How far do miracles make it reasonable to believe in God?

How far you believe in God due to miracles depends on which definition you take.
Humes definition that for something to be a miracle it must break natural law or
Swinburnes definition that as well as breaking natural law it must have some
deeper meaning and religious significance.
Hume believes not that miracles dont happen but that there is never enough
evidence to prove that they do because of the incredibly strict criteria Hume has.
His first is that the witnesses must be a sufficient number of men of

unquestionable good sense, education and learning...of undoubted

integrity...credit and reputation, but how many is sufficient? 100, 200,
300? An example of when a miracle has occurred and it has been
witnessed by millions of people, some of which will be doctors, lawyers,
professors and agnostics is Ganesh drinking milk in 1997. Another of
Humes criterias is his stringent axiom strict truth; when a miracle has
been claimed the testimony must be such that the likely hood of the
miracle happening must be greather than the chance of it not happening.
As Hume believes that natural law is firm and unalterable does this
mean that Humes critique make it impossible to believe in miracles and
therefore believe in God?
Swinburne and Holland both think that in order for something to be a
miracle it must have religious significance. Swinburne said If a god
intervened in the natural order to make a father land here rather than
there for no deep, ultimate purpose, or to upset a Childs box of toys just
for spite these events would not be describes as miracles. Swinburne is
making the point that what is the point in a miracle if it actually doesnt
help anyone? Holland thinks that the religious significance part is more
important than violating natural law. He gives the example of the run
away train stopping inches from a child. A coincidence can be taken
religiously as a sign and called a miracle especially if the coincidence
followed a pray and was indeed remarkable. Peter Vardy also thinks that
religious significance is more important. He gives the example of the 15
members or the Nebraska choir all being late on the same day the day
the church blew up. They had no one to prey for them because no one
knew it was going to happen so was it God intervening that made
everyone late that day and therefore saved 15 lives?
However, God intervening in the world springs the question why doesnt
he do so more often and why only to some but not to others. Wiles asks
why no miraculous intervention prevented Auschwitz or Hiroshima yet
there ar acclaimed miracles that seem trivial in comparison such as the
face of the Madonna appearing on a slice of toast or the word Allah
appearing on the inside of a melon.

Maurice Wiles argues that the belief in God to perform miracles that
violate natural law go against our undertsnading of Gods relationship with
the world. Wiles argues that the world is a single act of God that
encompasses the world as a weholr. He therefore concludes that miracles
do not occur because if they did God would be undermining the laws of
nature and the accepted order of life he created.
Nelson Pike goes further in saying that it would be impossible for God to
intervene in the world because God is outside time with no past, present
or future. Many religious believers respond to this by arguing that Pike has
misunderstood what it means for God to be outside time and that
timelessness does not prevent God from intervening in the world. Aquinas
for example held that while God acts timelessly the events God creates
and brings about are in time.
Swinburne thinks that natural law is probabilistic Quasi Violation. This means
that should a miracle occur and an object when dropped hovers in mid air it
would not be a violation of natural law because natural laws are not set in stone.
So what is the difference between god intervening to break natural law or to
make an exception.
Wiles suggests that a god who chooses to cure an individual of cancer and yet
ignore the plight of those trapped in the twin towers on September 11 th is not a
God worthy of Worship. This is the reason that Wiles believes that God created
the world and sustains it but never acts within it.
Karl Ward Recognises these difficulties with the belief of an interventionist God.
Wards solution as to suggest that God only intervenes when it is for the best and
only in order to build up our faith in God.
Miracles are often thought of as signs showing that the value of miracle lies in
their role as providing evidence for the existence of God. This is similar to the
perspective of Ward in that what a miracle tells us is more important than the
miracle itself. Approaching miracles in this way makes it possible to see
otherwise ordinary events where no natural law is broken as miraculous such
as the runaway train stopping and the Nebraska choir. This is the perspective
Holland has who says a coincidence can be taken as a sign and called a miracle.
Someone who argues against this is Richard Dawkins. He would argue that a 1 in
a billion chance will happen 1 in a billions times. However, if something is highly
improbably happens with highly appropriate timing Holland would say that a
person would be justified into thinking that that event is miraculous. Holland also
believes that miracles are subjective so one persons miracle may just be
another persons coincidence.
We also need to consider what miracles tell us about God. If they are true then
they are obviously evidence for the interventionist God of theism rather than the
deist supreme being who does not interact with the world. It is the theistic God

that has revealed himself in Western religions such as Christianity, Judaism and
Islam where in each miracles have occurred.