The question of the possibility of miracles is of up-most important to Christians. The two aspects of Christianity that make it what it is, the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, are rooted in the miraculous.  The purpose of this short upcoming series is to defend the reality of Biblically defined miracles.  This will be done in two ways: a defensive approach and an offensive approach.

The defense approach will come first.  The work of David Hume has been the foundation of the attacks against the possibility of miracles ever since the 1740s, when his main argument against them was penned.  Considering that most people assume that he has settled the issue once and for all- it would be good for us to consider his argument (albeit very briefly) to see if it has weight.

Turning from a defense against Hume’s argument, we will take the offensive position in a look at world-views.  Ultimately, the question of miracles will be answered by our world-view.  If we are Christian, our theistic world-view incorporates the possibility of miracles.  The main opposing world-view, naturalism, rejects the possibilities of miracles by default.  Because this is essentially a battle of presuppositions (ideas we bring into the debate), it is a battle of world-views.  In this section I will briefly offer a critique on the naturalist position.

Throughout the series, I will be heavily using material from Ron Nash.  I am absolutely indebted to his introductory books on the subject of philosophy, and for this short series, particularly the chapters on Hume and miracles. As a conduit between Nash and my readers, I hope to make available a defense of the Christian faith that some would not normally pick up and read.

Next: A Look at Hume