Accepting Miracles Today
Pros:

Swinburne argues that natural laws are not fixed, so miracles can break natural laws. However, they must be seen as 'non-repeatable' events.
Miracles' primary function is to encourage people, not to end suffering altogether.
We will never be able to conclusively prove that miracles don't exist, therefore, rationalism can be seen as self-defeating.
If we argue it is ludicrous to believe in miracles because of the lack of scientific evidence, then it must also be ludicrous to have a religious belief as well, if the same logic is followed.
Just because the existence of miracles is not provable, this is not to say miracles do not exist. For example, the idea of the earth going around the sun was originally rejected, however, years later, it was discovered that this claim was correct.

Cons:

Hume argues that miracles are 'violations' of the laws of nature, so that by definition, they do not exist.
Wiles claims that only an arbitrary or partisan God would perform miracles in the way that they appear in our world, as they do not help everyone, but a select few.
Bultmann suggests that perhaps miracle accounts in the Bible are symbolic of God's power and love for humanity, so there is no reason to believe that miracles can happen today.

	Created by Summer Pearce about 8 years ago

A-Level (Year 2) Philosophy (Miracles) Note on Assessing Miracle Claims, created by Summer Pearce on 13/10/2016.