Miracles Are Miraculous

"I don't believe in miracles, because they are unscientific."

How many times have you heard atheists / agnostics / evolutionists say this, or something along similar lines? I'm betting you're familiar with this "reasoning," if you've ever engaged a non-believer in a discussion of this topic.

My response is: "Yes. And?"

That miracles are unscientific is a flaccid observation, offering little insight into miracles, themselves. Of course they're unscientific. Miracles -- by definition -- are special acts of God. If mundane scientific explanations accounted for them, they wouldn't be miracles.

Let's reword the above statement for clarity's sake:

"I don't believe in miracles, because they are miraculous."

See how absurd and circular this reasoning appears?

The above reveals plenty about the mindset of those who utter it. They imply that God either does not exist, or is impotent in the performance of miracles. But these are two assumptions that stand unproven and unprovable. Non-believers take them on faith.

The assertion also suggests that scientific evidence either is the sole form of evidence available to us, or the one form of valid evidence. But both demonstrably are false. We know that other evidential types exist -- documentary, physical, testimonial, etc. Courts of law have accepted these as legitimate categories of evidence throughout the history of Western civilization.

The relevant question is not: "Are miracles scientific?" but: "Do miracles happen?"

Existing evidence offers us stronger reason for an answer in the affirmative than the negative.

The bottom line is that the secular dismissal of miracles is based upon faithful assumptions and / or faulty premises.