8. Are Miracles Possible?

8.1. Irrational and Supernatural Miracles, Are They Really Possible?

• The Bible describes numerous miracles and supernatural events. According to the Bible, Moses parted the Red Sea with a single staff, Mary became pregnant alone as a virgin and gave birth to Jesus, Jesus turned plain water into wine, healed countless incurable patients instantly, and fed 5,000 people with five barley loaves and two fish. It even says that Jesus was resurrected after dying on the cross and ascended to heaven.
• In addition, the Bible is full of countless miracles and all kinds of supernatural events that cannot be understood rationally. On what basis can we believe that these things that seem to belong in a "fantasy novel" are possible?

Do you rationally and scientifically think that "miracles" or "supernatural phenomena" that are impossible to explain or even directly contradict it can happen? There may be some of you who believe that such phenomena can occur, but I think the majority will believe that "such things cannot happen." What do you think?

For example, let's assume that I told you this:

Today I clearly saw an apple fall from a tree branch, but it did not fall to the ground, but shot up into the sky! Please believe me!

Most of you probably wouldn't believe it, and you would probably say this to me:

"According to the 'law of nature' called the law of universal gravitation, apples are supposed to fall to the ground. This is a clear 'scientific law,' so it is impossible for an apple to go up into the sky. Therefore, your claim is false and impossible. You must have seen a mirage, be babbling nonsense due to a mental illness, or be lying with some kind of impure motive."

In short, it is impossible because it is "unscientific." If you look more closely at this logic, there is a way of thinking at the bottom that equates scientific=logical=rational=realistic=possible, unscientific=illogical=irrational=unrealistic=impossible.

8.2. The Error of Claiming Miracles are Impossible

Is it really impossible for "unscientific" or "irrational" phenomena or miracles to occur as you think? Is the basis of your belief that you presented right above really correct? To give you the conclusion first, the above thought (such things cannot happen because they are unscientific and irrational) contains a huge "logical" error (circular reasoning fallacy). Why is that?

Scientific laws begin with discovering "common regularities" that appear in the process of observing countless natural phenomena. Once this common regularity is found, this regularity is inversely applied to other natural phenomena that have not been observed before.

If the same regularity is confirmed to appear there as well, it becomes established as a "law of nature." In other words, all things established as laws of nature have passed a double test - inductive testing as well as deductive testing.

However, just because scientific laws have passed this meticulous double test does not mean that they are "absolute truth." Why is that? To put it bluntly, scientific laws implicitly assume the so-called ceteris paribus, "all other conditions being equal."

It also implicitly assumes that no other natural or supernatural factors interfere at all with the occurrence of phenomena according to natural laws. All laws of natural science implicitly make these two assumptions.

Shall we apply it to the previous example? Your claim that you cannot believe my statement that the apple went up from the ground to the sky is as follows:

"According to the law of universal gravitation, apples fall from the sky to the ground, so your claim is false."

But in fact, if you elaborate on this a bit more, it is as follows:

Assume that the mass of the Earth and all other natural conditions that may affect the law of universal gravitation are the same and unchanging. Also, assume that there is no intervention of a supernatural being that can artificially manipulate this law. Then, according to the scientific law of universal gravitation, apples always fall from the sky to the ground, so your claim is false.

In other words, in order for you to claim that I am a liar, you cannot simply argue "because it violates the law of universal gravitation." Why should you prove the premise that all natural conditions are the same and unchanging and there is no room for supernatural factors to interfere? Because natural laws basically make these two assumptions, but in fact this has not been proven.

These presuppositions belong to the realm of "belief" of those who worship science. Many people say that science is the realm of evidence, not the realm of belief. However, that is not the case. Scientific logic that explains phenomena belongs to the rational realm that can be verified, but the two implicit presuppositions of scientific facts belong to the realm of belief because they are impossible to prove.

Do you think like this by any chance?

"Isn't it natural for nature to not change in the first place? Isn't it because regularity exists in the first place? Isn't it because God cannot be proven in the first place?"

If you think like this, you are committing the "fallacy of circular reasoning." When asked why the conditions and laws of nature are unchanging, the logic is because nature is originally unchanging. It's the same situation as when asked why you like soccer, you say, "Because I like soccer."

No matter how many countless natural phenomena are explained by the regularities we have discovered, if you are picky about it, there is no "logical guarantee" that this regularity will "necessarily apply in the same way to other natural phenomena."

There is only a psychological belief and a high empirical probability that such regularity will appear the same in other parts of nature through the observation of countless natural phenomena.

Many people say this. "Science" is not "belief," but objective "truth." However, in the end, science and natural laws are also based on the "belief" that "ceteris paribus" is correct and there is no intervention of a transcendent being. Whether these preconditions are right or wrong can be empirically estimated, but it is impossible to get a "logical confirmation" of whether this is absolute truth.

In the end, science is also a very excellent and rational means that can rationally explain the majority of natural phenomena that occur when natural conditions are constant and there is no intervention of God, but it is not logically completely infallible absolute truth.

Therefore, the claim that something is impossible or false because it is scientifically impossible is a logical error.

8.3. Are the Miracles in the Bible False?

From this perspective, how would you accept the numerous unscientific miracles in the Bible as listed below?

• Moses parted the Red Sea against the law of gravity with a single staff.
• Mary gave birth to a son without the help of the Y chromosome.
• Jesus instantly healed terminally ill patients who were medically impossible to cure.
• He was resurrected after being medically completely dead and ascended to heaven.

If it is assumed that "ceteris paribus" is true and God does not exist, such things can never happen. If these two assumptions are true, it is clear that the facts of the Bible are all fabricated fantasy novels and fictions.

However, if "ceteris paribus" does not hold and the "omniscient and omnipotent God" who created the entire universe and made the laws of nature actually exists, would these "supernatural miracles" still be miracles? In fact, they are not even miracles, right? If there is a God who created the universe and designed the laws of nature themselves, would it be a big deal for him to split some seawater and bring a dead person back to life? Is it irrational and absurd? Rather, it can be said that it is a logical error to say that such a being cannot control the laws of nature.

In the end, the laws of natural science that you believe to be absolute truth are also a matter of "belief." Denying miracles or the existence of God because they contradict the laws of natural science is only committing the circular reasoning fallacy of "God does not exist because God does not exist."

Although it may seem that miracles are denied because they contradict science, in fact it is because you believe that miracles are impossible and God does not exist.

Then, if such supernatural phenomena or miracles truly occurred, what would be the way to determine whether it is real or simply an illusion or a scientific error? The only way is to verify the "phenomenon itself" in various ways to determine its truth. Let's go back to the previous example.

In order to prove that my claim that "the apple went up from the ground to the sky" is false, you should not argue, "Originally, according to the law of universal gravitation, apples fall from the sky to the ground, so your claim is false." Instead, you have to directly prove that my observation was wrong. For example, you need to present evidence that my eyesight was abnormal and that I had a mental disorder that could cause me to see illusions or hallucinations.

If you have not presented such evidence, you must clearly acknowledge the possibility of "miracles" or "divine intervention." You must also humbly accept that the premise of scientific laws was wrong (miracles are possible and God exists).

This is because if a phenomenon absolutely cannot be rationally explained assuming that miracles or divine beings cannot exist, it logically means that the premise was wrong.

On the other hand, if objective evidence is found that I was in a state of hallucination, it can be easily explained by natural laws without supernatural phenomena or divine beings. Therefore, my claim can be ignored and the possibility of miracles or the existence of God decreases.

This is the rational and logical approach to the possibility of supernatural phenomena, miracles, and divine beings.

Likewise, in order to prove that the fact that Jesus died and was resurrected is false, you should not use the argument that "according to the laws of nature, a person who has died once cannot come back to life." You have to directly prove that the "phenomenon itself" that Jesus died and came back to life is false through historical records or circumstances.

Here, if all the facts are proven to have been "actual historical events," supernatural miracles and the existence of God must be acknowledged. On the other hand, if it is revealed that it was a historical fabrication or fiction, it can be concluded that there are no miracles either.

Therefore, the only alternative to verifying whether the miracles in the Bible are true or not is to directly verify the truth of the facts themselves from various angles, whether the miracles in the Bible were "historically actual events" or not. So if objective evidence and historical confirmation materials are found for unbelievable miracles and the existence of God, it is reasonable to accept the premise that miracles and God exist.

If not, miracles and God become fictitious and it must be acknowledged that all phenomena occur only by natural laws. Therefore, in order to clarify this, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the authenticity of the Bible, which is a book written about all kinds of miracles and the existence of God.

• What kind of book is the Bible and how was it written?
• Is there a possibility that it was manipulated?
• Is there any other ancient document or archaeological evidence supporting the mythical events recorded in the Bible?
• If the Bible is true, have the prophecies and events recorded in it actually been accurately fulfilled?
• If the supernatural events in the Bible are real and true, do the same kind of miraculous things occur in the same way today?

We need to critically examine all these factors and directly discern whether it is true or not. This is the truly logical, rational, and reasonable approach.

Do you think science is not "belief" but "objective absolute unchanging truth"? Even if there are supernatural phenomena that are not understood at the current level, do you think that in the end, as time passes, "science" that has not yet been revealed will prove it? Of course, that could be the case. But, to be honest, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will be.

In the end, remember that science is also based on an "unfounded belief" in the premise of "ceteris paribus" or the denial of the possibility of supernatural divine intervention. Science is also ultimately "belief."

It is a system of thought composed half of belief and half of rational logic. It is a very rational and reasonable, but incomplete system of thought that goes in acknowledging the premise that "God does not exist" as true even though there is no way to prove "God does not exist" on its own.

In conclusion, we can never say for sure that miracles are impossible and God does not exist because miracles are unscientific and irrational. From this perspective, if scientifically inexplicable miraculous phenomena or supernatural phenomena can be rationally explained by assuming the existence of a divine being, the existence of a divine being or intervention by it cannot be logically denied either.

Then, let's take an in-depth look at what kind of book the Bible is, which is the core basis for claiming that such unbelievable mythical stories actually occurred as historical facts, and whether the absurd mythical stories claimed here were historical facts.