Are Miracles Possible?

Are Miracles Possible?

Can miracles actually happen—or has modern science made belief in the supernatural impossible?

Before we can ask whether the miracles of the Bible actually happened, we have to answer a more basic question: Are miracles even possible?

In this episode of The Actual Answers Podcast, we examine one of the most common objections to Christianity: the claim that miracles violate the laws of nature and therefore cannot—or should not—be believed.

We’ll look at what a miracle actually is, how miracles differ from anomalies, psychosomatic events, providence, and magic, and why the existence of God radically changes the question. If God created the universe from nothing, then turning water into wine, multiplying loaves, or even raising the dead is no longer a question of possibility—it becomes a question of evidence.

We’ll also take on David Hume’s famous argument against miracles and ask whether his reasoning actually disproves miracles—or simply assumes from the beginning that they cannot happen. And we’ll examine the crucial distinction between rare events and regular events: does the fact that something happens only once mean there cannot be sufficient evidence that it happened?

Along the way, we’ll consider objections from science and history and expose the hidden assumption behind much modern skepticism: that every event must have a natural cause.

The argument is simple:

If God exists, miracles are possible.
If miracles are possible, the question is no longer, “Can they happen?”
The question becomes, “Did they happen?”

And that is where the evidence takes us next.

RECOMMENDED READING

C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study

Norman L. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Hey, welcome to the episode of the Actual Answers Podcast, where we are continuing to work through Norman Geisler's 12 points that show that Christianity is true. And today's point is point number four. And that is if God exists, then miracles are possible. And so the overarching question that we're going to ask, is it possible for a miracle to occur? Are miracles possible at all? So what we're going to tackle today is we we need to tackle first the importance of miracles, why we would why we would even want to address this at all. And then we need to talk about the nature of miracles, of what a miracle is and what a miracle is not, just so that we're clear on our terms and our definitions and what we're actually discussing. And then we're going to talk about whether or not miracles are possible. Is it possible for a miracle to occur? And then we're actually going to kind of drive this a little bit further and talk about the reality of miracles. And then also we're going to talk about the chief purpose of a miracle, which will of course lead into next week's point, point five. But first and foremost, let's talk about why miracles are important. Well, first and foremost, without miracles, the Christian faith, unlike any other religion, can be falsified. Well, why is that the case? Well, it's because all of this hinges on miracles actually happening, because we can be falsified if not, right? If without miracles, the Bible cannot be the word of God, because the Bible is full of miracles. And if miracles are not even possible and the Bible claims many miracles, then the Bible cannot be the word of God because that would make it false. And without miracles, Jesus cannot be the son of God. Because if miracles are not possible or even credible, well then Jesus can't be the son of God because he would have been a liar. And God does not lie because Jesus claimed to do many miracles. Without miracles, salvation cannot be an act of God because Christianity holds that that is a supernatural act. It is a miracle to bring a dead person to life. In 1 Corinthians 15, 17, it says, if Christ has not been raised, which is a miracle, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins. Everything that we believe hinges upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and we as Christians hope for the same thing, but that's a miracle. And as Paul says, if Jesus was not raised from the dead, and if miracles aren't even possible, well then we of all people should be pitied the most. Our faith is futile and we're still in our sins. So the reason miracles are important is because without miracles, the Christian faith, unlike other religions, can be falsified. We can be shown to be false with this one point alone. But what is a miracle? And many times when we talk about anything and we try to describe something, sometimes it's best to start uh talking about what something is not. So, first and foremost, let's talk about what miracles are not. Miracles are not anomalies. An anomaly is something that we don't understand why it happens, but we believe that there is an explanation, a naturalistic explanation for why that thing does happen, even if I don't know what it is. So back in the day, uh aerodynamics showed that it was probably not possible for a bumblebee to fly. So the in the early 20th century, scientists use equations designed for large fixed-winged aircrafts. But those models back then were not as current as they are today. But according to those models at that time, in our understanding of aerodynamics, it shouldn't have been possible for a bumblebee to fly according to that science, because the body is too large of a bumblebee and the wings are too small. But nobody thought that that was a miracle necessarily that a bumblebee could fly because it was obvious that they were flying and it seemed pretty natural that they were flying. We just didn't understand why. And the reality was that bumblebees uh they don't fly like airplanes, right? They they use unique, complex wing motions that aren't understood, that weren't understood at the time. Right? They're they're not fixed. Not only do they not flap up and down, they kind of kind of oscillated a little bit, and their legs, kind of like a swimmer, also helped them to fly. So eventually the understanding of aerodynamics was updated. And then, of course, these things lined up. So they didn't understand it, but then they eventually did. You can think about the thermavent anomaly, right? For decades, scientists believed that all life ultimately depended on sunlight. And that makes sense, right? Sunlight for plants and animals and life. And if you didn't have sunlight, then there was no life. So the assumption was without sunlight, life is impossible. Well, but the problem is deep down in the ocean, there are whole ecosystems, which was discovered in 1977 that uh deep beneath the ocean surface, scientists discovered uh hydrothermal vents, which kind of changed their understanding because what they saw deep down in the ocean is that there were whole ecosystems, whole systems of life that were existing, but they had zero sunlight. But that seems impossible because if all uh life needs sunlight, how in the world is there life down here where there is no sunlight? And so what they discovered in 1977 are these hydrothermal vents, which uh ended up having uh chemosynthesis versus then photosynthesis. So photosynthesis from the sun, but they they have this kind of black cloud, this chemical that they were, these thermo vents were giving off for a chemosynthesis. So that was an anomaly. There was a naturalistic explanation for that that they just didn't have at the time. So miracles are not anomalies. Now, miracles are also not providence, right? God can use his providence. This is what we call providence, where God works all things, naturalistic things, in order to bring about uh situations that otherwise would not have happened if those if those things were not working together. So, something uh even of my own story. When I was growing up, I I did not want to go to college. I I pre-enlisted into the army. I didn't need to go to college, I didn't need I didn't need any of that in my life. And so when it came time to take the ACT exam, I didn't want to take the ACT exam. But my mom made me do it anyways. But I was like, hey, I don't need to take this, I'm not going to college or anything of that nature. I'm pre-enlisted into the army, so I don't need any of this. But by her insistence, I ended up taking the ACT exam. I didn't take it very seriously. I just kind of fluffed it off, didn't study, slept through some of it, and took it. It didn't matter to me. And I made just barely what you would consider a passing grade. I mean just barely by the skin of my teeth. Well, a few weeks later, Howard Payne University's band came to our church and they performed a concert where they were uh performing music and giving testimony and reading scripture, and it was a very moving concert that they performed. And it was the first time that I got to see that you could be a strong Christian and a strong musician together. And that really moved me. And so I decided, hey, I don't want to go to the army anymore. I want to go to college at Howard Payne University and play in the band because I was I was a strong trombone player and I wanted to do something like that. Well, I terminated my contract with the army because I the last requirement that I had was turn 18 years old, which I hadn't done that yet. So I was able to terminate the contract with the army, but I needed an ACT score in order to get in. Well, lo and behold, the ACT score that I had made that I sloughed off that I wasn't even going to take, anyways, was just barely good enough to get into college. I mean, just barely by the skin of my teeth. And so I was able to go to college, therefore, where I met my wife and was called to ministry and all the wonderful things that happened, really, you could kind of boil down to would not have happened had my mom not make me take that ACT exam. And so when I look back at that, I wouldn't say that that was miraculous. That is God's providence working all things, all these naturalistic explanations in order to bring about something that I didn't have foresight for later on. So that is what we would call providence. And miracles are not providence. Miracles are also not psychological. There are some psychological events that are so powerful that they affect the naturalistic world in a way that we would not expect, in a way that's not very normal. So you can think about a woman who has a phantom pregnancy. She believes so strongly and wants a baby so strongly that her body starts to act like she's pregnant. Her belly will swell and look like she's pregnant, her breasts will enlarge and she will actually start to lactate and all these signs of being pregnant, yet she's not pregnant. Her blood levels start to change in certain areas, but that's not a miracle. That is simply a phantom pregnancy. That is a psychological event that is super powerful that it actually affects the naturalistic world that we experience that, hey, that's not normally what happens. Or you can have somebody with a per multiple personality disorder. They believe so strongly that they are this other person that their physiology actually changes. You can actually see when they, you know, quote unquote transition or move into this other personality, that their physiology changes, such as their eye color will change because they believe so strongly that they are this other person. Now, that eye color change, that's that's not a miracle. That is a uh an incredible psychological event. So that's not a miracle. Miracles are not psychological, so they're not anomalies, they're not providence, they're not psychological. Miracles are also not magic, right? When David Copperfield makes the Statue of Liberty disappear, that is just magic. It's an illusion. It is fooling the senses to make you think something supernatural has happened. And most magicians will confess this freely. There are very, very few that will say, No, I'm actually doing something supernatural. There is a difference between a miracle and magic. And we see this in Exodus 8, 17 through 19, when Aaron stretches out his hand with a staff and struck the dust of the earth, and there were gnats on man and beast. All the dust of the earth became gnats in all the land of Egypt. And the magicians tried by their secret arts to produce gnats on man and beasts. Then the magician said to Pharaoh, This is the finger of God. Scripture clearly distinguishes between magic and miracles. Miracles are not magic. And finally, miracles are not satanic acts. They are not acts from Satan. Because we would we would say that a miracle by definition is a supernatural act from God. So by definition, it cannot be satanic. Whatever Satan is doing is not a miracle because a miracle is an act from God. God is the only one that can is the only true miracle worker. He is all powerful according to Revelation 19, 6. But Satan is limited in power. In fact, he must ask permission, and he has boundaries. God can create life, Job 1.21, Deuteronomy 32, 39. But Satan cannot create life. He can only corrupt or destroy what exists, even though he can make things appear that way. He can't actually do it. And God can raise the dead, John 10, 9, uh 10, 18, and Acts 2, 24. But Satan cannot do that. He can only appear to do something like that. It is a counterfeit. And an effective counterfeit looks like the real thing. A good, fake $20 bill, if you would, looks very much like a real $20 bill. But there's a difference. There is one that's real and one that's not. He only has false signs. Second Thessalonians 2, 9 through 10 says that the coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deceptions for those who are perishing. And so if that's true of Satan, the the greatest evil out there, then that's also going to be true of the lesser evils of demons under his uh his control or his power, his army, or however you want to think about that. But those are false signs. They're not actually miracles. So miracles are not anomalies or providence or psychological events, it's not magic, and it's not satanic false signs. But miracles are something. This is what a miracle is. Miracles are divine intervention in the natural world that produces an event that would not have resulted from purely natural causes. I'm gonna say that again. Miracles are divine or a divine intervention in the natural world that produces an event that would not have resulted from purely natural causes. Miracles are a supernatural act of God, they are a supernatural act of God, a divine intervention. And of course, it's done with a purpose. The purpose of a miracle, primarily, now not exclusively, the primary purpose of a miracle is to confirm a message from God, right? Because if God exists, which we demonstrated in our third point, then and if God wanted to communicate to us, how would we know the difference between that being God or Satan? How do how would we know that that's the difference between God and maybe our conscience? How do we know that that would be God speaking to us and not our own thoughts or indigestion from lunch? Well, we would want to confirm things with something that only God can do. That's what makes it a unique message. John 3 2, Nicodemus came to Jesus by night and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him. In Acts 2 22, men of Israel hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know. He uh he was attested by these mighty works and wonders and signs, to know the difference between that this is merely man or also God as well. So that is what the main purpose of a miracle is. But we need to talk about why miracles are possible. I love the quote from C.S. Lewis that says, but if we admit God, must we admit miracles? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain. It's it's quite shocking to me how there can be Christians who would claim that you can have Christianity and not miracles, right? If if there is a creation of God, then there can be an intervention of God. This is this is why miracles are possible. If there is a creation of God, then there can be an intervention of God. Otherwise, the creator would possess less power than his own creation, making the effect greater than its cause. And that's a metaphysical impossibility, right? I'm gonna say I'm gonna say all that again. If there is a creation of God, then there can be an intervention of God. Otherwise, the creator would possess less power than his own creation, making the effect greater than its cause, and that's a metaphysical impossibility. So why would I say that this is a metaphysical impossibility? It's because of what is known as the principle of proportionate causality or the PPC. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. This is a metaphysical impossibility. So what it means is that every effect must pre-exist in its cause, either formally, virtually, or eminently. A cause cannot give what it does not possess. And this matters because it explains how causes produce effects and it prevents something from nothing, which is a metaphysical impossibility. And it grounds reason and science and rationality. And so the principle is this is that nothing can cause a greater effect than the power, nature, or capacity of the cause. If the cause lacks the power to produce the effect, the effect has no explanation. And so to claim otherwise is to claim the impossible. So it must pre-exist in the cause in one of three ways or all of three ways. It must exist in the cause, the effect, the creation must exist in the cause, either formally, virtually, or eminently. So we'll break these down just very quickly. If you have an effect formally existing in the cause, that's something like the cause possess the effect in the same kind or form. So if I give you $20, it's because I currently possess $20, right? A $20 bill comes from the US Treasury, and the Treasury possesses $20 in the same form. So you receive the $20, that's the effect, because I actually have the $20 in the same form, the cause. So when I give you that $20, I cause you to have $25 formally. Now you can also have the effect exist in the cause virtually, and you can buy power or capacity, right? The cause does not have the effect now, but has the power to produce the effect. So a builder doesn't already have the building, but it has the power and skill to build it. So without that effect pre-existing in the cause, at least virtually, then the cause would have no ability to cause that effect of building a building, right? He doesn't have the lumber and the plans and the electricity and the water and all of that in and of himself, but he virtually contains the effect in order to produce the cause out there. So that's the second way. Formally, virtually, and the third way is eminently, which is in a higher or more excellent way. The cause possesses the effect in a higher mode than the effect itself, right? The effect cannot be greater than the cause, but the cause can be much greater than the effect. One of the examples you can think of is Sherlock Holmes is intelligent with the stories, but Arthur Doyle possesses that intelligence in a higher way as the creator. Sherlock Holmes is incredibly smart. You read the stories, he is incredibly brilliant. But that brilliance is dependent upon the author being more brilliant than him, because without that author, that character that is brilliant could not exist. Therefore, that makes the author, the cause, greater than the effect, not the other way around. That's why uh Norman Geisler says if there is a creation of God, then there can be an intervention by God. Otherwise, the effect is greater than the cause. To disprove miracles, one must disprove God, not just dislike God. If God exists, miracles are possible. So to disprove miracles, one must disprove God. But no one has disproved God. Few have even attempted it, and all have failed. So the effect cannot be greater than the cause because that's a metaphysical impossibility. So to disprove miracles, one must disprove God, the cause. The effect is lesser. If we have the cause which is greater, it makes it possible. So you have to disprove God. And like he said, most don't even try this because you're trying to disprove a negative that God doesn't exist. And most would agree that that's an impossible task, generally speaking. But people have tried in various ways. And I'll just give you two for today, such as the problem of evil, right? There are moral imperfections in the world. A morally perfect God would not allow moral imperfections. Therefore, there is no morally perfect God, which is just a classic problem of evil. But the problem is, is you can't know the imperfect unless you know the perfect. Therefore, there must be a morally perfect standard, which is God, in order to know the world is morally imperfect. As C.S. Lewis rightly said, just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? See, you don't know a crooked line unless you know a straight line as well. Now, Ravi Zacharias did not end his ministry well, but he is right when he says, When you say that there is too much evil in the world, do you assume there's good? But when you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and And evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver. But that's who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral lawgiver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. Therefore, it does not follow. So another one that you can think of is just proof number two is that God must be a self-cause being, since he is not caused by another. Or, but a self-cause being is impossible, hence God cannot exist. I'll say that again. God must be a self-cause being, since he cannot be caused by another, but a self-caused being is impossible, hence, God cannot exist. But the problem here is premise number one. Premise one is false since there is another alternative. God is an uncaused being, so the conclusion does not follow. So it doesn't, it doesn't follow at all. There is no disproof of God. The truth of theism makes miracles not merely possible, but actually actual. And we'll kind of move into that to show that they already believe this, they just don't know it yet. So it can be argued in this way that miracles are actual, not merely possible. So here's premise one. If the world had a beginning, then it had a beginner. The world had a beginning, therefore the world had a beginner. Creation is the biggest miracle of all. And if God can do greater miracles, creation, then he can do lesser miracles. Now, if God can create matter, which happened in creation, he can multiply matter, which is feeding on the 5,000. If God can bring life to dead matter, such as creation, he can bring life back to a dead corpse. No problem. And this all is stemming from the Kalam cosmological argument. That's why that's such an important argument to have in your tool belt and to start with one of those. As Norman Geisler said, the Kalam argument for God states everything that had a beginning had a cause. The universe had a beginning, hence, the universe had a cause. And the cause of the natural world must be beyond the natural world. That is supernatural. Therefore, there is a supernatural cause of the natural world, i.e., God. Since nothing comes from nothing, the only alternative is to believe the natural world is eternal and necessary. But modern science says this is not an option, right? The cause of the universe must be supernatural because the natural world came into existence. So nature, it cannot be a naturalistic explanation because nature would have to exist in order to cause it to come into existence. But it doesn't exist because it needs to be caused to come into existence because it began to exist. You cannot exist and not exist in the same time and in the same relation. It is self-refuting, it violates the law of non-contradiction. So the cause of the universe coming into existence must be supernatural. This is not a god of the gaps. This is from the knowledge we actually have, because creation, the natural world, had a beginning, but it can't be the cause of it coming into existence because it didn't exist in order to cause it to come into existence. So the cause of the natural world must be, therefore, supernatural. This is why miracles are possible. But you could even, some atheists have argued that miracles may be possible, but they're not credible. And most are going to cite David Hume on this. In fact, they think that they he has made uh miracles completely incredible, meaning not having any credit to be believed at all. And David Hume says in his inquiry concerning human reasoning, he says, quote, I flatter myself that I have discovered an argument which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently will be useful as long as the world endures. Now, he's got a stronger form of the argument, which is self-refuting, which we're not going to talk about that one today, but most kind of take the credible point that it wouldn't make sense to believe in miracles, even if possible. And his argument, Hume's argument, can be summarized like this the natural law is by definition a description of regular occurrence. A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence. That makes sense. How many people have you seen walk on water? How many virgin births do you know of? Right? We see gravity make pens fall to the ground all the time. That's regular. That's a regular occurrence. But a miracle is rare. We don't see them all the time. If we saw them all the time, we wouldn't call it a miracle. We would just call it the natural world. Third premise: the evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare. Premise four. A wise person always bases their belief on the greater evidence. And the conclusion, therefore, wise persons should never believe in miracles. So I'll walk through that again. Natural law is by definition a description of 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 person always bases their belief on the greater evidence. Therefore, wise persons should never believe in miracle. This is this is why Christopher Hitchens often said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So how should we think about this? Well, the issue is premise number three. The faulty premise is premise number three, which is evidence by the unbeliever's own worldview. The evidence for the regular is not always greater than evidence for the rare. Some events only happen once. And so to deny the rare, they deny reality at this point. And their own worldview already believes that. The Big Bang Theory. How many times has the universe come into existence? One time. All of our understanding shows that the world, the universe as we know it, everything out there was created once. It came into existence one time. That is our current understanding. But one is very rare. You don't get more rare than one. What about the origin of life? Right? Even if evolution is true, which I do not maintain, but even if it is, you still have to have the origin of life coming from chemicals into organic life in order to get evolution off the ground. Well, that happens one time. You do not get more rare than one. What about all history? Everything that happened in history only happened one time. Every specific event has only happened once. You do not get more rare than one time. All life, your birth, only happened one time, and you do not get more rare than one. So should I not believe that you were born because you were only born once? No. What about your death? You only die once. That's rare. You do not get more rare than one. Their own worldview already affirms that this third premise is false. Wesley Huff said, Many atheists deny the virgin birth of Christ while affirming the virgin birth of the universe. Often, this secular naturalistic humanism that is often accompanied with materialism, they also require us to believe certain miracles of will, impossibilities that cannot be explained naturalistically, such as something coming from nothing. That's impossible. If you can do the impossible, that's a miracle. You cannot get something from nothing. You cannot get order from chaos because that's another form of something from nothing. That would be a miracle because it's impossible. You cannot get life from non-life. That's a metaphysical impossibility because it does not have that in order to give it. Remember, it must have it virtually, imminently, or formally. But non-life does not have that in order to give it to life. Therefore, that is a metaphysical impossibility. To do the impossible is to do a miracle. You cannot get information from chemistry because chemistry doesn't have information to give. The PPC, it's not possible. You're asking us to believe the impossible. That is the definition of a miracle, something that cannot happen because it is impossible according to natural occurrences. You cannot get mind for matter. You cannot get morality for molecules. Why? Because they all violate the PPC. They do not contain formally, virtually, or eminently that which it requires to have in order to cause that to happen later on. Because it doesn't exist in the cause, it cannot exist in the effect. It cannot be the cause of the effect because it does not contain those things. This is why miracles are credible. Now, what does a miracle prove exactly? Well, miracles prove that all non-theistic religions fail since they deny miracles, and the creation of the universe is the greatest miracle on display. So just like if miracles are not even possible, then that would eliminate Christianity. But if miracles are credible and actual, which creation shows because that is a supernatural act, therefore, any worldview that holds that miracles are false or not possible, therefore crumble by the wayside. This would include deism, Buddhism, Hinduism, secular humanism, Confucianism, Taoism, New Ageism, and Satanism. All of those fall because we can show that miracles actually exist. So we can add this to our list of defeated worldviews. So if you've been with us thus far, this is where we're at. We've now lined up and knocked down the following scientism, denialism, agnosticism, skepticism, pluralism, postmodernism, relativism, perspectivism, religious pluralism, multiculturalism, atheism, naturalism, materialism, deism, Buddhism, Hinduism, secular humanism, Confucianism, Taoism, New Ageism, and Satanism. So this is why we say what Norman Geisler says what creation and the existence of God prove is that miracles are possible and Bible miracles are at least credible. Furthermore, all non-theistic religions are false, hence, Christianity is credible, and all non-theisms are not credible. If miracles only occur, if miracles occur, only three theistic religions could be true: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But that's just another way of saying if God exists, then miracles are possible. And so the question is which one of these three major theistic religions is true? And that's what we start to transition into. So I will see you next time, and we will start talking about which one of these theistic views is true and how would we determine that. I'm Matt Hazelwood. Thanks for listening. I'll see you next time.