Another view to consider is that "A miracle is an event or occurrence which the believer considers to have religious significance, even though it is not in fact due to the creator God." This definition is also reffered to being a "Disclosure Event." - It will disclose to believers something about God or the nature of reality. If we use this view, whether something is seen to be a miracle or not depends entirely on how events are seen by different believers.This view is supported by Eor Moore. He describes miracles as generally only occuring as a result of a series of disasters. If God is really an agent of some sort, why does He allow situations to arise which make it necessary for miracles to be performed, so that things canbe put right? Moore is an anti-realist who believes that a miracle is not an action by an agent God but is an event which has no explanation at all. Many people reject Moore's thesis and claim that miracles are actions by an agent God who brings about effects in the World.
A third definition to consider is that "A miracle is an event caused by an everlasting or timeless God which is either in accoradance with the known laws of nature or else brought about by human beings." (An amazing coincidence of a beneficial nature.) This view is similar to the previous one , however this definition is based on a more realistic approach. In this view, an event is only correctly described as a miracle if it is brought about by the action of an everlasting or timeless God. The believer may claim that an event is a miracle on exactly the same basis as the previous one however what will make this claim true or false is whether or not the creator God did, in fact, bring about the state of affairs. As the believer has no possible way of proving that this is true. The claim will be made and supported by faith alone. Miracles under this definition do not breach the laws of nature - they may be part of the normal, natural order of life or they may be cases where God seems to act through a human being. A miracle under this heading is specifically claims that the event in question is being brought about by the action of God. A philosopher who supports this is R.F Holland. It is he who gives the example of the child whose toy car has become stuck on a level crossing. The mother sees that an express train is hurtling towards the crossing. Suddenly, the train's emergency brakes are applied and it shudders to a halt only a short distance from the child. The mother utters a prayer of thanks to God for this miracle. However previous investigations showed that the driver fainted. The faint was explained upon routine medical explanation, without any recourse to divine intervention. The mother however in spite of the medical explanation that was given to her , could not cease to believe that God acted to stop the train in order to save her child. This miracle - if it was a miracle- is not against the laws of nature. Instead God is held to have acted through the laws of nature. This highlights the difference between the realist and the anti-realist view. The realist claims that the word 'miracle' is corrrectly applied if and only if the event is brought by the action of God. In the case of Holland's example, if and only if the drivers faint was caused by God. However the anti-realist would claim that it would be true to describe the event as a miracle if this made sense with the mother's view of life. The capacity for being within that womman was released or she may have been a person who already had profound faith in God. The dividing line between these beliefs is a fine one.
Finally we consider " A miracle as an event which happens against the laws of nature, and which is brought about by the action of the everlasting or timeless God." according to David Hume this is the most accurate definition of a miralce. This says that miracles can never happen and natural law can never be broken. Hume is one of the philosophers who believe that miracles can never happen. Hume's rejection of miracles is a classic piece of philosophic writing and is often quoted. His attack on reports of miracles is clear and sustained. Hume is asks us to balance the improbability of miracles occuring against the evidence we have that they have occured.
Hume argues :
1. A miracle is a breach of a law of nature - For example a man walking on water, or water being changed into wine.
2. Belief in miracles is not rational. For Hume, rationality involves the follwing principles:
- Proportioning our belief to the evidence available.
-Accepting that we have uniform past evidence for laws of nature
Hume also argues that it will always be more rational to believe the laws of nature and that no miracles have occured.
One of the concepts of the laws of nature Hume introduced is
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can be posibly imagined."
