What Is the Argument From Miracles?
Learn what the argument from miracles says about God's existence, how a claimed healing supports it, and why testimony and natural explanations are challenged.
The argument from miracles says that miracles are evidence that God exists. If an event seems impossible to explain through natural causes, a believer may argue that God caused it. The argument does not prove God’s existence; it offers a reason to believe.
How the argument works
A miracle is an extraordinary event that believers understand as an act of God. For example, if someone recovered from a serious illness in a way doctors could not explain, a believer might see the recovery as a miracle. They could argue that God intervened, showing both that God exists and that God can act in the world. In this sense, a miracle may also be seen as a revelation: something that helps people understand God.
The key step is moving from “we cannot explain this event naturally” to “God caused it.” That is why the argument is open to debate. An unexplained event might have a natural cause that has not yet been discovered, or a report of the event might be inaccurate.
A challenge to the argument
The philosopher David Hume argued that reports of miracles should be treated with caution. A person might misunderstand what happened, exaggerate it or pass on an unreliable account. For Hume, it is generally more reasonable to question the report than to accept that the usual laws of nature have been broken.
A believer could reply that not every miracle claim rests on a single witness. Several consistent accounts, or medical evidence about an unexpected recovery, might make a report more convincing. Even then, evidence for an unusual event does not settle what caused it.
In an exam answer, avoid saying that an event is definitely a miracle just because nobody can currently explain it. Explain why a believer might interpret it as evidence for God, then consider whether another explanation is possible.
