Can Miracles really happen?

Matt: Just to make sure. Hey, Isaac Newton! I'm trying to find out why miracles are impossible. I know you're in the 18th century, but what did you think about the world back then? Why did people think miracles were impossible because of the way the world was?

Newton: Hey Matt! I proved that the world was like a machine. The machine works great on its own. And you shouldn't tamper with it. If you do, it won't work right. God invented the machine, and all the laws He created make it work just fine.

Matt: Thanks Newton! I wonder why that makes miracles impossible.

Voltaire: Miracles violate the laws of nature, that's why. I wrote about that in my Dictionary of Philosophy. The laws are eternal, and like Newton said, you can't tamper with them or else the machine won't operate correctly.

Matt: Can't He suspend the laws to work a miracle?

Voltaire (with a snicker): Oh Matt. It's okay. You don't have a lot of exposure to these types of issues. Why ruin this machine? You guys have cars in the future, right?

Matt: Uh, yea . . .

Voltaire: If someone made the perfect car, and then started tampering with it all the time, we'd think it wasn't a perfect car to begin with, wouldn't we? But we're talking about God. God made this perfect machine. It doesn't need all these violations if the machine is perfect, does it? God is the perfect architect. The question answers itself!

Matt (detecting a bit of sarcasm): Okay, you made your point. Hey! Spinoza! Can I talk to you for a sec? I just have some questions about miracles. You didn't believe in them, did you?

Spinoza: Oh, of course not!

Matt: And why not?

Spinoza: I agree with Voltaire. You can't violate eternal laws of nature; they're never going to change. They are the way they are. And besides, miracles can't prove God's existence. If you use the Bible, all of those miracles are natural events. All the miracles you point out that are obviously - or so say you - not natural are that way for a reason - their accounts were written metaphorically.

Matt: I heard 4 points in there. Let's just focus on the first two points. Why can't God violate these laws of nature?

Spinoza: If God wills something, then that thing will necessarily come about. You can't thwart the will of God.

Matt: I object to a part of that, but go on.

Spinoza: Okay. I also think that God's willing things is the same exact thing as God's understanding things.

Matt: Okay.

Spinoza: These laws of nature - as Voltaire and Newton are talking about - flow from God's nature! God's nature is necessary and doesn't change. Therefore, the laws of nature are necessary and don't change.

Matt: So, if God violates the laws of nature to make a miracle, He violates His own nature?

Spinoza: Exactly. And since God's will and understanding are the same thing, if a miracle happens, then God's will and understanding will be in conflict with God's own nature!

Matt: Oh yea. Because God's will and understanding will be going one way, and God's nature will be going another. They'll be contradicting themselves, right?

Spinoza: Very good. So a miracle becomes an event. And not just any event. This event goes above and beyond what we know about laws of nature.

Matt: Okay, and what about your second point - the point about miracles not proving God's existence.

Spinoza: Thank you. I had forgotten. If you have a proof for something, that proof is certain, right?

Matt: I disagree, but go on so I can hear you out.

Spinoza: Remember my first point. Miracles violate laws of nature. But if the laws of nature can be violated, then nothing can be certain.

Matt: Why in the world is that?

Spinoza: Because we need the laws of nature to be left alone for anything to be certain! We can give a proof for God's existence only if we use the laws of nature to get there. We can't give a proof for God's existence that depends on the strange idea that the laws of nature have been violated! So, the argument from miracles might lead us to atheism!

Matt: Any other reasons you have that you might want to add on?

Spinoza: I'll add a couple. For one, why would a miracle prove God Almighty? Why not some lesser deity? Second, a miracle seems to be an event we just don't fully understand, and so an event that we can't explain. But this just proves we don't know everything about the law of nature under question, not that God caused the event. All this makes miracles impossible!

Matt: You definitely have an argument there. Before I get into evaluation, I see that David Hume has been dying to speak for about 5 minutes now.

Hume: Thank you so much. How is everyone? Good? Good. Spinoza is right on the mark, but there are some other great reasons out there to not believe in miracles.

Matt: What's your argument?

Hume: I won't follow Spinoza and say flat out that miracles are impossible. I will say that even if one happened, it's impossible to identify it.

Matt: That sounds absurd, but go on . . .

Hume: I believe that we can't possibly identify miracles for two reasons. One, you can't pick out any event and identify it as a miracle. Two, given what has in fact happened in history, the prospects look pretty grim for being able to identify a miracle, even if it did happen.

Matt: That sounds interesting. I have to go for now, but I'll be back tomorrow to resume the discussion! Thanks Voltaire, Newton, Spinoza, and Hume. Yes Hume, we'll give you all the time you need to prove your case. God Bless!