Argument from miracles

One counter-argument to the argument from miracles is the argument from inconsistent revelations, which states that multiple incompatible miracles are alleged to have occurred which provide evidence for different religions. Not all these can be correct.

Another counter-argument is Occam's razor, which can be used to argue that God is unnecessary to explain miracles for which natural explanations can be found. In his documentary The Root of All Evil?, British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins utilises this argument when examining the supposed miracles in Lourdes, France. According to Catholic theology, supernatural cures occur in the area, but Dawkins expresses doubts as to their divine nature, saying that all the recorded cures comprise diseases which may have healed by themselves without the need for divine intervention.

Modern theologians rely on the arguments by David Hume, an eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher, who is known today for his skepticism and naturalism. Before making any claims, Hume explains the principle of evidence: the only way that we can assess the credibility of two claims is by weighing evidence. According to Hume, because evidence for miracles consists of a limited set of instances, every instance of normalcy in the real world adds up to evidence that far outweighs the evidence for miracles.

• David Hume (ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902 (ISBN 978-0-19-824535-3).
• Richard Swinburne (ed.), Miracles, London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1989 (ISBN 0-02-418731-3).

• Hume on Miracles