MIRACLE BELIEFS TACITLY ASSUME THAT GOD IS STUPID AND THINKS WE ARE TOO

THE POINT

If you need very strong evidence that will fill books that somebody committed murder, imagine how much evidence you need to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet murder is no wonder and the latter is.

THE ARGUMENT

Miracle claims such as the resurrection of Jesus rest on the following three assumptions.

ONE Supernatural Intervention.  This assumes that the event cannot be explained by natural causes alone and must involve a supernatural agent (God or another being).  This is the “miracle” claim in the usual religious sense.

TWO Suspension or Violation of Natural Law.  Assumes that, for the miracle to occur, nature itself must behave differently than it normally does — i.e., a law of nature is temporarily suspended.  This is critical: without assuming nature is “overridden,” it’s not truly miraculous.

THREE An Exception to the Rule.  Assumes that the natural law is the default and that the miracle is an exception to this rule.  Implicitly, this is the idea that the event is rare, unusual, and somehow justified as an exception — otherwise, it’s not a “violation” or “exception,” it’s just part of nature.

SO?

These three assumptions are not independent; they interact in ways that create logical tension:

If a miracle requires an exception to a natural rule, you must know why the exception occurs for it to prove the rule.  But we don’t know why.

If nature is truly suspended, then all empirical knowledge is challenged — we have no baseline to compare, so the miracle could be random, trivial, or meaningless.

Claiming supernatural intervention plus suspension plus exception creates a circular problem: the “exception proves the rule” reasoning collapses, because the justification for the exception (why God intervened here but not elsewhere) is unknown.

Logical implication

If you accept all three assumptions:

You must also accept that nature normally works one way.  But you also admit that this “one way” is sometimes arbitrarily overridden by supernatural reasons we cannot know.  This makes miracles epistemically useless: they tell us nothing reliable about nature or God.

In other words, stacking these three assumptions actually destroys the explanatory power of miracles, because each assumption depends on a reason or law that you cannot verify.

Nature changing would be a necessary evil. Why?  For it should stay the same and has to be suspended for something very serious.  Also, if you are permitted to say Jesus rose, John is permitted to say that a demon committed the murder his father went to jail for and the demon told him.  This is about the principle - and principles matter.  As necessary evils, miracles should not be celebrated or sought for they are still evils - they are just unavoidable ones. To celebrate them would be like celebrating a puppy having two heads.  Religion is a celebration of the supernatural and engages in acts of celebration of miracles as well - as an outgrowth.  That is very wrong.

If miracles are necessary evils, you should only believe in a miracle when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that it has happened.

NOTE: The resurrection miracle depends on hearsay and nobody cross-examined the witnesses or got affidavits.  There is no legal evidence of a criminal investigation - which would happen if Jesus' tomb were empty.  For that poor "evidence" to count is a bigger miracle claim than any resurrection.