any event that appears to contradict normal expectations can have significant logical or psychological effects and therefore requires careful scrutiny.
Even if one allows for the existence of supernatural forces, extraordinary events must be substantiated by reliable evidence. Apparent miracles could result from misperception, memory errors, or other natural explanations. Therefore, one cannot assert that an event such as a resurrection occurred without acknowledging alternative possibilities and providing strong supporting evidence.
The burdens of proof for miracles include:
Demonstrating the event occurred – Evidence must show that the event actually happened.
Showing that the event qualifies as a miracle – The event must be beyond ordinary natural explanations.
Establishing the credibility of witnesses – Reliable observation and reporting are essential.
Connecting the event to a message or purpose – If the event is claimed to convey a divine message, evidence should support that interpretation and account for competing claims.
If a miracle claims to require faith, it should still provide sufficient evidence to make belief reasonable. Claims of faith alone, without supporting evidence, do not meet the burden of proof.
In all cases, claims must be presented transparently and supported with adequate evidence. This ensures that those evaluating the claim can do so rationally and fairly, without relying solely on authority or assumption.
THE ARGUMENT
Miracle claims are extraordinary so by definition, miracles are events that stand outside normal natural laws. Extraordinary claims carry a heavier burden of proof than ordinary claims. The claimant must justify the truth of the miracle. To assert a miracle is true is to implicitly assert that natural explanations alone are insufficient. Responsibility lies with the claimant to show why the miracle should be considered plausible or true.
Miracles must be distinguishable from natural events or errors. Witnesses and evidence must reliably demonstrate that the event occurred as a genuine exception to natural laws.
Small or low-level “supernatural” events cannot be automatically assumed to validate larger, more significant miracles.
Faith alone is insufficient for if a miracle demands belief in itself, it must still provide some form of evidence to make belief reasonable. Miracles that rely solely on faith more than evidence do not satisfy the burden of proof. They look devious.
Only credible, competent observers can substantiate a miracle claim. A burden lies in showing that the event was accurately witnessed and reported.
The claimant must demonstrate that the event is genuinely beyond natural explanation, so any competing miracle claims must also be considered; a miracle’s message must not be undermined by other claims.
Miracles must carry a meaningful message or bring God - so that will have a supernatural transformative effect in the souls of others. For religious miracles, the event should communicate a purpose or divine message. The claimed effect (e.g., the indwelling of God's enlightening spirit, personal transformation, moral insight) must be demonstrable in a person, as faith is meant to work inwardly. That may be a heavier and more difficult burden of proof than the rest.
Claims carry implications so every miracle claim implies both a positive (“this happened”) and a negative (“it could not have happened naturally”). Stronger claims require stronger evidence due to potential disruption of trust in natural laws and human understanding.
Claimants bear a moral and intellectual responsibility - making a miracle claim is a claim about both the event and the claimant’s integrity, knowledge, and honesty. Claimants must provide compelling evidence to avoid misleading others or encouraging belief without justification.
Even a seemingly obvious miracle may be uncertain. Apparent miracles can result from mistaken perception, memory alteration, or deception. And there is no reason why miracle tricks may fake a miracle such as Jesus rising. One must account for alternative explanations before asserting the event as a meaningful divine miracle.