"A miracle is a transgression of a Law of Nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent" - Comment on the adequacy of this definition of a miracle.

Davies argues that the laws of nature and things can occur outside of them. He raises the issue that we all believe that the world has a certain way of working, and therefore anything which is different to this is outside the laws of nature, and is miraculous.

Hick agrees with the other statement, he believes that the laws of nature should be revised to encompass the unexplainable as it happens. Hick states that natural laws are:

“…generalisations formulated retrospectively to cover whatever has, in fact happened”

Therefore, if the laws of nature can continually be stretched to explain what might be perceived as a miracle, then event would be able to be explained through the laws of nature, Hick logically concludes:

“We can declare a priori there are no miracles”

The next major point one needs to examine before evaluating the adequacy of the argument is the mention of Hume that the intervention of a Deity of invisible agent is required for an event to be considered a miracle.

This is an obvious weakness when being discussed by an Atheist, with the simple argument that God doesn’t exist; but this begins another philosophical debate. The philosopher Mackie agreement with Hume states:

“…a miracle occurs when the world is not left to itself”

This argument causes problems for a religious believer however. Within the Classical Theistic concept of the nature of God is the belief that God is omnipresent. Therefore, the idea that God is not always watching over the world or the implication by the statement that sometimes the world is left to itself is in direct disagreement with this belief. It also suggests that the world is independent of God, and that also contradicts the belief that God is not just the creator, but the sustainer of the world. Platinga sums up the argument by stating:

“…on the theistic conception, the world is never ‘left to itself’ but is always conserved in being by God”

The combination of both arguments would lead one to wonder if miracles are not violations of laws of nature, but positive instances of those laws. Surely nature is not able to account for supernatural events. The very fact that Hume states that they are cause by a Deity or invisible force means that they cannot be violations of laws of nature. If something has a supernatural cause, then it is outside the realms of nature altogether, it cannot violate the laws, and the laws cannot be stretched to encompass them. It is only when the interposition of a Deity is removed from the definition that an event with supposedly supernatural causes can be described as violating the laws of nature.

From the clear flaws raised by this essay, one can conclude that the definition presented by Hume is not an adequate definition of miracles, as it eventually contradicts itself. If something has a supernatural cause, then nature can not be held in comparison with it to determine if it is indeed a miracle. Similarly, the question raised by Hick, that the laws of nature can be stretched, may be considered extreme to conclude that there are no miracles, but still holds weight, in that what people may have considered to be a miracle 100 years ago is not a miracle any more.

To be adequate, Hume needed to define the term ‘law of nature’, and with that, explain how a supernatural event can be compared with nature. As Vardy states:

“Hume’s argument has much to commend it, but if we examine his claims in closer detail, their effectiveness will be seen to be more limited than he might have imagined”

The general idea of a miracle being something out of the ordinary holds true of Hume’s definition, but it is not enough to explain the unexplainable.