In a world where science and scepticism often clash with faith, the hard questions about Bible miracles stand at the forefront of the tension. As Christians, we find ourselves grappling with these tough questions: are we credulous fools to believe in miracles in an age of reason? Aren’t there natural explanations for these events? What about the arguments of renowned sceptics? These are not just academic exercises—they’re real struggles that can shake the very foundations of our faith. But as we dive deep into these hard questions, we uncover a profound truth: The core issue isn’t about the plausibility of miracles themselves. The real question—the one that truly matters—is this: Does the God of the Bible exist? If He does, most of these other questions become secondary, if not irrelevant.

Join us as we confront these hard questions about Bible miracles head-on…

How can we believe in the Bible’s miracles when science tells us they’re impossible?

Miracles, by definition, are extraordinary events that transcend natural laws, and thus require supernatural intervention. The existence of natural laws precludes neither the possibility of miracles nor the existence of God. Just as a computer programmer can alter a programme’s code, God, as the creator of the universe, can intervene within His creation in ways that transcend the natural order. The question is not whether miracles violate natural laws, but whether there is a God who transcends miracles.

Don’t miracles in the Bible have natural explanations?

While some events in the Bible may have natural elements, the key aspect of a miracle is not just the event itself but its timing, context, and purpose. For example, the parting of the Red Sea may have involved natural phenomena, but its occurrence at exactly the right moment for the Israelites to escape Pharaoh’s army points to divine intervention. Moreover, many biblical miracles, such as the resurrection of Jesus, defy natural explanations entirely. Attempting to explain these miracles solely through natural processes ignores their theological significance and the clear intent of the biblical narrative to present them as acts of God.

I’ve never seen a miracle, and I refuse to believe in one.

Personal experience is a powerful influence, but it is not the only basis for truth. Many people, including those who initially did not believe in miracles, have experienced or witnessed events they consider miraculous. However, the absence of a personal encounter doesn’t invalidate the reality of miracles, just as not experiencing an earthquake doesn’t mean they don’t occur. The belief in miracles also rests on historical testimony, the reliability of witnesses, and the broader theological context within which these miracles occur. Moreover, the Bible teaches miracles are not the primary basis for faith, but rather signs that point to deeper spiritual truths.

There is no evidence for the miracles in the Bible.

The evidence for biblical miracles includes historical documentation, eyewitness accounts, and the transformative impact on individuals and societies. For instance, the resurrection of Jesus is supported by multiple independent sources, including early Christian writings, the empty tomb, and the changed lives of the disciples. These pieces of evidence, while not “extraordinary” in a scientific sense, are compelling when considered cumulatively. Additionally, the enduring influence of Christianity, which is based on the reality of these miracles, serves as an ongoing testament to their truth.

How do we address philosophical objections to miracles, like those raised by Spinoza?

Spinoza argued miracles violate nature’s unchangeable order and don’t provide certainty. But this assumes natural laws are absolute, even for God. If God created these laws, surely He can transcend them when He chooses. Miracles don’t violate natural laws; they demonstrate God’s authority over His creation. As for certainty, biblical miracles often come with clear divine messages or fulfil specific prophecies, providing context that points to their divine origin. The certainty of a miracle’s divine source stems from its alignment with God’s character and His redemptive purposes revealed in Scripture.

How do we answer David Hume’s objections that miracles are impossible to prove in principle, and that the evidence for them is actually weak?

Hume’s argument hinges on a presupposition that miracles are inherently improbable because they violate the established laws of nature. However, this view assumes nature is all there is and excludes the possibility of a supernatural being who can intervene. If God exists, then miracles are not only possible but also probable in certain contexts.

Regarding the quality of evidence, Hume’s critique overlooks the fact that the historical evidence for miracles, particularly in the New Testament, is robust. The Gospels were written by or based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and the early Christian community spread rapidly despite persecution, largely because of their conviction in the reality of these miracles, especially the resurrection. The evidence is not weak but compelling when evaluated in its historical and cultural context.

Isn’t belief in miracles just a remnant of primitive thinking?

While some ancient explanations for phenomena were indeed primitive, biblical miracles were not mere gaps in knowledge but acts of God with theological significance. Even in ancient times, people understood the regularity of natural laws, which is why miracles were recognized as extraordinary. The issue isn’t about ignorance but about the acknowledgment of divine intervention in specific, purposeful ways that go beyond natural explanations.

How can we trust biblical accounts of miracles when ancient people were prone to superstition?

While it’s true that ancient cultures included superstition, the biblical accounts of miracles are distinct in their purpose, context, and historical grounding. The biblical narrative often situates miracles within verifiable historical events and contexts, and they serve clear theological purposes, not merely to entertain or frighten. Furthermore, the Bible includes the testimony of eyewitnesses and challenges its readers to test and verify the truth claims, which is not characteristic of superstitious or mythical literature.

How can we defend the resurrection of Jesus as a miracle when dead people don’t rise?

The resurrection is indeed impossible under normal biological conditions, which is why it stands as the central miracle in Christianity. The claim of the resurrection isn’t that Jesus simply revived; rather, it asserts that God intervened in a unique and unprecedented way. This event is supported by historical evidence, including the empty tomb, the transformation of the apostles, and the early growth of the Christian church under persecution. The resurrection is a cornerstone of Christian faith because it demonstrates God’s power over death and validates Jesus’ divine identity and mission.

Don’t miracles contradict God’s consistency and the reliability of the natural order?

God’s consistency is reflected in the natural order, but His sovereignty means He is not bound by it. Miracles are not contradictions but are acts of God that serve His purposes in particular situations. They are not random disruptions but are meaningful signs that point to a greater reality, often revealing God’s character, power, and redemptive plan. The consistency of natural laws highlights the significance of miracles, distinguishing them as divine actions rather than random anomalies.

Why do miracles seem to be less common today if they’re real at all?

The frequency of miracles in biblical times often coincided with significant moments in God’s redemptive history, such as the Exodus, the ministry of Jesus, and the early church. These events required extraordinary signs to authenticate God’s messengers and their message. While miracles may seem less frequent today, many Christians report miraculous events, particularly in areas where the gospel is advancing into new regions. Additionally, the greatest miracle—the resurrection of Jesus—continues to have profound, transformative power in the lives of believers today.

How can we defend the miracle of the Virgin Birth when it’s biologically impossible?

The Virgin Birth is indeed a supernatural event that defies natural biological processes, which is precisely the point. This miracle is central to Christian doctrine because it signifies the divine nature of Jesus, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Just as God created life from nothing in the beginning, He can create life in the womb of a virgin. The Virgin Birth was foretold by prophecy and serves as a sign of Jesus’ unique identity as both fully God and fully man.

Aren’t miracles just psychological or placebo effects—in other words, can’t they be explained by psychological phenomena, that belief itself causes the perceived outcome—rather than real events?

While psychological factors can influence perception, many biblical miracles involve external, verifiable changes that cannot be attributed to mere belief, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the multiplication of loaves and fish, or the healing of congenital blindness. The biblical accounts describe physical phenomena that were witnessed by multiple people, often skeptics themselves. The placebo effect doesn’t account for these occurrences, nor does it explain the profound theological implications that these miracles carry.

How can we trust miracle stories from the Bible when there are similar stories in other religions?

While other religious traditions report miraculous events, biblical miracles are unique in their context, purpose, and the historical claims that surround them. Biblical miracles consistently serve to reveal the one true God and His redemptive plan, often in fulfillment of specific prophecies. The historical evidence supporting the Bible, particularly the resurrection of Jesus, gives credibility to its miraculous claims in a way that is distinct from other religious narratives, which often lack similar historical grounding.

Why should we believe in biblical miracles when there is no scientific evidence for them?

Miracles, by their nature, are rare and extraordinary events that are not subject to repeatable scientific investigation. However, the lack of scientific evidence does not equate to the impossibility of miracles. Instead, they should be evaluated based on historical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and their theological coherence. For example, the resurrection of Jesus is supported by multiple lines of historical evidence, even though it cannot be scientifically proven. The credibility of biblical miracles lies in the convergence of evidence from history, logic, and experience.

Couldn’t the miracles in the Bible be just metaphorical or symbolic, rather than literal events?

While some biblical language is indeed symbolic, many miracles are presented as literal, historical events with specific details and eyewitnesses. For example, the Gospels record Jesus’ miracles in the context of real places, people, and events, with the authors emphasizing their reality. Theological truths are often communicated through these literal events, which serve to demonstrate God’s power and authenticate His messengers. The consistent narrative of Scripture affirms that these miracles were real, historical events, not merely metaphors.

How can we defend miracles when they seem to happen more in religious contexts where people are predisposed to believe them?

While it’s true miracles often occur within religious contexts, this does not undermine their authenticity. In many cases, miracles serve to confirm and strengthen faith, which aligns with their purpose in Scripture. However, the biblical miracles often occurred in contexts where scepticism was present, and in some instances, they were witnessed by non-believers—the raising of Lazarus, for instance. Additionally, the transformative effects of these miracles, such as the rapid spread of Christianity following Jesus’ resurrection, provide strong evidence for their authenticity beyond mere confirmation bias.

Conclusion: As we navigate these hard questions about Bible miracles, we confront doubts, examine evidence, and explore the intersection of faith and reason. But through it all, we keep circling back to one fundamental truth: the existence of the God of the Bible is the lynchpin in the entire discussion. If an all-powerful, all-knowing God exists—a God who created the very laws of nature—then miracles aren’t just possible; they’re to be expected. This realisation challenges us to move beyond surface-level doubts and to dive into the deeper, more challenging question: does this God exist? In other words, the debate about miracles, at its core, isn’t about miracles themselves—it’s about whether the God of the Bible exists.

Related Reads: 

• Ten Astonishing Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
• Connecting the Dots: Coincidences Affirm Bible Reliability
• Isaiah’s Cyrus Prophecy: God’s Fingerprint in Scripture