Miracles and the Laws of Nature
- Jacob Vazquez
- Feb 17
- 15 min read
To some, miracles are a major stumbling block to accepting Christianity as true. They may, for instance, object to believing the parting of the Red Sea, God appearing to Moses as the burning bush, and Jonah the prophet being swallowed up by a fish and spit up three days later, among others. Most of all, however, is the most difficult for skeptics to accept while also being the cornerstone of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus. At times, the reasoning behind the skeptic disbelieving in miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus is based on an a priori (lit. “from what is earlier”) objection—something that is based on an assumed fact rather than seeking first to examine the facts before drawing conclusions.
Of the most common a priori objections critics of miracles make is that miracles are impossible because they violate the laws of nature. However, this objection assumes that the definition of miracles is merely something the laws of nature prohibit. The laws of nature are also assumed to be deterministic rather than descriptive. Finally, this objection falsely presupposes a naturalistic worldview. Critics of the resurrection of Jesus assert that miracles violate the laws of nature, but this argument is fundamentally flawed as it presupposes naturalism and fails to adequately define such laws, whereas theism convincingly demonstrates that miracles and the laws of nature can coexist seamlessly.
Overview of Miracles and the Laws of Nature
Before expanding on why ruling out miracles a priori because they “violate the laws of nature” fails, it is best to establish the two competing worldviews: theism and naturalism. As seen below, the worldview one subscribes to will significantly influence one to conclude whether miracles violate the laws of nature or not. This, however, is precisely what is in question when contemplating the possibility of miracles—which worldview best accounts for miracles and the regularity of the laws of nature.
One can illustrate the distinction between naturalism and theism regarding the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature by imagining two boxes—one open and the other closed. The box resembles the physical universe, and both worldviews accept the box's existence. However, the naturalist (with the closed box) holds that the universe is closed, and nothing exists outside of it (implying nothing can enter). In other words, the universe is all there is. On the other hand, theists believe the universe is open and that a Being exists outside of it. Such a Being has also created the box and can freely reach into the universe (one may picture themselves reaching into the open box) and manipulate its contents. In the same way, theists hold that God can reach into the universe and perform what is referred to as miracles. Once the worldviews have been examined, naturalism (regarding the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature) can reasonably be critiqued, while the laws themselves can be discussed and clarified more closely.
Naturalism: Miracles and the Laws of Nature
Naturalism, a worldview that proclaims the laws of nature as the exclusive governing entities of the universe and all its constituents, also asserts that everything is composed of purely physical matter. Consequently, this worldview dismisses the possibility of the supernatural, such as miracles and God. It wasn’t until the era following the Scientific Revolution, around the Enlightenment, that scientific naturalism began to gain traction and popularity.[1] The laws of nature, believed by many naturalistic philosophers throughout history, are immutable, and miracles violate such laws, making them impossible. Such laws are not merely observational of nature's regularities; modern scientists also hold that they bestow an underlying causal connection and have an explanatory force.[2] Those who lived before the scientific revolution were inclined to rely on divine intervention due to a lack of scientific advancement.[3] In other words, scientific naturalism claims to offer “freedom” from enslavement by being forced to rely on divine intervention to explain how the world is. This worldview also teaches all that is still unknown need not be explained by the supernatural but will eventually be explained through empirical means.[4]
Before the Enlightenment, however, the laws of nature were thought of much differently than modern scientists think of them today. Namely, the laws were merely references to the regularities of nature—the sun rising in the morning and bees making honey were regularities that were viewed as “laws of nature.”[5] This seemed to take a turn after the Enlightenment, starting with the Jewish pantheist in the 1670s, Benedict Spinoza, who said, "Nothing, then, happens in nature which is in contradiction with the universal laws. […She] preserves a fixed and immutable course. A miracle, whether contrary to nature or above nature, is a sheer absurdity; and therefore, by a miracle in the Holy Writ, we are to understand nothing more than a natural phenomenon that surpasses, or is believed to surpass, human powers of comprehension." [6]
The argument put forth by Spinoza against miracles can be presented in the following logical form: (1) Miracles are violations of the laws of nature, (2) The laws of nature are immutable, (3) It is impossible to violate such immutable laws of nature, (4) Therefore, miracles are impossible. With this being said, it was primarily the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) who was most influential in promoting the idea that miracles are violations of nature.[7] While Hume proposed numerous arguments against miracles, one included the idea that since miracles violate the consistently unalterably uniform laws of nature, no evidence can be enough for people to be justified in believing a miracle has occurred. This a priori argument against miracles, which defines miracles as violations of the laws of nature, persists today among naturalists such as Michael Shermer, who believes it is “a knockdown argument” against miracles.[8]
The success of this argument against miracles depends on the legitimacy of how the laws of nature are defined. Going back to the box illustration above, if the box (the physical universe) is closed, then that supports the naturalistic view that miracles are impossible since all that exists is the physical universe, and nothing outside of it (supernatural) can intervene. Before jumping to conclusions, one must consider the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature on a theistic worldview.
Theism: Miracles and the Laws of Nature
Theism is the worldview that believes in at least one deity that can serve as creator and sustainer of the physical world. While there are numerous forms of theism, the specific type of theism that will be defended here is Christianity. That is, the belief that one trinitarian God exists, is the Creator and sustainer of all there is, and supernaturally intervenes for specific reasons. Such interventions are referred to as miracles.
Sticking with the box illustration, if the box is opened and the Creator of the box exists outside of it, He can reach inside the box and intervene supernaturally. Christians believe that God created the box itself (everything) out of nothing in the beginning (Gen. 1:1). Moreover, it is believed that He sustains all things in the universe (Heb. 1:3). Lastly, Christians hold that God is Personal, for only persons make choices (such as to create). With this being the case, miracles are inevitably possible. As William Lane Craig said, “For if a transcendent, personal God exists, then he could cause events in the universe that could not be produced by causes within the universe. Given a God who created the universe, who conserves the world in being, and who is capable of acting freely, miracles are evidently possible.”[9]
Whether or not miracles are possible is essential for Christianity. Not only are miracles embedded throughout the entire Bible (i.e., creation, the virgin birth of Jesus, water turning into wine, and the parting of the Red Sea, to name just a few), but the apostle Paul went as far as to say that the entire Christian faith depends on one miracle: “If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain, and so is your faith” (1 Cor. 15:14 ESV). While a more thorough defense will be offered for theism (Christianity) further below, it should at least be seen that the possibility of miracles is critical for Christianity to be true just as much as it is for naturalism to remain consistent (for if miracles are possible, naturalism is false).
Critique of Naturalism’s View on the Laws of Nature
The primary point of contention between Christianity and naturalism is how one defines the laws of nature. Are they fixed or unfixed? Are they closed or open? Deterministic or indeterministic? These questions will inevitably lead one to think that miracles or possible or not. Before showing how Christianity better explains the regularity of nature and the coexistence of miracles than naturalism, it must be demonstrated that naturalism faces major flaws when accurately defining the laws of nature.
Clarifying the “Laws” of Nature
Before defining what one means by “laws” of nature, it is vital to show that the objection, “miracles are impossible because they violate the laws of nature,” is self-refuting. Craig S. Keener explained this as circular reasoning: "Hume defines a miracle as a violation of natural law, and he defines natural law as being principles that cannot be violated. So, he’s ruling out the possibility of miracles at the outset. He’s assuming that which he’s already stated he will prove—which is circular reasoning. In fact, it’s an anti-supernatural bias, not a cogent philosophical argument."[10]
In addition to falling victim to circular reasoning, the naturalist who makes such a claim also presupposes that the laws of nature are deterministic and closed. However, there is no reason to believe that such laws of nature actually “do” anything. While in the days of Hume and soon after, it was thought that the laws of nature were casual, today, many scientists hold that the laws of nature are statistical generalizations instead.[11] In other words, it is understood today that the laws of nature merely describe what would happen if nature were left to run its course, not prescribe them to do anything.
The laws of nature do not have any casual powers, for they cannot “do” anything. Such laws should not be viewed as a barrier surrounding the universe, keeping miracles from impeding on the natural order, for this would be absurd. No matter how far one goes back in time, there will not be an instance where the laws of nature caused a single event.[12] The laws of nature, then, can be defined as the descriptive generalization of what would happen naturally, given no intervening forces are involved.[13]
Superseding vs. Violating
Based on the above definition of the laws of nature, one may think that only supernatural intervening forces are involved. However, this is untrue—human beings intervene in the regular course of nature every day. For instance, a baseball player catching a falling baseball does not violate the law of gravity, though if the baseball were left alone (without interference), the baseball would fall to the ground per the law of gravity. Instead, the baseball player is overpowering or superseding the law of gravity. Though the baseball player intervened, it is still the case that each time a baseball is dropped from the air and left alone, it will fall to the ground following the law of gravity. The same applies when a spacecraft is launched from Earth into outer space; the law of gravity is being overpowered or superseded temporarily, though such an event does not void the law of gravity in totality. If natural beings like humans can find ways to supersede the laws of nature, why think it impossible for God to do so?
Therefore, instead of using derogatory terms such as “break” or “violate” when describing the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature, it is better to use terms such as “temporarily supersedes” or “suspends.”[14] The former terms indicate a need for repair to function correctly, but this is not the impact miracles have on nature. As mentioned with the baseball illustration, just because the baseball player caught the ball before it was able to fall to the ground (which it would have done if left to its natural course) does not mean that the law of gravity was universally broken and needed to be repaired—the law still held for every other instance where there was no interference from the natural course of action. Instead, it is better to say that miracles make something good even better.[15] As Habermas concludes, "For our purposes, then, miraculous intervention will be defined and described as the manifestation or presence of divine actions that temporarily or momentarily overrule or supersede nature’s normally observed, lawful pattern of events, or that appear to do so. In these cases, nature’s laws can be suspended or interrupted for a brief time by a stronger power while remaining unbroken."[16]
By clarifying the laws of nature, one can see how the naturalist is not justified in simply ruling out the possibility of miracles because they “violate the laws of nature.” This is taking the “laws” of nature to mean something that they are not and leads to reasoning in a circle. There is another problem for the naturalists who claim miracles violate the laws of nature: the one big miracle.
One Big Miracle
Naturalists may deny the beginning of the universe (and by doing so, the Big Bang model), but scientific data has increasingly affirmed such a beginning.[17] The most magnificent miracle ever to be performed is the beginning of the universe, which modern science has continuously confirmed (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics). However, if the naturalist says that the universe did have a beginning but somehow came about from nothing, he or she must answer why things of all kinds do not pop into existence out of nothing regularly. The burden of proof is on the atheist to not only explain how something can come into being from nothing but also why this is not seen more frequently. Taking that a step further, they only need to show one other thing that has come into existence from nothing besides the universe.
While naturalists may have trouble finding sufficient grounds for believing in miracles (plural), so long as they believe the universe had a beginning, they must believe in a miracle (singular). As Rupert Sheldrake explained, “It’s almost as if science said, ‘Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.’ The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”[18] If one miracle occurred throughout history, especially as significant as the creation of the universe out of nothing, then miracles are at least possible. The naturalist may object by claiming the laws of nature caused the universe to come into being, but as Stephen C. Meyer said, “Laws of nature describe how nature operates and how different parts of nature interact with one another, they don’t cause the natural world to come into existence in the first place…No law of nature can close the casual discontinuity between nothing and the origin of nature itself.”[19]
The beginning of the universe fits much better on a theistic worldview, specifically Christianity, where God created the universe in the beginning (Gen. 1:1). If God miraculously created the universe out of nothing, all other miracles are at least possible, despite how improbable they seem. With this being said, it can also be shown that the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature is much more coherent on theism (Christianity) than on naturalism.
Defense of Miracles and the Laws of Nature on Theism
Not only does Naturalism fail to adequately account for the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature, but theism provides a better explanation and should be preferred. For instance, theism better accounts for the regularity of nature (which naturalism does not), miracles are to be expected from theism, and the regularity of nature makes more sense given theism. These points contribute to showing that the resurrection of Jesus is not only possible but plausible given theism and the Christian worldview.
Source of Nature’s Regularity
While this may seem like an additional critique of naturalism, it successfully serves as a defense of theism as well. Naturalism cannot adequately explain the source of the laws of nature. In other words, where did these laws come from? Indeed, according to the naturalist, the universe has no design or purpose. As atheist Richard Dawkins said, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[20] To assume the universe is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference” but then credit the regularities of nature with deterministic properties is inconsistent. Just as if one were to roll a pair of dice and get two threes five times in a row, that would be shocking, given the low probability of that happening. You may not assume there was any design behind it, though. However, if one were to roll dice and it landed on threes 100 times in a row, one may start thinking that some outside manipulating force could have influenced the results.
In the same way, the regularities of nature, precisely the four forces (gravitation, magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces), have functioned in such a predictable and orderly fashion that it is almost ludicrous to claim it is simply due to blind chance. On the other hand, it is beneficial that God has created a universe containing regularly occurring and predictable natural laws (Col. 1:16-17)—making science and the ability to think and act rationally possible for those created in His image. For the sake of maintaining the regularity of nature, God is selective with how and when He acts in the natural world. As it has been shown thus far, miracles are inevitably possible if theism is true, and the regularity of nature is also expected, given the Christian worldview. What, then, can be said of a miracle as significant as the resurrection of Jesus?
The Resurrection: Violation or Specifically Superseded
It is generally accepted that dead people do not rise to life naturally. When one is dead, that is the way they stay. However, does this imply that the classical resurrection hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead 2,000 years ago is implausible? No, for the consensus is that the dead do not resurrect by natural causes. Neither atheists nor Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead naturally—the atheists will claim the resurrection did not happen in general, and the Christian claims that God supernaturally rose Jesus from the dead. Instead, if a supernatural Being wanted to raise Jesus from the dead for a specific purpose, the resurrection, as understood by Christians, is the most plausible explanation based on the historical evidence.[21] The resurrection of Jesus was not just merely a random event in which Jesus was lucky enough to experience such favor from God; instead, it was a rare event that was predicted for a specific purpose.
This is what William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland call the religio-historical context of a miracle, in which if a miracle occurs in a specific and significant religio-historical context, then its chances of being genuinely a supernatural event increase.[22] The resurrection of Jesus fits within a central religio-historical context in that it was prophesied hundreds of years prior (Isaiah 53), and Jesus even announced His resurrection before it happened (Matt. 16:21). Thus, it’s the fact that the event occurred within a significant religio-historical context that the scales should be tipped in favor of the supernatural cause of the miracle over the uniform experience, for the probability of such an event happening by natural causes is too low to consider. Lastly, the resurrection was not purposeless, for it authenticated His ministry (Matt. 16:1-4), confirmed He has fulfilled prophecy (Psalm 16:10-11; Isaiah 53), displayed His power over death and sin (Rom. 8:11; John 3:16-18; 10:28), and offers forgiveness of sins for all who believe in Him (Rom. 4:25; Heb. 7:25; John 3:16).
Conclusion
The claim that miracles violate the laws of nature is baseless when one has clarified what such laws are. One also realizes the assertion's circular reasoning and how it presupposes naturalism, though theism better accounts for miracles and the regularities of nature. That said, the resurrection of Jesus should not be rejected outright for violating any law but examined on historical grounds to determine its authenticity.
Footnotes
[1] Michael Shermer, “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 222, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060
[2] Ignacio Silva, “Thomas Aquinas and Some Neo-Thomists on the Possibility of Miracles and the Laws of Nature,” Religions 15, no. 422 (2024), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040422.
[3] Michael Shermer, “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 228, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060
[4] Richard Dawkins, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist (New York: Penguin Random House LLC., 2017), 230.
[5] Ignacio Silva, “Thomas Aquinas and Some Neo-Thomists on the Possibility of Miracles and the Laws of Nature,” Religions 15, no. 422 (2024), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040422.
[6] Daniel Von Wachter, “Miracles are not Violations of the Laws of Nature Because the Laws do not Entail Regularities,” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7, no. 4 (2015), 38.
[7] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 56.
[8] Michael Shermer, “The Knockdown Argument,” The Case for Miracles, Ed. Lee Strobel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 54.
[9] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 569.
[10] Craig S. Keener, “From Hume to Jesus,” The Case for Miracles, Edited by Lee Strobel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 88.
[11] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 234.
[12] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 236.
[13] Jeffrey Koperski, “Breakings Laws of Nature,” Philosophia Christi 19, no. 1 (2017), 86.
[14] Jeffrey Koperski, “Breakings Laws of Nature,” Philosophia Christi 19, no. 1 (2017), 240.
[15] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 241.
[16] Ibid., 242.
[17] Lee Strobel, Is God Real? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2023), 28.
[18] Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion (UK: Coronet, 2012), 17.
[19] Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (New York: HarperCollins, 2023), 418.
[20] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), 133.
[21] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 131-155.
[22] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 570.
Bibliography
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton, 1986.
Dawkins, Richard. Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist. New York: Penguin Random House LLC, 2017.
Gould, Paul, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin. Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018.
Habermas, Gary. On the Resurrection. Bentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024.
Koperski, Jeffrey. “Breaking Laws of Nature.” Philosophia Christi 19, no. 1 (2017).
Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis. New York: HarperCollins, 2023.
Moreland, J.P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2017.
Sheldrake, Rupert. The Science Delusion. UK: Coronet, 2012.
Shermer, Michael. “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism.” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060.
Silva, Ignacio. “Thomas Aquinas and Some Neo-Thomists on the Possibility of Miracles and the Laws of Nature.” Religions 15, no. 422 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040422.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Miracles. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018.
Strobel, Lee. Is God Real? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2023.
Wachter, Daniel Von. “Miracles are not Violations of the Laws of Nature Because the Laws do not Entail Regularities.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7, no. 4 (2015).
