Are Miracles Even Possible? | Answering David Hume

David Hume claimed that miracles aren't possible and that all miracle claims can't be trusted. Is this really the case or was he wrong? Discover with me on today's Light The World episode! Subscribe if you enjoy!

My Information

Sources

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - By David Hume
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - By David Hume
Miracles - by Craig Keener

[summerseverson]

I love this channel and thank you 🙏 for being here May God bless you and yours

[intelligentdesign]

Many of Hume 's objections can be answered.
Objection (1) "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues)
Response:

"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws .
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such—I urge—is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law—without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law. " (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")

"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Objection (2) "[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an
animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle
of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a
continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest
sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part
or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of
the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles
more a human body than it does the works of human art and
contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one
precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a
stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues)
Response:

"Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical
universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or
other artefact. The claim is unconvincing.
In its manifest workings,
the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds
that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by
the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of
sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical
universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable
machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less
regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Objection (3) “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.” (Dialogues)
Response:

"From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot
reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and
rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong
to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will
happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron,
the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the
surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence,
that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about
such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the
universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have
knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach
conclusions about the origin and development of the human race
(because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind).
The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the
original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")

"By tracing the origin of
the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology
places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the
physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds
that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as
grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the
physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things
which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Objection (4) "Nature seems to have formed an exact calculation of the necessities
of her creatures; and like a rigid master, has afforded them little
more powers or endowments, than what are strictly sufficient to
supply those necessities. An indulgent parent would have bestowed
a large stock, in order to guard against accidents, and secure the
happiness and welfare of the creature, in the most unfortunate
concurrence of circumstances. Every course of life would not have
been so surrounded with precipices, that the least departure from
the true path, by mistake or necessity, must involve us in misery
and ruin." (Dialogues)
Response:

"The third consideration which Hume proffers in support of his claim
that (at least some of) the natural evil in the world is gratuitous is that,
were the universe the handiwork of some benevolent intelligence, its
inhabitants might have been expected to be better provisioned than
they are with the wherewithal for their enjoying felicity. Again, Hume
fails to supply adequate reason for supposing this to be so. For
example, were sheep better able to evade the fox, then foxes would
have been less well able to survive and flourish. Should it be suggested
that the world would have been a better place had sheep been allowed
to graze without any predators, we might wonder whether they might
not then have reproduced beyond the point at which pastures might
have been able to sustain them, ... and so on. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

[Sultan-nxjn]

Jesus walking on the water is actually not an original Christian miracle, but the pagan one brought to Christianity by Romans from their previous Sungod 3 centuries after Jesus left his people.

[harlanlang]

A good question is whether miracles are evidence, or proof, of truth. If you witness a person rise off the ground and fly around a tree, would that be evidence that this person speaks the truth, or understands spiritual matters better than someone who can't fly around a tree? Is it logical to stop believing in Jesus if you don't believe in the biblical reports of Jesus' miracles? Do the teachings of Jesus to love one another, to care for the sick, to only do good to others require a miracle to know that these are divine teachings? If you assume that the biblical miracles of Jesus actually happened, then the results of attracting followers due to these miracles was very slight. Either the people were unaware of them or thought that they were due to the power of Satan.

My feeling is that the biggest miracle of Jesus was His influence in causing ordinary people to give up their ordinary lives to teach that we should love even our enemies, and that every person, no matter how lowly in society, was worthy of the love and care of God. People were transformed into spiritual magnets when they put into practice the love taught by Jesus. This was at a time when only the people of power and authority were worth mentioning. This power and influence is undeniable.

All the religions of Jesus' day claimed miracles. All historical religions have their miracle stories. Is it logical and fair minded to use the same standard for evaluating their truth? Most people can give you all kinds of reasons for denying the miracles of other religions than their own.

The evidence of the power to change ordinary people into extraordinary spiritual beings full of love can be found in the early history of all religions. I would call this miraculous. Without this miracle, we would all be living in contending tribes where only the member of our tribe are worthy of love, where might makes right.

When Baha'u'llah was living in Baghdad and He was becoming known for His ability to make sense out of the confusion of religion, of His powerful presence and sense of authority, the Muslim leaders sent a messenger to Him with a request for a miracle to prove His claims. Their intent was to make Baha'u'llah look foolish because they didn't expect Him to accept the challenge. He told this messenger that it was for God to test man, and not the other way around, but He agreed to perform a miracle under the condition that these religious leaders should agree among themselves as to which miracle they wanted Him to perform, that they should put this into writing and that if He failed, then He would be seen as an imposter, but if He performed this miracle, they would no longer oppose Him. The messenger conveyed Baha'u'llah's agreement to the religious leaders, but they failed to agree among themselves as to which miracle they wanted. This is an example of miracles not being accepted as proof of divine authority.