I have several of Lee Strobel’s books. I have greatly enjoyed reading them and was excited to see The Case for Miracles. I have had the great opportunity to briefly meet Lee and I can say he is an incredibly nice person. Further, his new book on miracles is very interesting. Many debates could rage from this book such as: Have miracles ever happened? Do they happen now? What about miracle claims from other religions than Christianity? What counts as a miracle? And so on. While the book focuses on the activity of present day miracles, there is one aspect of the debate I would like to focus on in this article: given claims of miracles (today or in the past), do they prove God exists? Many Christians say yes; however, others, such as some classical apologists say no.The central thesis of Strobel’s book is that miracles have happened in the past and they still happen today. He interviews several people on this subject, such as skeptic Michael Shermer, biblical scholar Craig Keener, and cold case detective J. Warner Wallace. While there are many interesting facets of the book, I want to focus on the question of whether or not miracle claims in principle prove that God exists. In the book the presumption seems to be that if miracles are possible, that proves God exists.
Scientific Arguments for God’s Existence: An Analogy with Miracles
I have written an article comparing the philosophical arguments for God with the “scientific” arguments. I am not going to re-write my article here except to say that natural science cannot give demonstrative proof that God exists. By definition science studies the natural world and does not rise to the level of the supernatural. Further, it only offers inductive/probabilistic arguments for God, as opposed to deductive/metaphysically certain proofs for God. In other words, science offers persuasion, not demonstration. I mean that arguments such as the intelligent design argument are very powerful but do not conclusively show that God exists. They also do not show how many gods exist, what he/they are like, or if the universe was created out of nothing. (The kalam gets closer but see my article for that.)
Definition of ‘Miracle’
Miracles are similar. I have written a previous article on the nature and purpose of miracles, but let me quickly define what I mean by ‘miracle’: An intervention of the natural course of events by a supernatural agent (God). Strobel defines ‘miracle’ this way: “A miracle is an event that is brought about by the power of God that is a temporary exception to the ordinary course of nature for the purpose of showing that God is acting in history” (49). Defined this way, if a miracle happened then by definition God exists since only he as a supernatural agent could perform them. But the problem is how do we know when an event is an actual miracle as opposed to something unusual but natural, done by deception, or some other natural cause such as aliens or other spiritual beings? This is indeed the $64k question. This is also why we can only have probable evidence for miracles.
The Shroud of Turin
Take the Shroud of Turin for example. It is alleged to be the burial cloth that was placed on Jesus in the tomb. It has the appearance of a man who was crucified. It does not appear to have been painted or forged in any way, but rather it appears that the image was scorched onto it. Debates about its authenticity have raged for some time. Is it the actual burial cloth of Jesus? It certainly has interesting and unexplainable characteristics that seem to bear the marks of Jesus and his crucifixion. The problem is it is hard, if not impossible, to know with certainty. It is something scientists have to study and form theories and conclusions that are at best probable.
Persuasion Not Demonstration
Strobel believes “that the origin and fine-tuning of the universe . . . point powerfully toward the existence of a supernatural Creator” (263). He also holds “the resurrection goes beyond confirming the existence of the divine” (Ibid). I agree with the former point in that the fine-tuning does “point powerfully” to God. This pointing is because the evidence is very persuasive. But being persuasive is not the same as being demonstrative. Logically there are other alternatives. Aliens could be behind some of the so-called miraculous events people have seen. Perhaps they have some abilities or technologies we do not have access to. Perhaps other kinds of spirits are behind what we call miracles. Maybe some of the events we think are miraculous just are odd and can be explained naturally. Of course, I don’t believe aliens and the like are behind miracles, but that’s because I already have a committment to theism (the belief God exists as an infinite, uncaused being that caused all other being besides himself).
What about the resurrection of Jesus? It is argued that the Old Testament predicted it, that Jesus predicted it, and that he was working in the power and name of the God he claimed to be. So what else could have caused the resurrection? Christian theists maintain that God raised Jesus from the dead. Atheists could claim there are other reasons for the resurrection such as aliens or some other such power. The alien theory while silly is at least logically possible. What makes the resurrection more powerful for Jesus’ deity is one’s prior committment to God’s existence.
This is why classical apologists argue that the first step in showing Christianity is true should be demonstrating God’s existence. If God’s existence can be shown, then miracles cannot be denied. However, if one argues for a miracle first, the atheist can always say that it must be due to something else since God doesn’t exist. The person who wants to start with miracles still has work to do even if a legitimate miracle does happen.
Of course, this is not to say that a miracle cannot persuade one to believe in God. Many have been persuaded to believe in God due to their belief that a miracle happened. That is not my point. My point is that there is no logical necessity between an alleged miracle and God’s existence. In other words there is no demonstration.
By ‘demonstration’ I mean logical entailment or necessity. This is the difference between induction and deduction. Induction is based on experience and leads to probable conclusions. For example, if some data exists that can best be explained by Y, then Y is likely true. On the other hand, deduction leads to logical certainty. For example the following argument is deductive and certain: “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” The form of the argument is valid and as such the conclusion follows by necessity. There is no such argument for God from miracles without begging the question. In order to say that a miracle happened would require that there is antecedent knowledge of a being that can cause miracles.
Demonstrative Knowledge of God
Is demonstrative knowledge of God possible? The question of God’s existence is a philosophical one so if it is possible to answer it, it is going to be done via philosophy. Those who follow the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (philosophy, not necessarily theology–thus, Protestants can follow his philosophy) argue that God’s existence can be demonstrated with metaphysical (not logical) necessity. Metaphysical necessity means that a metaphysical cause is necessary to account for something else. In the case of God it means that a necessary cause must account for contingent being. Contingent being is being that begins, and does not exist on its own account but is somehow brought into existence. This type of existence is material, changing, finite, and temporal. This description fits the natural world. Thus, there must (necessarily) be a cause for this existence that is itself not material, changing, finite, or temporal. This cause would not be contingent, but necessary. Thus God is said to be a necessary being. Thus, his existence is shown with metaphysical necessity.
Once God’s existence has been demonstrated, it follows that miracles are possible. Then the atheist cannot logically deny them. This is why Jesus could use miracles to demonstrate his deity. He was not showing that a God existed. He was showing that he was God. The Jews did not need convincing that God existed. They needed convincing that Jesus was God. Since they knew God existed, miracles could be used to confirm the message Jesus was giving.
Conclusion
The Case for Miracles is a very interesting and good book. Strobel’s points, as well as those of the other contributors, are very good. Much is said about the anti-supernaturalism that often clouds sound reasoning about the issue of miracles, and David Hume is dealt with in a well-reasoned manner. However, miracles do not logically prove that God exists. They are persuasive but not demonstrative. God’s existence is a philosophical question, and we must answer the question from philosophy.
