A lot of people tried to compete with the Qur’an and produce better pieces of work but everyone has failed until today!
Many people don’t believe in miracles and argue upon the fact that such supernatural things can not occur. This is probably because they have not witnessed a miracle. David Hume’s arguments are one of the strongest arguments against miracles. Hume’s defines a miracle as ‘a violation of the laws of nature’. Do such laws even exist? And even if they do are they determinable? A famous example that Hume has used to argue against miracles is… “Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: Because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior” Hume’s definition proves that miracles can not be defended and he believes that the ‘laws of nature’ can never be violated. He also believes that in order for man to prove or understand a miracle he would have to change his understanding of the laws of nature so that the laws were no longer violated.
Kant’s definition and understanding of a miracle is better than Hume’s. His definition is ‘are events in the world the operating laws of whose causes are, and must remain, absolutely unknown to us’. Kant believes that ‘we have not, and can never hope to have, the slightest conception of the law and according to which God then brings about such an event’. His definition means that God could perform a miracle, but he must do something according to some law. Kant is assuming that everything that occurs must follow a law and it may be the law of nature or another law which is far more superior. Kant is wrong! This is because Kant claims that he knows God always acts according to some law and even though God is unknowable.
Both Hume and Kant have related their ideas around the concept of ‘Law’.
I believe that miracles happen because I have witnessed a miracle and also my religion, Islam, has many stories of miracles. The revelation of the Qur’an itself is a miracle.
I don’t believe in Kant’s or Hume’s theory of the ‘laws of nature’ and how everything done must be related to these laws. I believe that these laws do exist but everything done doesn’t have to be related to the laws of nature. I also believe that a miracle does break the laws of nature because to understand a miracle a person would have to change. Since getting people to change their minds about these matters usually calls for something of a miracle. If something can not be proven by science then it doesn’t mean that it does not exist or happen because everything may not have a scientific explanation for it.
