Christianity • Historical • Advanced
Miracles
Primary question: Is it historically and philosophically reasonable to believe that miracles, including those attributed to Jesus, have actually occurred?
Argument map
Click any node to inspect it. Expand branches to go deeper.
Common mistakes
Don't say
Arguing miracles are possible therefore any given miracle claim is likely true.
Instead
Distinguish the philosophical question (are miracles possible/reasonable to believe in principle) from the historical question (is the specific evidence for this miracle claim strong).
Don't say
Treating Hume's argument as simply refuted and no longer worth engaging.
Instead
Acknowledge Hume's argument retains real force as a caution about weighing extraordinary testimony, even if his strongest in-principle version has been seriously challenged.
Don't say
Presenting the resurrection argument as independent of prior theistic considerations.
Instead
Be transparent that the argument works best as part of a cumulative case, not a standalone proof from a neutral worldview.
What would change my mind? — Christian position
If Hume's strongest in-principle argument against miracles were vindicated by further philosophical work, or if the minimal facts underlying the resurrection case were shown to be historically unreliable, the case for miracles would be substantially weakened.
What would change my mind? — Skeptical position
If a skeptic came to find independent arguments for theism persuasive, thereby raising the prior probability of divine action, they would need to re-evaluate specific historical miracle claims on their individual evidential merits rather than dismissing them by an a priori Humean rule.
Why does this matter?
The philosophical status of miracles bears directly on whether specific historical claims, including the resurrection, can ever be rationally believed on the evidence, making Hume's argument and its rebuttals foundational to the entire edifice of Christian historical apologetics.
For further study
Primary and secondary sources on both sides of this question. Reading the strongest opposing case is part of the work, not a concession.
Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles — John Earman
A non-theist philosopher's formal critique of Hume's argument.
The Concept of Miracle — Richard Swinburne
The leading contemporary philosophical treatment defining and defending miracles.
Miracles: A Preliminary Study — C.S. Lewis
An accessible philosophical case against naturalistic exclusion of miracles.
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus — Gary Habermas and Michael Licona
A detailed minimal-facts defense of the resurrection as historical.