Public Challenge: Show Me a Miracle

Public Challenge: Show Me a Miracle September 26, 2012

I recently listened to an interview with Dr. Gary Habermas on the “Christian Meets World” podcast. Habermas talked excitedly about the evidence for miracles. He claimed that eight million Americans have had near-death experiences. And if you’re open to this evidence, why not that for the resurrection of Jesus? They’re the same afterlife, after all.

Habermas cited Dr. Craig Keener’s Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2011), in which are documented hundreds of recent miracle claims. Some miracles have MRI evidence documenting the before and after medical conditions. In one instance a spleen was surgically removed but then reappeared after prayer. He guesses that there are 100 million miracle reports from around the world.

When Habermas debates atheists and brings up this evidence, famous atheists have no comebacks. They’ll handwave but have nothing better than, “Well, people report crazy things.”

These are bold statements. Provocative statements. In fact, I feel a challenge coming on.

I publicly challenge Drs. Keener or Habermas to pick their favorite miracle claim and submit it for public analysis.

Gentlemen: out of the hundreds of claims in this book or the millions of claims worldwide, take your best-evidenced claim for a miracle. This wouldn’t be something that’s a known puzzle for modern science (cancer that went away for no obvious reason, for example) but something that science says can’t happen—maybe an amputated limb that grows back. Forget the hundreds of claims; bring the evidence for just your best one.

I see four possible outcomes of such a public critique.

1. The evidence is not researchable. Not all of the evidence exists or it’s impossible to access, or for some other reason a complete story can’t be put together. Maybe records have been destroyed, red tape prevents them from being accessed, the documentation is written in Turkmen or Quechua or some other inaccessible foreign language, or witnesses are inaccessible or deceased.

2. The evidence crumbles. We have a complete story, but the evidence isn’t sufficiently reliable. We can’t be sure that records weren’t deliberately tampered with or memories haven’t faded. Maybe we have the statement of just one person without corroboration or a claim from someone without the relevant qualifications (a layman making a medical diagnosis, for example). Maybe human error can’t be ruled out (inadvertently putting the x-ray from patient X into the folder for patient Y, for example).

3. We find a plausible natural explanation. That story about the spleen that was removed and then reappeared? Spleens can grow back. Amputated limbs that regrow? There have been such claims—the 1640 “Miracle of Calanda” is one example—but, as Skeptoid has shown, natural explanations are sufficient to explain the evidence for this claim. Prayer that stopped an epidemic? As I reported a few months ago (“Claims that Prayer Cures Disease”), the epidemic had run its course by the time prayer started.

Any plausible natural explanation defeats the miracle claim.

4. We have a complete case, and natural explanations are less plausible than a miraculous explanation. This is the happy outcome that Habermas expects.

After public analysis of the Best Claim, I predict that we would see outcome 1, 2, or 3. And once we do, my next prediction is that Messrs. K. and H. will drop that claim like a used tissue and burrow through their files for another one.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Over and over. “Oh, you don’t like that claim? Not a problem—I got plenty more.”

As with UFO sightings, lots of crappy evidence doesn’t equal a little good evidence. It’s just a big pile of crappy evidence.

Gentlemen, may I encourage you to respond to my challenge? You know how to reach me.

Messrs. K. and H. assure the public
their production will be second to none.
— The Beatles, “Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite”

"Hee! Reminds me of the closing credits of this classic."

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture
"Say what you will about their business practices, but their compartments are durable, snug, and ..."

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture
"Christainity isn’t supposed to be aacepted by the world. We’re not supposed to be Lukewarm. ..."

The Great Commission and How It ..."
"Religion tells us why they do.But all religion really tells us about "why" is "God ..."

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • barry

    Calvinist apologist Steve Hays tried his best to show that atheists who refuse to investigate miracle claims are being irrational. I answer him in point by point fashion, showing how stupid it is to expect atheists to comprehensively investigate every miracle Christians point to.

    …and yet for unknown reasons, Steve himself refuses to point to the one modern-day miracle he thinks is best explained by God, likely because he knows that after all of his chirping from the sidelines about the evils and inconsistencies of naturalism, actually putting his money where his mouth is and naming the modern-day miracle he thinks is most well-attested, will get his ass handed to him by an atheist in the ensuing investigation. The way you avoid getting beat up is to walk away.

    What’s funny is that this blog piece has been hear for 5 years, and the Christian apologists who chirp the loudest about the veracity of modern day miracle claims STILL have not produced one for which the God explanation is better than the naturalistic one.

    I would broaden Bob’s challenge: Doesn’t matter if cancer is known to go into remission for totally naturalistic reasons, if Habermas wishes to say the remission of cancer in some specific case is better explained by God than any naturalistic hypothesis, let him.

    It is my contention that the kind of comprehensive miracle investigation that guards as much as possible against fraud or mistake, would require far more money, time and resources than the average atheist has, and this alone constitutes sufficient reasonable and rational warrant to dismiss miracle claims as irrelevant. How are we supposed to care about things that circumstances prevent us from knowing the truth of?

    If God wants an atheist to examine a miracle claim, God can enable the atheist to perform a comprehensive investigation. God has no excuse for refusing to do his best, especially under the assumption that he cares more for our souls than your earthly father cares for your life…unless biblical statements about God causing evil are true. You know, stuff like God causing men to rape women, Isaiah 13:13-18, Hosea 13:15-16