Argument From Miracles

1. A miracle occurs which cannot be explained by natural causes.
2. Its cause must therefore be supernatural — beyond the natural world.
3. God, who is not limited by the laws of nature, is identified as this cause.
4. Therefore, the miracle provides evidence that God exists.

Supporters may describe miracles as proof of God’s existence. Whether the argument succeeds depends on whether the event really occurred as reported, whether natural explanations can be ruled out, and whether its cause must be God.

A specific example: Jairus’s daughter

Mark 5:35–43 describes Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus, a synagogue leader. People arrive with news that she has died. Jesus tells Jairus, ‘Don’t be afraid; just believe.’ At the house, people are crying and wailing, but Jesus says that the child is not dead but asleep. They laugh at him.

Jesus then enters with the girl’s parents and three disciples. He takes her hand and says, ‘Talitha koum!’ — meaning ‘Little girl, I say to you, get up!’ The twelve-year-old immediately stands up and walks around. Those present are astonished, and Jesus tells them to give her something to eat.

Christians traditionally understand this as a raising from death, not merely waking someone from ordinary sleep. On that interpretation, it goes beyond natural processes. They see it as evidence of God’s power working through Jesus and of divine compassion towards the girl and her family. This connects the event to the argument: if natural causes cannot restore her life, God is offered as the explanation.

Why believers find the argument convincing

Personal experience and testimony can make miracles persuasive. Someone who experiences an apparently inexplicable recovery may find it difficult to dismiss what happened. Accounts from witnesses can also support belief, although other people must judge their reliability.

An apparent answer to prayer can make an event especially meaningful. If someone prays for healing and a remarkable recovery follows, they may interpret it as evidence that God heard and responded. The good outcome suggests not just power, but care and purpose.

Religious teachings provide a framework for interpreting miracles. Christians may understand Jairus’s daughter as evidence of Jesus’s divine authority. Muslims also accept miracles associated with prophets, but understand them as occurring through Allah’s power and permission, rather than proving that a prophet is divine. Thus, belief in miracles does not always lead to the same religious conclusion.

For believers today, these interpretations can strengthen faith and encourage prayer for people who are suffering.

Why critics question the argument

An unexplained event is not necessarily unexplainable. Medical knowledge may be incomplete, an illness may have been misdiagnosed, or a recovery may have a natural cause that is not yet understood. Scientific understanding can develop. Similarly, an unlikely rescue might be coincidence rather than divine intervention.

Reports can be mistaken or unreliable. Critics ask whether witnesses accurately understood what happened and whether later accounts changed the details. In the account of Jairus’s daughter, a sceptic might question whether the girl was actually dead. That would challenge the interpretation of the event without accepting the Christian explanation.

The eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume argued that testimony about a miracle must be weighed against the strong evidence for nature’s regular behaviour. A mistaken or false report may be more likely than a genuine breaking of natural law.

The pattern of miracles raises questions about fairness. Some people apparently receive miraculous help while others, including deeply religious people who pray, do not. Critics ask why a loving God would intervene so selectively. This challenges the claim that reported miracles clearly demonstrate divine compassion or a consistent plan.

Finally, even accepting an extraordinary event does not automatically establish which religious explanation is correct. Different faiths can interpret miracles differently. The argument may therefore reinforce an existing believer’s faith more strongly than it convinces someone who does not already believe in God.