There are many arguments that attempt to prove that God exists, but one of the more notable ones is the existence, or seeming existence of miracles. This argument in itself is an understandable statement because there seem to be events in our lives or other’s lives that we cannot explain. However turning to a supernatural explanation might not be the best answer either.

            First let’s try to understand what a miracle is. I think that most people would agree that it is an event that in someway violates natural law. Something very good happening to a poor family could be considered a miracle. Surviving a plane crash could be considered a miracle as well, so it is also probably assumed that whatever the event is, it is good for the person it happens to. In essence, a miracle is a good violation of natural law.

            The argument for miracles states that there are some events that seem to be miracles. The best explanation for these events is that they are actually miracles, most likely performed by a miracle worker. Thus there probably is a miracle worker, whom we call god (Notes Mar 17). This argument most closely resembles Hypothetical Induction; we observe P, If H is true, that would be the best explanation of P, So probably H is true (Notes Jan 11). The validity of this argument is based heavily in the information in its premises and the presence of adhoc assumptions.

            The criticisms of its premises are immediately recognizable. First of all, this “miracle worker” need not be a single miracle worker. Couldn’t there be a committee of miracle workers or possibly an entire society of them? Also if we prove that miracles do exist then they do more to disprove god than anything else. God is supposedly the one who created our natural laws and guidelines so why would he go and violate his own rules (Notes Mar 17)? Why would he play favorites with certain people, or why would he give a miracle to a rich evil person instead of a poor good person? These things happen almost every day and for many people it suggests god is an insensitive jerk rather than an all good being.

            It is also apparent that premise two is false because the best explanation for these results isn’t necessarily a miracle. For example in many of the god arguments, he is used to explain things we don’t understand yet, much like a miracle is. But just because we don’t know why or how something happened, doesn’t mean it was a supernatural being or event that caused it (Notes Mar 17). It is, in fact, an adhoc assumption to say such; there is no need to jump to the conclusion it’s a supernatural being when we don’t understand something; we could just as easily jump to anything else if evidence isn’t involved. This also brings up the question of the source of the information. When a lesser educated person comes to us with a crazy story about aliens we simply shrug it off, thinking that either the person is crazy or they just want attention. So why do we think any differently of the miracles? Isn’t the belief in god more common among the lesser educated? Or perhaps they were educated, but something else was distorting their perception such as alcohol or drugs. You don’t tend to see many respected scientists claiming to have seen miracles, yet there are hundreds from no name church goers around the country.

            Another piece of information I found interesting is the existence of bad miracles. For example your house burning down or possibly losing all of your money on the stock market. These are bad events that seem out of nowhere, and yet when these occur we say “there must be a logical reason for this happening.” Same thing if a healthy person dies for no apparent reason, is that a miracle? Most would say no and I would agree, but why should we look for a logical explanation on bad miracles and not the good ones? Of course some more religious people use the argument that God intended to burn down my house for a greater good, or to reveal something to me. Some can agree with this, especially for cases where the person in question came out on top at the end, but what of those who don’t bounce back? What of those people who fall hard and never get back up? How was this a part of the greater good?

            A better explanation for miracles would be that they are simply chance happenings, or coincidences. I know from personal experience that millions of people would disagree with me on this, pointing out countless instances of unexplainable miracles, but really if you look at it in terms of scale, it is every bit as likely, if not more, to be a naturally explained coincidence as it is to be a supernatural being. For example winning the lottery isn’t very likely, and yet with thousands of people playing it every week, it is likely that at some point someone will win something. So say for example an odd occurrence that seems to be a miracle happens once in every human’s life time, then multiply that by the number of humans on the planet. We are then looking at billions of miracles and that is just the current generation, not taking into account our ancestors or offspring. So on this large of a scale, yes it is possible to have that many coincidences, some big and some small.

            My own thoughts on the matter stem from my lack of belief in god, and thus I do not believe in miracles. However I think that the definition of miracles is a skewed one as well. For example when I think of a miracle I think of it more as a stroke of luck, or a near evasion of disaster. Saying something was a miracle to me sounds just like saying “thank god” or “what a relief.” Given the amount of humans on the planet and the infinite number of outcomes of every situation it is highly probable that unusual events will occur and due to the widespread idea of religion people tend to associate such occurrences with supernatural causes. I for one do not, but I guarantee that I have said something was a miracle and will say so again sometime in my life, but that does not make me a believer in god, it makes me a believer in luck.

            In the end, whether miracles are coincidence or supernatural interference, it doesn’t prove the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, all good being. It might be a better idea to attempt to prove that miracles exist rather than proving god exists with the evidence of miracles. As it stands, it is just as weak as all the other god arguments and doesn’t do much to further the idea that god exists.

Works Cited

Philosophy 101 notes, Mar. 17, 2005, Jan. 11, 2005