By
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/6843/528235-elrond_silver_shirt.jpg, Fair
use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22826291
“It’s a miracle!” –
ensign Darwin,
“There are no
such things.” – Mr. Spock.
Star Trek: Into Darkness
The circumstances under
which this statement was made by Mr. Spock, centered around the impending
demise of the Enterprise due to the ships’ warp-core being knocked offline. With
no power to run the ship, the Enterprise began to plummet putting it in danger
of crashing into the Earth if the warp-core could not be re-aligned. Kirk endeavored
to re-align the warp-core by entering the housing compartment that contained
it. The problem was the compartment was filled with radiation and although Kirk
was able to restore it, doing so came at a cost. Its realignment inspired
ensign Darwin to cry out, “It’s a miracle!” to which Mr. Spock retorted, “There
are no such things”.
How does Mr. Spock know that
miracles do not exist? Or is it simply that he does not believe miracles
exist? If it’s a matter of belief, would that make Spock something of a deist? The
primary tenets of deism are three, first, God exists, second, miracles do not
occur, and third, God is unitary. It is this second tenet that concerns us. Some
deists stress the uniformity of natural law. God set up the laws of the natural
world, and he cannot (or will not) violate the law he established in the
natural world. A miracle would be a violation of an inviolable law. But the
inviolable cannot be violated. Hence, miracles cannot happen.[i] But deistic beliefs
concerning the existence of God are incongruent taking into account that God
performed the miracle of creation ex-nihilo (from nothing), it follows from the
very nature and power of this kind of God that other lesser miracles are
possible. Walking on water is little problem for a God who created water to begin
with.[ii] Nevertheless, I can find
no indication that Mr. Spock had any belief in the existence of God so this would
disqualify him as a deist. More likely he would identify as an atheist, or at best
an agnostic. But if God exists, then miracles are possible. If miracles do not
exist, then,
1. The Bible is not the word of God, as the
Bible is full of the miracles of God.
2. If these miracles did not occur, then the Bible
is not credible.
3. So, if these miracles are not credible
then neither are the Bibles’ claims.
Furthermore,
if miracles do not exist, then,
1. Jesus cannot be the Son of God since the
Bible tells us that He is.
2. Jesus did not preform miracles to prove
His claims as the Bible tells us that He did. (Matt.12:40; Mk. 2:10-11)
3. So, if these miracles are not credible
then neither are Jesus’ claims.
If miracles do not exist salvation cannot
be an act of God since the Bible says that it is (Ps. 37:39; 1 Cor. 15:1-8;
Rom. 1:16, 10:9) and that Jesus rose from the dead, if He did not, we are still
in our sins (1 Cor. 15:17). Miracles are not anomalies, though they are unusual,
they simply have an unknown natural cause. Miracles are not providential,
they may be unusual, but they have a known natural cause. Miracles are
not magical, which are unusual but have a secrete natural cause,
illusion or slight of hand et cetera. Miracles are not satanic, which are
unusual but are characterized by an evil spiritual cause.
A miracle, by definition, is a divine
intervention in the natural world that produces an event that would not have
resulted from purely natural causes. Antony Flew has stated that, “A miracle is
something which would never have happened had nature, as it were, been left to
its own devices.”[iii] During the 17th century pantheist Benedict
Spinoza, argued against the existence of miracles claiming essentially that,
1. Miracles are violations of natural laws.
2. Natural laws are immutable.
3. It is impossible to violate immutable
laws.
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible.[iv]
The problem with Spinoza’s argument is
that it begs the question. The problem with question begging is that the premises
assume the conclusion instead of supporting it. If you’re going to argue that natural
laws are immutable (2) and that immutable laws cannot be violated (3), then obviously
miracles would not be possible. Spinoza’s first premise is actually incorrect. Miracles
do not “violate” the laws of nature, they are a suspension of them for the
purpose of an intervention. Natural laws are not necessarily immutable, they are
suspended all the time. When SpaceX launches into space or airplanes lift off
from the runway, the law of gravity is not violated or negated, it is overpowered
by certain forces applied against it, to accomplish a particular end, namely flight.
If finite creatures such as we are, are able to overpower certain physical laws,
certainly the creator of such laws is able to overpower them. Spinoza’s particular
perturbation respecting the existence of miracles was predicated on his belief
that God as the creator and sustainer of the known universe would not alter the
laws that He Himself set in motion by causing such an occurrence that would
contradict those laws. Spinoza believed that by altering the laws of nature for
the sake of some miraculous event, He would in fact be contradicting His own
nature. As a pantheist, he would have believed that the universe, indeed, the
entire natural world, is God. Philosopher and Christian apologist Dr. William
Lane Craig, summarised English philosopher/theologian Samuel Clarke by stating,
“The
so-called natural forces, like gravitation, are properly speaking the effect of
God’s acting on matter at every moment. The upshot of this is that the
so-called ‘course of nature’ is a fiction – what we call the course of nature
is in reality nothing other than God’s producing certain effects in a continual
and uniform manner. Thus, a miracle is not contrary to the course of nature,
which does not really exist; it is simply an unusual event that God does.
Moreover, since God is omnipotent, miraculous events are no more difficult for
him than regular events. So, the regular order of nature proves the existence
and attributes of God, and miracles prove the interposition of God into the
regular order in which he acts.”[v]
In
other words, when we read that Jesus was the agent of the creation, “upholding
all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3 NKJV), this is an indication “of
God’s acting on matter at every moment”. The phrase ὑποστάσεως (upostaseos)
αὐτοῦ, (aptou) φέρων (pheron) translates as “nature (or essence),
he, to sustain”. The genitive case
ending (ως) in ὑποστάσεως (upostaseos) and (ῦ) in αὐτοῦ, (aptou) indicate
possession. The only difference is the first is feminine and the second
masculine and the two together indicate that Jesus possesses the same
nature or essence as the Father (hypostatic union). The nominative case endings
in ἀπαύγασμα (apaugasma) and χαρακτὴρ (charaktēr) indicate that
God’s “radiance” and “character” are the subject of the verse. The accusative case
ending ν in φέρων (pheron) indicates it as the direct object of
the verse. The Greek verb φέρω (pherō) meaning “to uphold” or
“maintain” is an active, presentence verb. Active verbs are those in which the
subject is the one performing the act, denoting that it is He who upholds,
maintains, or sustains all things presently “by the word
of his power”, cf. Col. 1:17. Therefore, “a miracle is not contrary to the
course of nature”, in actuality there is no such thing, “it is simply an
unusual event that God does”.
The purpose of a miracle is to confirm a
message from God (Jn. 3:2; Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3). Theism makes miracles
possible. If a supernatural God exists, then supernatural acts of God are
possible. If there is a creation by God, then there can be an intervention by
God.
1. If God exists, miracles are possible.
2. To disprove miracles, one must disprove
God.
3. No one has disproved God. (A disbelief in
His existence is not a proof against it).
a. Few have attempted it.
b. I contend that those who have attempted
it, have failed at it.
Expanding on premise 3b., those who have
attempted to disprove the existence of God, have struggled mightily in their
efforts to do so, either employing unjustifiable arguments or arguments which
are self defeating. One of the supposed disproof’s for God’s existence include
the existence of “moral imperfections in the world”, leading to the assumption that
a morally perfect God would not allow for the existence of moral imperfections,
therefore, causing them to conclude, no morally perfect God can exist. But how
would you know what was morally imperfect unless you know what is morally
perfect? Therefore, there must be a morally perfect standard in order to know
the world is morally imperfect. A man does not call a line crooked unless he
has some idea of a straight line.[vi]
The Scottish agnostic philosopher David
Hume, like Spinoza, argued against the concept of the miraculous by contending,
1. Natural law is by definition a description
of a regular occurrence.
2. A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence.
3. The evidence for the regular is always
greater than that for the rare.
4. A wise man always basis his belief on the
greater evidence.
5. Therefore, a wise man should never believe
in miracles. [vii]
Hume’s first premise is correct, typically,
natural laws are constant and consistent, occurring at regular intervals,
behaving in predictable ways that are rarely altered, that is, unless constrained
by some external factor which Hume has not considered. His second premise is
also correct, miraculous occurrences are rare and irregular, transpiring at
random intervals that are unpredictable. It is Hume’s third premise that raises
some red flags. Is it really true that evidence for the regular unfailingly,
perpetually, eternally supersedes that of the rare? Is it truly “always
greater”? If Hume is alluding to the quantity of evidence available for
the regular occurrence of natural law, against the evidence available for the
miraculous, then it follows logically that the volume of evidence available
should fall on the side of the regular. A corollary of which is that a miracle
is a rare occurrence and must be in order to qualify as such, if it was not, it
would fall into the category of those things which occur at regular intervals,
following natural laws. Which clearly a miracle supersedes, it is not a
violation of it. It therefore would require the requisite power of the
supernatural over the natural order of things, or its regular occurrence under
natural law. But therein lies the problem with Hume’s argument, it confuses the
quantity of evidence against the quality of the evidence which
should be weighed, not added. It may be
that the event which we call a miracle was brought on not by a suspension of
the laws in ordinary operation, but by the super addition of something not ordinarily
in operation.[viii]
In other words, miracles don’t violate the regular laws of cause and effect,
they simply have a cause that transcends nature.[ix]
Nevertheless, Hume insists that a miracle
could be more believable if it occurred more frequently, more consistently,
with greater regularity. Doing so however would disqualify it as a miracle as
previously noted, as well as Hume’s own premise that a miracle is a rare
occurrence. In these two statements Hume
commits a logical fallacy. The law of non-contradiction states that you cannot
have “A” and yet have “A” in the same sense to the same extent. You cannot have
a miracle existing as both a “rare” and “regular” occurrence at the same time,
it would have to be one or the other. Furthermore, in the law of bivalence a propositional
statement is either true or false. If Hume’s premise that “a miracle is by definition
a rare event” is true, then it follows logically that it cannot be false, so Hume’s
argument that, should miracles occur with greater regularity they would be more
believable, well this turns out to be a logical fallacy. Theologian Orton Wiley
has noted that,
Some have thought that if
God would only reveal Himself repeatedly in miraculous occurrences then surely
belief in Him would be universal. But, as Dr. Samuel Harris pointed out,
repetition of the miraculous would, through repeated acquaintance with it, soon
lead many to discount or deny it as miraculous or as a revelation of God.[x] (O. Wiley 1946, 38)
If, however, Hume’s 3rd premise
that, “evidence for the regular supersedes, or is aways greater than that of
the rare,” as a reference to their respective magnitude, then clearly,
he has not thought this through enough. Case in point, the origin of the
universe is a singular occurrence which would qualify it as miraculous on two
fronts. First, the origin of the universe is by all accounts, a rare
occurrence. If it is true that, “a
miracle is by definition a rare occurrence” then it follows that the cause of
the universe must be miraculous and not natural. Second, how could the cause be
of natural origin when, as yet no natural laws were in existence? Physicist
Paul Davies has stated that, “[The big bang] represents the instantaneous
suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that
allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle…”
(emphasis added)[xi] When Physicists argue that the universe
sprang into existence “out of nothing”, it is far different from a theist
arguing that God brought the universe into existence ex nihilo, out of
nothing. Indeed, it would be a fantastic notion to argue that nothing produced
everything we now see in existence, which is quite frankly a logical absurdity.
Ancient Romans coined the maxim on logic, ex nihil fit or “out of
nothing, nothing comes”. No one has ever observed “nothing” create a single
thing. It would be a greater miracle than arguing that God created all of time
space and matter out of nothing (Gen.1:1; Jn.1:3).
Furthermore, the sheer magnitude of the
creation has no comparable. Considering the immensity of space and the celestial
bodies which occupy it (Psalms 19:1-6), along with minute intricacies and
complexity of the human cell, it is exceptionally difficult to believe that it
all came into existence out of absolutely nothing, unless of course it didn’t. Even
very slight alterations in the values of many factors, such as the expansion
rate of the universe, the strength of gravitational or electromagnetic
attraction, or the value of Planck’s constant, would render life impossible.[xii] Furthermore, given the
improbability of the precise ensemble of values represented by these constants,
and their specificity relative to the requirements of a life-sustaining universe, many physicists
have noted that the fine tuning strongly suggests design by a pre-existent
intelligence. As well-known British physicist Paul Davies has put it, “the
impression of design is overwhelming.”[xiii]
Furthermore, the technology of the 20th
century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has revealed that the
cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that
the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the
cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for
life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products
to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines
for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories
and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their
useable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins to control the incoming
and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this
incredibly complex system.[xiv]
It is no accident that these analogies of
“power stations”, “manufacturing”, a “databank”, “transportation”, “pipelines”,
“laboratories” and “refineries” are used to describe the variety of functions
that take place in every single cell of the human body, of which they are an
estimated 100 million cells. Furthermore, for many years, Francis Crick
believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to
admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged
spontaneously by coincidence, as the result of an evolutionary process:
“An honest man, armed
with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some
sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.”[xv] (Emphasis added)
So, in light of all this, what could we conclude? Is Spock’s claim that “there are no such things” as miracles legitimate? Has he, like Spinoza, contended that because God created and sustains the laws he put in place, that He would contradict Himself by performing a miracle, as miracles are violations of the natural laws He created. If so, Mr. Spock has failed to understand that a miracle is not a violation of natural law, it is a result of an intervention by God into the natural world He created. If He created it, He can intervene in any way He deems necessary. Either by superposition, superseding, addendum, or avulsion. Or has Mr. Spock, like Hume, simply added up the evidence against the existence of miracles without weighing what the evidence actually shows? Hume’s whole approach to the argument seems to be one of dismissal. Even if a miracle had occurred, it should not be believed. After all he doesn’t actually argue against their occurring, only their believability. It is patently absurd, however, to claim that an event should be disbelieved, even if it has occurred, that is, when the evidence is overwhelming that the purported miracle has occurred.[xvi] Remember that the biggest evidence for the miraculous has already occurred, the creation of the universe.
[i] Norman
L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academics, 2013 2nd Ed.). 153.
[ii] Ibid.,
155.
[iii] Antony
Flew, “Miracles,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed.,
vol. 5 (New York: Macmillan and the Free Press, 1967), 346. Quoted in Norman L.
Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton,
Ill.: Crossway, 2004), 201.
[iv]Norman
L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2004), 204.
[v]
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd
ed., (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 252.
[vi] C.S.
Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1980
Ed.), 38.
[vii] Norman
L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2004), 205.
[viii]
Physicist Sir George Stokes, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
p.2036. Quoted in Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask:
A Handbook on Christian Evidences, (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 2013), 70.
[ix] Norman
L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian
Evidences, (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 2013), 70.
[x] H.
Orton Wiley and Paul T. Culbertson, Introduction to Christian Theology (Kansas
City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1946), 38.
[xi] Paul
Davies, physicist, in his book - The Edge of Infinity
[xii] Michael
J. Behe, William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer, Science and Evidence for
Design in the Universe, (San Francisco, CA. Ignatius Press, 2000), 57.
[xiii]
Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988),
203. Quoted in Ibid.
[xiv] http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Complexity-of-the-Cell.pdf#:~:text=THE%20COMPLEXITY%20OF%20THE%20CELL%20The%20cell%20is,life%20as%20it%20has%20been%20revealed%20by%20molecular
site accessed August 15, 2022.
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Douglas
Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, eds., In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case
for God’s Action in History (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1997),
80.
