Science DEBUNKS Miracles? Not So Fast...[The Skeptic's Guide to Miracles Part 1]

Did David Hume completely debunk the argument for miracles? Not at all. Hume presented a false dilemma by setting reported miracles against the laws of nature. Science doesn't disprove miracles at all.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[ethanmoon]

"Miracles are impossible."

That's.... that's the whole point of a miracle...

[liljenborg]

Hume’s argument has always basically boiled down to, “I, personally, have never seen a miracle when I wanted one, so I think they don’t exist and I refuse to believe anyone else’s account of one.”

[DominikKoppensteiner]

I used to play a lot of video games. In one game, you could instantly kill an enemy player by shooting them in the head or firing a rocket at them. This is how the game works. But sometimes, there would be a cheater, who bypassed the rules of the game and was immortal, because he had installed a cheat software.
So what would be the logical reaction, when you fire a rocket at an enemy player and they don't die? According to these philosophers, it would be: "Cheats go against the normal rules of the game, therefore cheats don't exist."

If some guy can bypass the rules of a videogame with a cheat software, that he downloaded from the internet, how much more can an all powerful God bypass the laws of nature, that he himself programmed?


For clarification: This does not prove, that miracles exist. It only shows, that if a God exists, then miracles can exist. If one starts with the presupposition, that God doesn't exist, then miracles are impossible. But you can't say, "God doesn't exist, because miracles don't exist" because then I will ask you, "How do you know that miracles don't exist", and you will have to answer, "Because God doesn't exist". So this becomes circular reasoning, just like saying "God exists because miracles exist, and miracles exist because God exists" would be circular reasoning - unless you prove, that a miracle/God does or does not exist. As long as we have no proof, we should say, "God may or may not exist". In this case, we can say, "God, if you exist, please show me." We have nothing to lose in this case. When I did it, God showed me enough evidence to convince me, that he does exist, and that the Bible is true. He showed me the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, which have accurately predicted the future.

[_nosneb]

Just because a popular scientific name thinks differently than you doesn't mean that they're right.

[survivaloptions]

If an event violates the laws of nature, it didn't happen.

If an event doesn't violate the laws of nature, it's not a miracle.

Heads, I win; tails, you lose. Unfalsifiable arguments are just the best.

[BastiatC]

Science is a tool for studying the natural world. Trying to it to study miracles is necessarily misusing it, and the demand for scientific evidence for miracles necessarily divides miracles into two categories. "natural" miracles that are dismissed because they can be explained by science, and "impossible" miracles that are dismissed because they cannot.

[NoghaStar]

“Who is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Mark 4:41). It’s almost like miracles are God’s intervention in nature. I don’t know maybe that’s why people were so overwhelmed when they happened 😅

[sea]

"Real miracles bother people, like strange sudden pains unknown in medical literature. It's true: They rebut every rule all we good citizens take comfort in. Lazarus obeying orders and climbing up out of the grave - now there's a miracle, and you can bet it upset a lot of folks who were standing around at the time. When a person dies, the earth is generally unwilling to cough him back up. A miracle contradicts the will of the earth.”
― Leif Enger, Peace Like a River

[FishermensCorner]

Fun fact, the scientific method was created assuming man is wrong, and God’s creation is dependable and unchanging (laws of nature).

[e.t.h.]

Hume's criteria is hopelessly question begging. And the fact that so many people even today think that those are good arguments is mind-boggling.
His world view, when subjected to the same critical standards he applied to Christianity, fail to provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. It is internally inconsistent and cannot account for the universal laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, or the objective standards of morality.
His worldview borrows from the Christian worldview to make sense of the world. It relies on the existence of God’s order and rationality, even as it deny the source of that order. Without the God of the Bible, one cannot make sense of human experience or knowledge. Thus, the denial of the Christian God, implicit or explicit in any worldview, ultimately leads to epistemological despair.
…

[austingeorge]

Double like. It's funny that the concept of a God existing who is outside of this dimension/reality/constraints who created everything that we experience isn't a logical difficulty; but the idea that the same God who formed everything could also change/interact with anything within it is a logical difficulty makes no [logical] sense.
If you can form it, you can change it.

[adamstewart]

It's weird how too many sceptics seem to treat Jesus' resurrection as something that's presented as naturally occurring and then disprove it based on that.

An example of this was Ehrman telling Licona that a resurrection violates the second law of thermodynamics back in their 2022 debate or Ludemann saying it was nonsense.

[MatthewFearnley]

I got a Neil deGrasse Tyson masterclass ad after watching this video.

[ARandGOD]

What atheists don't understand is that the Bible never claims these are natural events. Saying it's fake because it isn't naturally possible is nonsensical because no one ever said it was natural. It is by definition unnatural as it took God Himself for it to occur. This is the sort of argument that appealed to me back when I was an atheist at 15 years old. It's really strange honestly

[Zetact_]

"Miracles break the laws of nature so they can't happen" is a level of bafflingly missing the point on par with, "If God created everything then who created God?"

[mrtimo]

Science changes all the time, but
God's word stays the same.

[acidpilled]

Yes science, we are aware miracles are impossible in the natural world, that's why they are MIRACLES

[bethyngalw]

People who don't believe in miracles aren't basing their assumptions on a rational position they are asserting the view based on an emotional position. The fact of the matter is, miracles do happen. Those who argue they don't haven't usually investigated any examples of modern miracles to establish their veracity, they are arguing it because they don't WANT miracles to happen. That's not an argument from logic, it's a presupposition from their own personal desire.

[sabhishek]

As said by someone in the comment section once: To the uneducated, scientific practices seem like magic.

[GuidanceforGuardians]

I've personally never had any problem with miracles. If God can do anything, He can do, well, anything. Those who debunk the miracles as recorded in the Bible don't recognize how closed minded they are. Their limited experiences in life somehow qualify them to pontificate on things they do not understand at all.