The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Are Miracles Possible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 720 times Debate No: 118653
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




My position: Miracles are logically and physically possible. If you disagree please feel free to accept the challenge. I will post my arguments on rounds 2, 3, And 4.


I think this depends on how you define a miracle. If you define it as something occurring that defies the laws of physics, Then most likely you are correct. For instance saying Jesus walked on water is probably inaccurate. That being said you nor I were there so how would we ever know.

If you define a miracle as something statistically improbable occurring then you would be wrong. For instance if someone wins the lottery and exclaims "It's a miracle! " then I would say this is in fact possible, Though improbable, And therefore an example of a miracle occurring.

I am assuming however that by Miracle you meant something more in accordance with the first example. Even then I would urge you to be open minded and accept that despite something like that occurring not being probable and defying our modern understanding of the laws of physics, We weren't there to actually witness anything and as technology progresses our potential to advance our understanding of the laws of nature may change as well giving way to new theories on what may or may not have happened in regards to religious miracle.
Debate Round No. 1


A miracle is an event beyond the powers of the law of order. Miracles defined: when an agent outside of the natural world changes something in the system the natural world could not bring about through its own regularity [that's why I mean by miracle]. The laws of nature are only meant to describe the effects of how natural things operate if left untouched. The laws of nature do not exclude the possibility that an outside agent could change something into the system. A miracle would not violate any law of nature, Since the event"s origin is not from within nature.

We haven't evaluated all of human experience; they have evaluated their own experience of the world. Percentage of people who have claimed to have a spiritual experience --- 1975 National Opinion Research Center - 35%, 1978 Princeton Research Center - 35%, 2000 BBC"s Soul of Britain Survey - 76%, And 2009 Pew Research Center - 49%. Human experience has not established miracles never happen. David Hume assumes all reports of miracles are lies in order to say miracles don't happen but that's arguing in a circle. By Hume"s logic if a small group of people in the middle of Africa had no experience of ice, Then ice does not exist. Hume claims that since miracles are not our uniform experience (the ice not being the uniform experience for the small group of people in Africa) then miracles are not possible. Hume and people like him start with the belief that miracles are not possible and then jump to the conclusion that they are not possible. [I'm not saying this is what you believe, I'm just using this as an example]. From a neutral point of view, There is nothing that is logically
or physically impossible about a miracle happening.

By the way thank you for engaging in this debate I really do appreciate it.


I'll be completely honest with you, I read your argument as believing miracles were impossible, Not that you believed they are in fact possible. But for sake of argument I'll posit that different polls conducted over the course of 40 years observing people's opinions on whether or not they experienced a miracle doesn't definitively prove a miracle can happen. In essence it's like using testimony with no real hard evidence to convict someone in a court of law, Or in other words a flimsy argument.

I'd also argue that by having to qualify miracles are possible by also claiming they are logical, One would be inherently admitting that a generally accepted attitude about the concept of 'miracles' is that they defy logic and expectation of what is real. I grant you that's just a matter of semantics we'd be debating at that point but it would invalidate a portion of your claim.

As far as Miracles being physically possible and using your definition of an outside agent or force being the root cause; I would say that surely anything is possible. For all I know I could be in a simulation right now or perhaps the next time I walk outside a small meteorite will land on top of me. The probability of such an event occurring though is so negligible that for all intensive purposes I assume such a thing in the context of what will happen next in my life as untrue.

If I were to define a miracle myself I would equate it more in likeness to the concept of 'luck. ' Luck being something that I feel is just more of a system of probability and random chance, As opposed to some force of nature, Or some other worldly entity. It is in that sense that I feel miracles would be considered to be as well.
Debate Round No. 2


I agree that the polls gathered over 4 decades doesn't validate if miracles are in fact true. I was making the claim that based on that poll we haven't evaluated all of human experience which means therefore we can't really validate with 100% certainty that miracles are evident. We are dealing in the realm of probabilities and potentialities not so much actualities. From a neutral point of view I don't see anything logically impossible for miracles to be possible. Especially of an agent outside of the natural world changing something in the system that the natural world could not bring about through its own regularity.

I somewhat agree with your definition of miracles being equated with the concept of "luck. " It makes sense given the realm of probabilities and potentialities that miracles consist of. And a miracle would have to be something rare and out of the ordinary to get our attention. And if we want to discover if something is actually a miracle then we would have to investigate it on a case by case basis.


I'll quote a portion of what you said, ". . . We can't really validate with 100% certainty that miracles are evident. "

Does that mean you concede victory?
Debate Round No. 3


No we are not dealing in the realm of actualities but probabilities and potentialities. The debate topics is, 'Are Miracles Possible? '
Key word "possible. " Not actual. Is it probable, Logical.

I am arguing that miracles are logically and physically probable to be a reality. Not absolute certainty. I never made the claim that I can prove or show evidence that it has been verified. We would have to investigate it on a case by case basis.

You had to show that is is highly improbable for miracles to be possible with good reasons and rationalizing your position. The burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that it is highly probable for miracles to be logically and physically possible. And you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is highly improbable for miracles to be logically and physically possible.


SomethingOrdinary forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.