What's a Miracle?
A miracle is an event that is not naturally possible. That does not mean it is necessarily impossible. There could be a power greater than nature, such as God, that can do it. A miracle is a supernatural event. It's like God doing magic. A miracle is when God does magical things, like raising Jesus from the dead.
Miracles are likely or unlikely. To say they are likely means it is no big deal if one refuses cancer treatment, believing God will take the cancer away. To say they are somewhere between likely and unlikely also implies it doesn't matter if you take the treatment. Believers and skeptics agree that miracles are unlikely but differ on how unlikely they are.
To say miracles are unlikely means we need very good evidence to believe they happen. It also means they are so out of the ordinary that we need to see and understand the evidence ourselves. We cannot depend on authority. You may say, "If I am told I have cancer, I do not ask for a whole investigation." But if you had any suspicion, you would have the right. We should question things if there is reason to. A miracle needs to be questioned. You can't believe just anything supernatural.
Gradation – Meriting Investigation
What if miracles are claimed? Not all deserve investigation, though you may still investigate.
STAGE 1: Ask if it is
A miracle that is important
A miracle that is not important
Only important ones deserve investigation.
STAGE 2: Ask if it is
Reported by living witnesses who will talk
Reported by dead people near the event who were in a position to know
Reported by dead people long after the event
If it is the last one, do not waste time unless others need it answered.
From this, we see that we are not entitled to care about the New Testament.
There are many random miracle claims and paranormal events that cannot be disproven. But they cannot be proven either. So we have to assume something. But what? The skeptic will assume they would be disproven if we had all the facts. The believer will say they might be proven if we had the facts. You cannot be both skeptic and believer.
If a miracle demands you believe in it, it is by default a worrying miracle. Reject it! The resurrection of Jesus and the miraculous Koran are thus eliminated as not only impious but unworthy of consideration. They command you to believe or go to Hell forever. Take that as personally offensive.
Difference
You cannot approach a spiritual, miraculous, or magical claim the same way as an allegation that the cat drank the milk.
First, the reason is that it is not the same. A magic claim is different from a natural claim.
Second, if a miracle is an exception to the way nature works, you have to be sure, for the sake of science. Science needs nature to behave regularly to do its job. To falsely assert a brick floated in space is to attack science. If it is true, then at least the religious claim that religion respects and trusts science is still being cared about.
Third, a magic, miracle, religious, or spiritual claim needs stricter and different criteria than any other claim because it is very out of the norm. Murder is not normal, which is why you need solid evidence. Miracles are even less normal.
Hearing of some miracles is enough to refute them!
Religion says it is irrational to say miracles do not happen when you will not investigate before you speak. But some claims are untrue, and realizing they cannot be true is investigation enough. If some get it wrong and dismiss true miracle claims, that is not the fault of the principle. The principle is even more vindicated.
Religion also tells you what miracle claims to investigate. It puts a bias in you. You would not investigate unless you suspended your belief that the story seems untrue. Religion knows you cannot investigate them all.
If a miracle is not worth believing but is actually genuine, you have to give people evidence that it is worth investigating. There is a difference between evidence that shows something is worth checking and evidence that you need to check it out.
Religion never gives you evidence that something is worth looking for evidence for. It is not a true friend of evidence.
Evidence Can Outweigh Theoretical Improbability
Some say we cannot say a miracle is too improbable to be believed in because we don't know what is improbable. In theory, a miracle could be as likely as it is unlikely. But we are talking about our knowledge. Is a miracle likely or unlikely as far as we can know? The question of a miracle really being likely or unlikely is different from the question of how well we can know it.
David Hume showed that belief in miracles is superstitious. He said it is very probable to our minds that the sun will rise tomorrow. He would say it is very improbable to our minds that it will not.
He did not say miracles violate natural law and conclude, "Natural law doesn't change, so miracles are impossible." He said miracles could be possible but are very unlikely in our perception. He was not saying they really were unlikely, only that we have to see them as unlikely. We do not believe that if we put water in our fuel tanks it will turn into diesel.
Christianity says Hume claimed miracles must be assumed not to happen because nature does not change. They argue that it is false to say nature is that fixed. But this point is irrelevant. Hume never said nature was that fixed, only that we have to approach it as if it is. By natural law, he only meant it was probable that x will happen and not y.
Hume was saying miracles are so improbable that even excellent evidence for them is not enough. For example, excellent evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is nothing compared to the evidence that dead people stay dead. This is the only rational approach. He is not dogmatic or refusing to consider evidence. Yet Christians always misrepresent his argument and say he is. They say he rejects miracles as nonsense without considering evidence. A faith with that attitude is hardly dependable. It is unfair, uncharitable, and peppered with religious bigotry.
Christians say Hume is wrong in having actual evidence outweighed by theoretical probability. They say actual evidence can outweigh theoretical probability. For example, it is very improbable for dead people to rise, but the evidence says there was one exception: Jesus. They compare it to getting a perfect hand in bridge. Though theoretically improbable, it can happen without the supernatural. But in relation to the resurrection, we are not talking about something naturally unlikely, but something supernatural. The Christian view about actual evidence versus theoretical probability is irrelevant.
Religionists do not truly believe actual evidence outweighs theoretical probability. They are lying when they say they do. If they had a dream that seemed miraculous and proved Jesus was a fraud, they would not believe it. Dreams that seem prophetic or clairvoyant are quite common. Lies told to defend belief in miracles are enough to put us off them.
Religionists neglect to say that even if evidence outweighs theoretical probability, it does not always. For example, if you had the codes to start a nuclear war, and witnesses claimed they had a vision of Jesus telling you to use them, you should not listen.
Actual evidence outweighing theory does not apply to miracles.
READ THIS CAREFULLY:
Religionists forget that belief in evidence itself is based on theoretical probability. You theorize, for example, that the evidence is real and not planted by aliens or a conspirator. Those scenarios are improbable. Maybe they are not, but you have to assume they are. Theoretical probability should always come before actual evidence, because it is only through theoretical probability that you believe in evidence at all.
Belief in the supernatural intrinsically stops you from appreciating evidence.
When we weigh evidence, we must presuppose there is no supernatural force tampering with it.
Supernatural beliefs make you biased and immune to logic and evidence. For example, if you believe God raised your Messiah and CCTV shows trickery, you could say the Devil tampered with it. Without authentic common sense, the world and life are compromised.
Nobody can say evidence for miracles comes before the theoretical improbability that miracles happen. Miracles are intrinsically anti-evidence. Without evidence, we cannot determine what is probable or improbable. The whole thing falls apart.
Christians deny we should put theoretical probability before evidence. They say we may believe improbable things if the evidence is sufficient. But they are tricking us. We are not talking about theoretical probability. It is the idea that we assume what is probable or improbable. Do we assume miracles are likely or unlikely?
We say, rather than making assumptions, let the evidence point us to what is probable or improbable. If you let evidence tell you what is theoretically probable, you cannot believe Jesus came to life when so many dead people stay dead.
Evidence that is there is outweighed by our theories about probability. But if evidence says something is probable or improbable, do not accuse those who follow it of advancing ideas of theoretical probability. They are letting evidence speak, not theories.
The religionists' reasoning only makes it possible that miracles happen. It does not mean we may believe in them. Evidence, however strong, is never proof. You cannot prove the person you see killing another really did it. Maybe you took a fit of insanity. Maybe it was a demonic trick.