The Possibility of Miracles?

It really makes me sad that the believability of miracles is even a subject in and of itself which Christians have to respond to. The major reason I'm against intellectually dismissing the supernatural is at the end of this post, because first I need to explain why I think doing so is just downright unreasonable. I can do that, so I appreciate this opportunity God has given me to support Him using the material He supplied by working through other people, even though in my opinion philosophical naturalism would be funny if no one believed it. 

That's right -- philosophical naturalism. The enemy of religious faith. It's the belief that the world is governed by, and only by, natural law, no matter what. There are two arguments against miracles dealt with in this post. One is that they cannot happen because they are an occurrence which does not accord with the completely absolute laws of nature. Sometimes scientists can view miraculous claims as an insult to their profession because it doesn't invoke a natural explanation. That breaks "the rules of science." But please don't be offended, whoever you are, if you might be: I'm only saying that what we learn from the intellectual profession of the natural sciences have sometimes been suspended by a supernatural God. No understanding of the laws of the universe (which science chases down), no knowledge of miracles.

 The other is that since by very definition miracles are rare occurrences, you couldn't know from the beginning if they ever happened because one probably didn't. So nobody can ever say with true intellectual conviction that a miracle happened, no matter how much evidence supports it. (Sounds suspicious already? I hope so. I believe it does go against common sense. Common sense just asks, "Where does the evidence lead? And is it strong evidence for that conclusion? If it is, then we should believe that.")

These philosophies were formulated centuries ago by specific philosophers. David Hume is famous for the second one, and Benedict Spinoza is accredited (although I don't think quite so famously) with the first. Now that that's settled, let's move onto refuting the specific arguments, since I don't care who made what many scientists and even scholars today can propagate as true.

It's interesting that although these arguments come to the same conclusion (that a miracle cannot be known), they blatantly contradict each other. One claims philosophical naturalism is true even before looking at any evidence that might exist because of the supernatural. (That's called a naturalistic presupposition. Naturalism is said to be correct precluding any scenarios in any religion.) The other says a miracle is possible, and simply speaking something either is or isn't -- if miracles can happen, then they are just as possible as a natural event. In a debate against leading Christian apologist William Lane Craig(1), Ehrman held to the latter view, and made it clear that miracles, while he believes they cannot be known, are possible. 

One thing I find very unfortunate about these aversions to miracles is they definitely have their share of prominence. (I don't know precisely how popular they are today, but unless something happened to practically eliminate them, in academia they're still around.)

Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote: "When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters." (2)

Now as a Christian, I believe the resurrection of Jesus is the most important miracle of all, and seek to defend it. So it is fortunate for me that the resources I have been given make it rather convenient to argue for the possibility of miracles with the resurrection as a specific example. (I'm only saying that this post should prove no one can rule out Christianity before looking at the specific evidence for Jesus coming back to life and maybe finding it wanting, though. A couple places elsewhere I specifically advance an argument for the resurrection[3], and another one is forth-coming.)

And of course, I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, so arguments for that which don't deal with other evidence for the possibility of the supernatural presuppose that the reader can be open to God's existence being demonstrated by the resurrection. It doesn't presuppose that God is real, it says He very well might be real. 

But sometimes critics want more.

Ambitious atheist Keith Parsons wrote in his comments against Christian J.P. Moreland on a debate over God's existence:

"Everything we know about what happens at death (irreversible tissue changes, etc.) plus the universal experience of the human race (with, so as not to beg any questions, the exception of the alleged witnesses of Jesus' resurrection) indicates that the dead stay dead. Hence, the background likelihood of a dead body returning to life must be extremely low."

But, he continues: "Now those who believe in God might have some reason to believe that God can and occasionally will overturn physical law. Hence, the background likelihood of such an event for them might not be so vanishingly small." (4)

Bart Ehrman said, "My view is that the historian does have to back up any presuppositions that he or she has." 

Dear reader, I intend to do just that. 

Prologue to Resurrection

The Big Bang. This needs no defense. Everyone has heard of it. I've been aware of it as common knowledge for many years. The only time I have received formal education for it, though, was the science class I took freshman year.

However, it can often be seen as an enemy to the Christian faith. But many of the apologists I have read (Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, J. Warner Wallace, Frank Turek) see it as evidence for God. Indeed, I believe the debate lies over the cause of the Big Bang, because it does demonstrate that the universe had a beginning! What's more, actually, is that non-theistic scientists weren't looking to show that the universe began to exist. Instead, a self-existent universe more aligns with their worldview than one that had some cause of some kind. Since the Big Bang looks like affirmative proof of Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"), the debate against it within Christianity would have to be from, I would say, probably that it goes along with a universe billions of years old. I have no idea if if the evidence for the Big Bang itself necessarily implies an ancient universe (that is to say perhaps other things related to the evidence can be interpreted to not take up such time), but for these two reasons it doesn't matter.

Christian apologists Frank Turek and the late Norman L. Geisler ask "what if in the future, more scientific evidence and new interpretations overturn the Big Bang conclusion?" Then they mention how one piece of evidence for the scientifically discovered beginning of the universe -- the second law of thermodynamics, A.K.A the law of entropy -- does not depend on the theory itself(5). Scientists know that the universe is "winding down" -- that is, running out of energy and order. It cannot keep itself from being in complete disarray, which we would have reached by now if the universe always existed.

I don't know if the law of entropy implies an ancient universe, but this philosophical one doesn't. Fortunately for anyone who isn't completely willing to accept the universe not being 6,000 years old, this final argument for the beginning of the universe only shows that it cannot be infinitely old. J.P. Moreland wrote, "While there are two scientific arguments that the universe had a beginning, in my view the philosophical argument is stronger than either and establishes a beginning without needing further support." (6) I agree with him. It makes sense, because this one goes by simple reason based on our constant experience of time.

Imagine if you walked into the park and heard someone count, "3... 2... 1... There! I just counted down from infinity!" Now imagine that you don't believe them, please, because they didn't make any sense. Had the universe existed from eternity past, then this moment would have happened an infinite time ago by now. But we are in the present, and the present is not the past. Therefore, the time that the universe has existed (no matter exactly how long) was ultimately kicked off by some completely different cause, removed from time. 

Then there is the most shocking scientific discovery of the twentieth century: the universal constants -- laws of nature, physics -- are "fine-tuned" to such an amazing accuracy and we couldn't exist without them being that way. In this blog post I have already cited information from Paul Davies, who is "arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern science." 

William Lane Craig explained:

"We do not need to speculate, therefore, about universes governed by wholly different laws of nature or wonder whether life could exist in them. The point is that within the wide range of universes permitted by the actual laws of physics, scarcely any are life-permitting, and those that are require incredible fine-tuning of the physical constants and quanitites. In fact, Donald Page [a Nobel Prize winning astronomer] of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study has calculated the odds against the formation of our universe as one out of 10,000,000,000E124, a number that exceeds all imagination. Truly, this appearance of [intelligent design] cries out for explanation." (7)

Robert Jastrow called the life-permitting constants of the universe "the most theistic result ever to come out of science." (8)

Even Stephen Hawkings is not exempt from this evidence for God:

"[The laws of physics] appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitative different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life.... The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being" (9).

I remember reading somewhere a citation that put my thoughts this way: "Modern science has shown us that the universe didn't just explode into being out of nothing, it was formed with amazing accuracy." 

Robert Jastrow said:

"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. ... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."  (10)

Finally, there is the existence of consciousness. That's right, us. Specifically, our mind. For my full argument see this post questioning atheism. All these points are from it. 

1. Leading advocate for naturalism Crispin Wright said either consciousness doesn't exist, is physical, or there is some kind of "eerie supernaturalism."

2. Consciousness exists, because if it didn't you couldn't use it to know that the truth that consciousness doesn't exist is real. Only what is real can access reality.

3. Consciousness is "a new kind of reality ... instead of just a recombination of the old realities" (Colin McGinn), which "threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture" (Thomas Nagel), because it is "quite different nature from... materials" (D.M. Armstrong), for which "there is no scientific answer" (Michael Ruse). 

4. Since consciousness doesn't physically exist, but is real, the connection between mind and brain is by very definition supernatural because they effect each other without making any physical contact whatsoever.

5. Therefore it is true what Paul said years ago: "For in [a supernatural Creator God, conscious of both the physical and immaterial world] we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28)

This gets me to my ultimate conclusion on the subject of miracles for this blog. What is the resurrection of Jesus Christ? It is a return of consciousness and reanimation to a crucified body, by a Being who exists outside of the universe, created the universe, and therefore of course can suspend the laws of nature any time He wants. That is to say, how can it be assumed that natural laws are immutable if they not only were created (therefore the start of science and supernatural as Jastrow called it because nature cannot explain itself), they also look miraculously designed? 

Of course, all of these arguments could be pressed further. Fine-tuning and consciousness have their own posts as I already referenced, and the argument for the beginning of the universe can be advanced in such a way to invite the conclusion that the Creator of the universe must have had free will. This is called the Kalam cosmological argument, and I have hardly mastered it so don't write about it.. 

But let's imagine that someone wants to say that we just don't know what caused the universe (a common atheist response, to my knowledge), the fine-tuning is due to a multiverse, and consciousness was caused by... who knows what. I have no idea how naturalists would respond to my argument. Still, it cannot be ruled out that God might be behind it all(11), and therefore a miracle cannot be ruled out elsewhere as well. Rather, the resurrection of Jesus would just prove that the universe and everything in it was invented by the Christian God (Jesus Himself).

The reasonable ability to establish a Resurrection without such background knowledge

What is a miracle? That question hasn't been entirely addressed yet due to the complete answer being more relevant to now than earlier. A miracle is an event brought about directly by God to confirm a message He has, which rarely happens and is contrary to the laws of nature. A miracle must rarely happen because if they were a part of normal everyday life, it would be hard for one to tell that they were so significant (really, they'd be about as significant as gravity), and so one shouldn't pay attention when they do happen. As a matter of fact, some attacks on miracles I have read argue one probably didn't happen because by definition they are rare.

The first argument against miracles I mentioned presuppose that natural laws are absolute all the time. But the thing is, says who?  We're not talking about uniform experience with miracles, and how can you go past uniform experience and see that the laws of the universe cannot ever be suspended? By definition you'd have to be God, because He is all-knowing and outside the universe. On the contrary, it has been demonstrated by what scientists do know that the universe may very well be a miracle itself. (Key concept: the cause of the universe has to be just supernatural in reference to our universe's laws because it formed them, but I'm not trying to prove right here that God definitely caused it, and therefore it might not be miracle.)

The second argument does say, "miracles are definitely possible." It acknowledges the circular reasoning to presuppose that natural laws are absolute all the time. And this is where the argument against miracles defeats itself. For if for all we know miracles are possible (they cannot be primarily ruled out), they could be just as possible as a natural explanation, and therefore it is possible that the evidence about to be dealt with exists probably because of a miracle. That is to say, if the evidence only reasonably points to an act of God, the intellectual should conclude such.

Keith Parsons contradicted this and said:

"Here, however, I would merely like to point out that the background or a priori probability of a claim is just as important as evaluating the reliability of testimony when it comes to ascertaining the credibility of a claim. ...

"Everything we know about what happens at death (irreversible tissue changes, etc.) plus the universal experience of the human race (with, so as not to beg any questions, the exception of the alleged witnesses of Jesus' resurrection) indicates that the dead stay dead. Hence, the background likelihood of a dead body returning to life must be extremely low." 

"Even worse, if it is claimed that an event is a miracle, then this event must have taken place contrary to a true law of nature. ... For atheists, however, to say that an event is physically impossible means that it must have a background likelihood as low as any contingent event could have. ... As Sherlock Holmes said, 'Eliminate the impossible and whatever is left, no matter how improbable [!], is the answer.'" (12)

Many weeks ago, when I was just dreaming up what to put into this post, I realized that also in that debate which Parsons commented on, Nielsen (the atheist being defended) seemed to flatly contradict such a view: 

"[Moreland] believes that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead and that this... would, if true, provide some evidence that God exists. I don't see how. Jesus... let us just suppose it were the case that Jesus was raised from the dead. Suppose you collected the bones, and they together in some way reconstituted the living Jesus. Suppose there was good historical evidence for it. ... It wouldn't give you any way of being able to detect if there is a God. It would be just that a very strange happening happened, namely, that somebody who died--or certainly appeared to have died--came together again as a living human being. ... It would just be a very peculiar fact we hadn't explained and indeed lacked the scientific resources to explain." (13)

Here, I believe, are two extreme views. Parsons' bit on the dead staying dead will be vital for me to explain my reasoning, though. It would go against everything we know to say a crucified body -- one that had been beaten to a bloody pulp before hammered to a cross and left to die -- could naturally come back to life. As Craig put it, "What, after all, is the resurrection hypothesis? It’s the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead. It is not the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead." A natural resurrection of a crucified man entirely breaks the principle of uniformity, which science depends on. The principal of uniformity states that the laws of nature are constant and not changing. Therefore, since everything we know about the powers of nature over a dead corpse is that it keeps them that way (especially brutalized ones), we couldn't know if anyone ever rose from the dead by the devices of nature, since the statement that a resurrection could happen naturally goes against what we do know. We aren't lacking in understanding what happens to dead people.  If a crucified man did ever come back to life by natural causes (which is "fantastically improbable," as Craig put it), we could never identify that as a historical event because it goes against everything we know. What's more reasonable: to have faith that if someone was resurrected, a miracle-working God must have done it, or nature did it somehow? Science doesn't prove their theories with 100% logical certainty. How can someone be 100% sure in all ways of understanding certainty that the laws of nature were exactly the same two thousand years ago, and/or there is no way that nature even today resurrects people beaten to a bloody pulp? The thing is, scientists can't. They have faith in the principle of uniformity, which comes from our direct observance of nature (so otherwise they couldn't make predictions), and have no reason whatsoever to theorize (or even hypothesize) that nature was different 2,000 years ago. (And now that I think of it, that would prove a force outside of the universe like a miracle, wouldn't it?) Henceforth, it's gobs more reasonable to propose a supernatural explanation to an event which evidently happened, but we have every reason to believe nature couldn't cause. 

And keep in mind one cannot weigh the normal order of the world against a miracle because miracles are supposed to be rare and unpredictable. Therefore, to hold onto the second argument, one can only reasonably define "probably didn't happen" as a confession of ignorance and a statement that the conclusion of a miracle will be treated with reasonable skepticism. You know, examining the other natural possibilities. Is the evidence only reasonably explained by a miracle, with enough good evidence to be reasonably conclusive? You see, this argument confuses probability within the outset and the unknown inset. 

In his debate against Craig, Ehrman claimed that a historian cannot presuppose that God does or does not exist. So he cannot say a resurrection did not happen with 100% probability, but as well definitely can't conclude that one did. Yet an argument for Jesus does not have to presuppose that God is real. As J.P. Moreland pointed out, in a debate over the evidence for the resurrection, former leading atheist Antony Flew (introduced in the notes) said that if Jesus did come back from the grave, "this would make the existence of God more probable." (14)

So let's think about how if miracles are possible, Christianity might be true, because the centerpiece of God's redemptive work in history is raising His Son from the dead. The evidence for Jesus is going to have to start somewhere. Why couldn't it start with a rigorous historical investigation? If the evidence strongly points to Jesus rising from the dead with no good naturalistic theory against it, the historian needs to be open to accepting that He really did. 

Furthermore, as it says in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, the Bible is filled with about 250 occasions of miracles, with most of them constrained to the times of Moses, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus and His apostles(15). Why? Because God's using these supernatural signs to prove the message He is giving through these people. And God's word, His universal message, has been completed over roughly 1,500 years. Therefore, the historian is in the perfect place to know that His redemptive story is true! That's why I have this blog: to confirm the Bible's teachings from the miracles that actually happened. 

Is it worth barfing out history?

The last two posts I wrote were about Acts, the fifth book of the New Testament. Basically part 1 was about how Sir William Ramsay was first a skeptic toward its historicity, but then after intensely studying it, partly from others and otherwise on the field himself, concluded Luke to be "a historian of the first-rank" and "unsurpassed." I recorded about 182 pieces of material in it verified outside of the Bible. Part 2 had a little more evidence, dealt with the issue of miracles, and concluded with the Acts of the Apostles being one of the greatest works of history written. There, I partly cited these words of Ramsay:

"There remains no reason to reject verses 21-26 [of Acts 27] which I can discover, except that it introduces the superhuman element. This is an argument to which I have no reply. It is quite a tenable position in the present stage of science and knowledge to maintain that every narrative which contains elements of the marvelous must be an unhistorical and untrustworthy narrative. But let us have the plain and honest reasons; those who defend that perfectly fair positions should not try to throw in front of it as outworks flimsy and uncritical reasons, which cannot satisfy for a moment anyone who has not made up his mind beforehand on that fundamental premise. But the superhuman element is inextricably involved in this book: you cannot cut it out by any critical process that will bear scrutiny. You must accept all or leave all." (16)

Bart Ehrman makes a similar observation about the Gospels, although he isn't in their favor:

"On page after page of the Gospels we are confronted with reports of the miraculous, as Jesus defies nature, heals the sick, casts out demons, and raises the dead. What is the historian to make of all these miracles?

"The short answer is that the historian cannot do anything with them. ...Suffice it to say that if historians want to know what Jesus probably did, the miracles will not make the list since by their very nature--and definition--they are the most improbable of all occurrences. Some would say, of course, that they are literally impossible; otherwise we would not think of them as miracles. I... can simply say that even though the majority of Jesus's activities in the Gospels involve the miraculous, these stories do not provide much grist for the historians' mill.

"...historians--when speaking as historians (as opposed, for example, to historians speaking as believers)--cannot say that Jesus really did, for example, heal the sick and cast out demons" (17)

I recently just happened to come across leading scholar on the Gospels Craig Blomberg, who realized that all the Gospel traditions should be dismissed if others can be just because they contain miracles(18). I have already defended the miracle of the resurrection, of Acts, and Mark elsewhere (here's an extensive list of unlikely inventions in Mark; my next post will probably expand on some of Mark's miracle claims). Since all these miracles are verified by using historical criteria for other claims, it follows that, to quote Ramsay, for the resurrection appearances of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Mark, and Acts, "You must accept all or leave all." 

Similarly, J. Warner Wallace, once a convinced atheist who changed his mind because of using his cold-case homicide detective to investigate the Gospels, said, "If I had good reasons to believe that the Gospels were reliable eyewitness accounts, I was going to have to deal with the stuff I had always resisted as a skeptic. What about all the miracles that are wedged in there between the remarkable words of Jesus? How was I going to separate the miraculous from the remarkable? And why was it that I continued to resist the miraculous elements in the first place?" (19)

I don't remember if I ever doubted the resurrection of Jesus because of any of the two naturalistic arguments. Probably not, because I would have had to only know the evidence for the resurrection and asked, "How come I can only support that?" But there never was a time where I could only support the main claim of Christianity. I do remember, though, realizing that the three events listed above -- the creation, fine-tuning, and installation of consciousness into the universe -- did "set the stage" for a personal God to work a miracle (or moreover, many) in history so His favorite creations, people, could come to Him. 

The strength of naturalistic presuppositions

Ehrman stated the power arguments against miracles can have: many intellectuals believe them, and they always defeat evidence for a supernatural event, no matter how improbably explained by natural law.

"The bottom line I think is one we haven't even talked about, which is whether there can be such a thing as historical evidence for a miracle, and, I think, the answer is a clear 'no,' and I think virtually all historians agree with me on that." To conclude a miracle is unreasonable because "it's invoking something outside of our natural experience to explain what happened in the past." (20)

Wallace was strongly influenced by this mindset as well, although he managed to overcome it:

"When I was an atheist, I allowed the presupposition of naturalism to unfairly taint the way I looked at the evidence for God's existence. ... I was thirty-five before I recognized how unreasonable it was for me to reject the possibility of anything supernatural before I even began to investigate the supernatural claims of Christianity. ... I refused to begin the journey with empty hands or an open mind." (21) 

Then in a later chapter he goes on to explain some evidence for God's existence, including the beginning of the universe and its apparent design. Wallace was definitely one of my inspirations (among many others; this approach seems to be fairly common among Christian apologists) for my conclusion that God cannot by any means be ruled out as Someone who can act outside of the universe's natural law.

In his debate against Craig, Ehrman did accuse his opponent of making an argument from authority. But something I think of is, where do people like me get evidence from anyway? I have never dug up anything myself, or created any criteria for establishing what Jesus really did that are reported in the Gospels. I learned these from experts. The thing is, you have to question your sources credibility: are they expert enough, and are they biased? Anyone who holds to naturalistic presuppositions have already verified that they are on the non-theistic side of reasonable belief. Two arguments for the beginning of the universe and the one for its fine-tuning comes from expert, non-theistic scientific consensus. Then the philosophical argument for the creation of the universe is just from straight logic. And consciousness is ultimately a philosophical argument too. But to help paint the picture, I included the four experts I cited after Crispin Wright, because they are non-theistic. 

Furthermore, Ehrman also apparently made the authoritarian approach during the debate, in effect saying exactly the same thing as when he argued against Licona ("I have trouble believing that we’re having a serious conversation about the statistical probability of the resurrection or the statistical probability of the existence of God. I think in any university setting in the country, if we were in front of a group of academics we would be howled off the stage"). Craig did point out that this isn't true, but for all I know it virtually is. But so what? Dismissing a miracle from the outset is clearly wrong. The sources I used for some of my reasoning are clearly credible. I reasonably discerned that I, as someone who tries to be intellectually honest, should be open to the miraculous. Even if most people in academia held this view, it wouldn't matter -- how well they support their reasoning is what someone should find convincing.

Aversion to miracles can play out in someone's mind to claim that (as it did with Parsons above, and even Ehrman in the debate) any other explanation for some evidence rather than a miracle, no matter how unlikely and/or ad hoc, would be more reasonable than concluding the supernatural. (Key word there is "super"natural -- remember, uniform experience cannot be ruled against a claim that a miracle happened because the natural is NOT being suggested.) But imagine if one took the evidence for a supernaturally created and designed universe (which by very definition would have to be supernatural, at least compared to the laws of our universe. since they hadn't been laid yet), and then said, "Well, since the supernatural is real, I'm going to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead based only on Peter's conviction that Jesus appeared to him. A worldview that includes the supernatural is the right one, so of course of course I lean toward concluding another miracle if there is even a little evidence for it." 

This wouldn't follow. One still has to examine other natural explanations and show why they are unreasonable. How do you know that Peter thought Jesus appeared to him? How do you know he didn't just hallucinate? Michael Licona, prominent scholar on the resurrection, said "Actually, I'd say if all we had was Jesus appearing to Peter, then maybe I'd buy the hallucination theory." (22) 

That's an argument for other posts, but you get the picture. It's not fair to the pro-miracle side to say its unreasonable to ever say with confidence a miracle happened, nor is it ever fair to say to the naturalistic side that they should always lean toward the supernatural, even if the circumstances for it are just slight. 

I read a debate between atheistic scholar Gerd Ludemann and William Lane Craig summer of last year, so I don't remember the specific details, but did recall that part of Ludemann's argument was being skeptical toward God acting in history. He questioned the virgin birth and Jesus's ascension to Heaven because it apparently sounded unbelievable to him(23). 

Partially because I'm biased against these non-Christians, I can want to dismiss them on the basis that I believe they hold a unreasonable view, and wield it so prominently. I remember being frustrated, yet confident, when reading an expert non-Christian Bible scholar on the resurrection (Ludemann) having naturalistic presuppositions. I thought, "Just stick to the evidence, for Peter's sake! No one's assuming these miracles happened. One can prove them from proving the resurrection, and for that Craig is debating the evidence. No skepticism toward a virgin birth or the like is relevant, because the Christian side doesn't speak on naturalistic terms!" 

(But of course one false presupposition on the specific issue of miracles doesn't mean these expert Bible scholars, and Parsons, are not brilliant elsewhere. Furthermore, if I made a big intellectual mistake, I wouldn't want anyone saying I can't be trusted at all anymore. This is, of course, human nature. We don't want to be dismissed as idiots and entirely lose our audience. But more importantly, doing so wouldn't make sense, so I shouldn't try to change my feelings. As Jesus said in Matthew 22:39, "Love your neighbor as yourself.") 

Also, I realized Keith Parsons practically contradicted himself a few paragraphs after dismissing miracles. He went on and said, "those who would follow Hume's dictum that 'the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence' will decline to harbor such beliefs." (24)

Naturalist presuppositions have smart people saying things that are... absurd. 

...

One final thought:

In school I have been taught that one way to conclude papers is with why the subject is relevant for the reader's life. And I can do that here.

I thought I recalled Bart Ehrman once saying, "I hope the truth will win out." I do as well.  After locating the exact quote, I was satisfied to see that that's obviously what he meant:

"I believe that better arguments will win out, if people approach the question without a bias in favor of one view or another. Maybe I'm too trusting.

"...But scholarship needs to proceed on the basis of evidence and argument, not on the basis of what one would like to think." (25)

Indeed, indeed, -- can I get another "indeed?" -- indeed, intellectuals must be careful to not let their feelings get in the way of their reasoning. They should be using cold rationalistic methods to confirm what is really true. That's why I didn't bring this up until I had intellectually defended my side. 

But of course I'm writing with a partiality toward a side. As William Lane Craig said, "It would be a tragedy and a shame if we were to miss the truth about the past, about Jesus, simply because of some methodological constraint."

In a purely naturalistic worldview where there is no God, people cannot have free will because their actions are determined by a stack of metaphorical falling dominoes, from the start of the universe to the formation of the earth to the formation of our brains. There is no outside force that has the power to break that cycle and bestow an all new force onto humans. Also, if there is no God, there never was any plan for how things should come to be on earth -- moral or otherwise. 

Objective morality and free will can only come from God. But we can only know if God has a message for us if He contradicts our usual experiences. Therefore, no miracles, no freedom to choose objective morality.

Please don't be offended if you defend Ehrman or are an atheist. I'm only saying that unfortunately for non-theists, they don't have the rational grounds to justify morality's existence beyond human opinion, not that they can't lead moral lives. I'll express my point one more time with this example: Jesus couldn't be a "great moral teacher" in the sense that He is objectively correct, or God. The resurrection should prove both but naturalistic presuppositions rule that out. These arguments over ethics are defended in more detail elsewhere(26), but here is my final conclusion on the subject of whether or not miracles are possible:

I firmly believe that it is nobler to break the rules of science -- that is to say, some rules created centuries ago by philosophers in error which some scientists still use today -- than to miss the truth. 

Citations:

1. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman 

All other citations of Ehrman and Craig, unless otherwise noted, are from this online debate.

2. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1988), 11. Cited in Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: Wheaton, IL. 2004),84.

3. Papers I wrote for school on the resurrection

Paper I wrote as an argument to be handed out

4. J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? The Debate Between Theists and Atheists (Prometheus Books:1993), 191.

5. Turek and Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,  90.

6. J.P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Crossway: Wheaton, Ill. 2018), 137.

7. Moreland and Nielsen, Does God Exist?, 143. He cites Dietrick E. Thomsen, "The Quantum Universe: A Zero-Point Fluctuation?" Science News 128 (3 August 1985), 73. 

8. Roy Abraham Varghese, ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 22. Cited in Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004),177.

9. "Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010), 160-61. Cited in J. Warner Wallace, God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (David C Cook: Colorado Springs CO. 2015), 290.

10. "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, August 6 1982, emphasis added. Cited in Turek and Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, 84-85.

11. I have heard of atheists like Christopher Hitchens sometimes claiming that the argument from fine-tuning doesn't work because physicists haven't yet proven that the laws of nature have been created with incredible accuracy. However, I realized that they are practically contradicting everything I read about expert non-theistic physicists, who are not atheist apologists trying to make best-selling books to captivate and persuade their audience. 

The thing is I am more likely to trust Paul Davies and Stephen Hawkings (whom Flew also cites) on the subject than, say, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. 

Moreover, from their camp I have Antony Flew, former famous atheist, who came to believe in an impersonal God. That is significant: he didn't become a Christian, he just had to believe that there is some God out there. "...some commentators were quick to claim that my advanced age had something to do with my "conversion. ...the existence of an afterlife... is one area in which I have not changed my mind. ...all good things... must come to an end." (p. 2, 5)

Flew explained, "I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith." (p. 93)  

He says, "it is a hard fact that we live in a universe with certain laws and constants, and life would not have been possible if some of these laws and constants had been different." (p.119) 

And please, if you are further interested in this argument and responses to it, see the post about Davies. (Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind [Harperone: 2007].)

12. Moreland and Nielsin, Does God Exist?, 57. He cited Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Terry Miethe, ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 3. 

13. Moreland and Nielsen, Does God Exist?, 191-92.

14. Moreland and Nielsen, Does God Exist?, 64.

15. Turek and Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, 216. 

16. William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (Hodder & Stoughton: London. 1925), reprinted 2001 Kregel Publications by Mark Wilson, 268-69. 

17. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: 2012), 315-16.

18. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs (B&H Academic: Nashville, TN. 2016), 714.

19. J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (David C Cook: Colorado Springs, CO. 2013), 157.

20. Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona, "Biblical Evidence for the Resurrection" debate hosted by Justin Brierly, Unbelievable? radio program, April 16, 2011, accessed April 17, 2012, www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=[32EC8B32-035E-4C2D-AB44-38C0210FD9FD}. Cited in Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 28-29.

21. Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 31-32.

22. Lee Strobel, In Defense of Jesus: Investigating Attacks on the Identity of Christ (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2007), 149.

23. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2000), 40, 60.

24. Moreland and Nielsen, Does God Exist?, 192.

25. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 143.

26. Objective morality and atheism is considered in the post about how evil and a loving God can exist.

Free will is dealt with in, appropriately, the post on consciousness.