If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone



SUMMARY: A miracle is a supernatural event and distinguished from a paranormal one. Only a power outside nature can do the supernatural. A power within nature can do the paranormal. The Church says only God is truly outside nature. Satan may be able to do paranormal things but he will be within nature in the sense that God made him. The Church's miracles are hostile to science. Only God can create (assuming creation is possible which it is not) thus you cannot be sure a miracle is from God unless it involves creation.


The Bible says God rarely works directly.  That is another way of saying he rarely creates.  Does he ever need to work directly? A miracle believer can never prove that God worked directly in a miracle. He can give an angel the power to create.  And who says a direct act needs to be obvious?  What if that tree you found was only created before you came along?


A miracle such as a communion wafer bleeding cannot be verified because you cannot show that the blood was created from nothing there and then. What if some paranormal force did some trick and the blood was not miraculously created? If you have to assume the blood was created then the miracle is is not about giving evidence for God. It is no good and it is insulting to God to say he does miracles to show off. The advantage of limiting miracles to acts of creation is that it weeds out a lot of fraudulent and ignorant claims. However, only God can know if an example of a creation miracle really happened. It is no good to us.

Religion says that miracles are acts of God in which he creates something out of nothing. For example, if God heals an AIDS patient he creates health where there was no health before in the patient. Religion adds that miracles cannot be explained by the ways of nature. God is said to be the only possible explanation for only God has the power to make things out of nothing.
There is no evidence at all that creation by God out of nothing is possible. Miracles are said to be evidence for they are acts of creation. But they are not evidence for we still don't actually know if something has come from nothing at all. Creation is pure speculation.
If a miracle is creation, then most miracle accounts are not miracles at all. Or maybe none is. It would be a worry that religious leaders have presented examples of miracles to you that were not really miracles even if they go against the way nature usually works.
A thing that is already created floating in mid air is best described as paranormal - paranormal can be seen as nature behaving out of character.
A thing that appears in mid air and if you can verify it did not exist before (you cannot - maybe it was just undetectable or something but was still there) would be a miracle of creation.
If miracles come from nature, they can be understood by science if not now then some day so it would make no sense to call them supernatural. If they are not understandable for practical reasons they would be understandable in principle. They are not really miracles.
Science sees a universe that does not look like it needs a God to make and sustain it. If God hides, then miracles must be hoaxes or untrue. Why hide and then do miracles? Miracle claims are accusing God of being a ridiculous entity.
Miracles are events like magic. Religion says God does them. God makes all things out of nothing so he can do them. Making things out of nothing is a miracle.
Suppose a miracle happens. All you may be able to show is that it is unexplainable and that the testimony to this is reliable. You cannot prove or give adequate evidence that God did it or created it directly. All you get is an extraordinary fact. You can only guess what did it. What if it's an artificial intelligence that cannot be seen or heard just like God cannot be seen or heard? In fact, you would be entitled to make the best guess and that would be that its some kind of artificial intelligence. It is false that miracles would show us the existence of God or that Jesus is his supernatural messenger.
A miracle may be praised when it seems to build up and help. But to do so something has to be un-created.  Every miracle of creation does a reverse creation for something else.  If it is good that something exists then it is not its fault that it is in the wrong place and wrong time so eliminating it from existence is evil. When miracles involve destruction why do we love them so much?  What if you get eliminated to help somebody else?


What if somebody is "miraculously" cured?  Presumably, God created the sickness out of nothing and then just for show reversed this creation. He decided to un-create it. Not only is this against divine dignity, but one is as much of a miracle as the other so what did he need to do the miracle healing for? What would he need to animate statues for? Also we don't know if an act of creation has taken place at all. Just because blood comes out of a statue out of nowhere it doesn't mean it really came out of nowhere. Spiritualists speak of apports. That is items that are transferred to earth from the spirit world. Miracles cannot be examples of God's creative power. They are examples of sleight of hand or sleight of something else.
The believers in God say that miracles are from God for they show he creates – that is he makes things out of nothing. Miracles are said by religion to imply creation out of nothing. Miracles are defined as divine acts of creation out of nothing. For example, at Lourdes in 1858 he made Mary appear in a place where she didn’t exist in prior to her appearance. He creates the apparition of the Virgin Mary. He has to move her from Heaven to earth by recreating her on earth. He makes diseases vanish – he creates health in place of the disease. God creates the miracle healing of the sick. But then if he creates the world and creates miracles then what does he need to create miracles for? He doesn’t need them as signs to convert us with if he created all things for the creation would be a sufficient sign. God gives everybody light anyway so he could make us all see that creation is his work that he made from nothing. To say he does miracles is to insult him and to infer that he doesn’t know what he is doing.
Science cannot comprehend or explain anything coming from nothing. Miracles imply an absurdity. Even the idea of God making something out of nothing is insanity. The distance between something and nothing is infinite so God would need to be infinite to bring something out of nothing. If he is infinite, that means all power is his and there is no power that exists outside him, so he has made all things out of himself. So we would be God. Thus the atheist being God can say, "There is no God and miracles don't happen" and it doesn't matter because he is God anyway.
If God is a something that is like nothing but not exactly nothing and which caused all things, science still will never understand him or discover him. If God has made all things out of himself then the insanity of the creation out of nothing doctrine is avoided. But most "authenticated" miracles deny this God. Would anybody want to believe in such an abstract God?The man on the street would not understand it and would have a more ordinary "god."
 There are no such miracles as an eye appearing in an empty socket or a new leg growing. If the healing miracles reported by the Church of Rome are true why do we not have eyes appearing in empty sockets or people instantly growing amputated feet? This is a question that the Church cannot answer for there is no answer. Why would God do the miracle of creating something out of nothing to heal a person in a less obvious fashion? For example, he may gradually create cancer in somebody he hates. Why not just make it appear instantly.
You are entitled to be sceptical that God miraculously removes infection from a person - meaning he creates health from nothing when there are no examples of a beheaded man growing a new head instantly. If he creates the miracle from nothing he might not care if the miracle is obviously creation or less obviously. Indeed if you do a miracle to show your power of creation you will make it obvious. Otherwise why bother? Is God more worried about what people think than giving a person the instant healing they need?
No being would miraculously cure people and refuse to do the type of miracle in which a limb or organ that is missing is recreated especially if miracles are intended to be signs. There may be either misunderstanding or deception involved in miracle reports when they are all rather pathetic. There being no creation miracles means that all miracles could be hoaxes or simply that creation miracles are not done which is silly for if they are not done then no signs are done.
The Christian will say that the person who is cured of a disease by divine power is the recipient of a creation miracle for God has created health where there was sickness implying that God does not need to do anything as dramatic as replacing lost body parts. God supposedly made him or her and the cure out of nothing. That assumes that nothing can come from nothing but if that is true then there is no God and if creation could come from nothing there is no need for God. God is supposed to be the cause of his own existence meaning that he came out of literally nothing. And all miracles are by definition creation miracles in some sense. For example, in visions God creates a unique and rare power to see and when he heals a person miraculously of cancer he has to create health where there was devastated tissue. But when God does creation miracles like that and does not recreate legs and eyes it shows that the miracles are probably misunderstandings or are lies. We reject the view that creation miracles happen for you cannot verify that they really came from nothing. To exploit them as evidence of creation is to beg the question. The miracles are so weird that we cannot rely on them as signs of the religion in which God’s truth is preserved.

Miracles are stated by religion to be creation acts of God – bringing out of nothing. If God does miracles then he will only do them among people who believe in creation, that is making out of nothing. But the Jews didn’t believe in it as an official doctrine and the Old Testament says that miracles happened among the Jews and reports bigger ones than any reported in the time of Jesus Christ. Now nobody can prove that God really created in any miracle. He might just use the existing forces of nature to do the wonders. For example, he might use our proneness to illusion and error to make us think that a miracle happened or that somebody healthy had cancer that was thought to have disappeared inexplicably. To put down a miracle as a creation act of God is to guess. If we have to guess then miracles are no good. If we have to guess that miracles are the work of God then why not simply guess that there is a God? You are still guessing anyway. It would be better to simply guess that there is a God than to guess that there is a God and he does miracles for better one guess than two. Remember, it is decency and rationality to keep things simple. To cite miracles as evidence for God or creator or a religion is the same as citing the sawing of a woman in half and putting her together again as proof of a magician’s healing powers.
A miracle is no good for you cannot prove a creative act was involved any more than you can prove a creative act was involved when something mundane happens. The creation would be the most important thing. And the most important message. A miracle of creation contradicts our uniform experience. Even if the universe was created by God we cannot experience that. Nor can we sense that individual acts of creation happen now on a small scale. We can believe in things and we do believe in things that are not religious or magical against our uniform experience. So it seems the argument that a miracle cannot be believed in is wrong. Or is it? Believing that a statue of Mary bled is not the same as believing it was a creation miracle. You cannot prove that the blood was not supernaturally transported from somewhere as opposed to being supernaturally created. No in fact the argument has nothing to do with this at all. What is the problem? The problem is that you don’t see or detect the creation. A miracle is never believed in. It is only assumed.


A quote


"We also have the tendency to consider a miracle as being something from nothing, but it is not. If we consider a miracle, such as the splitting of the Red Sea, when the Jews left Egypt, we will see that although it is a miraculous deed, still it is not something from nothing. What happens in a miracle is that the nature of the matter, in our case, water, changes temporarily. The nature of water is that it can not stand, that is to say, one drop on top of the next, like a stone. The miracle involves the changing of the nature of water, suspending the laws of liquids and substituting the laws of solids in its place. When the Jews left Egypt and the water split and stood like a wall, the laws of nature were suspended and changed."


Critique - the account does not say if something did or did not come from nothing.  God surely can create rainclouds on a day when they should not happen and we would not notice that they came from nothing.  God changing nature would be worse than God just sticking something into the middle of nature out of nothing.  A brick that floats in mid-air means it is no longer the case that bricks don't do that.

Christians can't see if a miracle comes from nothing. They only guess it. If they have to guess then they can't say for sure that God is doing the miracle. So the miracle then is not a sign from Heaven at all. It is just a curiosity. When they talk about their faith in a God of miracles and tell you about the miracles they should admit that they are only guessing. Instead of harassing or manipulating people to believe, they should let them guess that the miracles are nonsense if they want to! The miracles tales are not really respectful to God either. There is no concern about saying God did creative acts that he did not do at all.

Further Reading ~
A Christian Faith for Today, W Montgomery Watt, Routledge, London, 2002
Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press, Bucks, 1980
Apparitions, Healings and Weeping Madonnas, Lisa J Schwebel, Paulist Press, New York, 2004
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas, Dublin, 1995
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
Enchiridion Symbolorum Et Definitionum, Heinrich Joseph Denzinger, Edited by A Schonmetzer, Barcelona, 1963
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993
Miracles, Rev Ronald A Knox, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1937
Miracles in Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise Keller, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1969
Lourdes, Antonio Bernardo, A. Doucet Publications, Lourdes, 1987
Medjugorje, David Baldwin, Catholic Truth Society, London, 2002
Miraculous Divine Healing, Connie W Adams, Guardian of Truth Publications, KY, undated
New Catholic Encyclopaedia, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
Raised From the Dead, Father Albert J Hebert SM, TAN, Illinois 1986
Science and the Paranormal, Edited by George O Abell and Barry Singer, Junction Books, London, 1981
The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan, Headline, London, 1997
The Book of Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline, London, 1996
The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000
The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief Volume 1, Gordon Stein, Editor, Prometheus Books, New York, 1985
The Hidden Power, Brian Inglis, Jonathan Cape, London, 1986
The Sceptical Occultist, Terry White, Century, London, 1994
The Stigmata and Modern Science, Rev Charles Carty, TAN, Illinois, 1974
Twenty Questions About Medjugorje, Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D. Pangaeus Press, Dallas, 1999
Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, Freeman, New York, 1997
Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles (SCG), [translation by J. Rickaby, London: Burns and Oates, 1905].
Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae (ST), [translated by the Fathers of the English, in The Catholic Encyclopedia].
Adams, William, 1767, An Essay in Answer to Mr. Hume's Essay on Miracles, 3rd ed., London: B. White.
Babbage, Charles, 1837, The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, London: John Murray.
Basinger, David, and Basinger, Randall, 1986, Philosophy and Miracle: The Contemporary Debate, Lewiston, ID: Edwin Mellen Press.
Beard, John Relly, 1845, Voices of the Church, London: Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.
Beckett, Edmund, 1883, A Review of Hume and Huxley on Miracles, New York: E. & J. B. Young & Co.
Berkeley, George, 1732, Alciphron, in George Sampson, ed., The Works of George Berkeley, D. D., Bishop of Cloyne, vol. 2, London, George Bell and Sons, 1898.
Bradley, Francis Herbert, 1874, “The Presuppositions of Critical History,” in Collected Essays, vol. 1, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1935.
Brown, Colin, 1984, Miracles and the Critical Mind, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Brown, Thomas, 1822, Inquiry into the Relation of Cause and Effect. Andover: Mark Newman.
Buel, Oliver Price, 1894, The Abraham Lincoln Myth, New York: The Mascot Publishing Co.
Burns, Robert M, 1981, The Great Debate on Miracles from Joseph Glanvill to David Hume, London and Toronto: Associated University Presses.
Butler, Joseph, 1736, The Analogy of Religion, Hartford: Samuel G. Goodrich, 1819.
Campbell, George, 1762, A Dissertation on Miracles, London: Thomas Tegg, 1839.
Chryssides, George, 1977, “Miracles and Agents,” Religious Studies 13: 319–327.
Clarke, Samuel, 1719, A Discourse Concerning the Being and Attributes of God, 5th ed., London: James Knapton.
Coleman, Dorothy P., 1988, “Hume, Miracles and Lotteries,” Hume Studies 14: 328–346.
Cooper, Thomas, 1876, The Verity and Value of the Miracles of Christ, London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Copan, Paul, ed., 1998, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Copan, Paul, and Tacelli, Ronald, eds., 2000, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Craig, William Lane, 2002, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Craig, William Lane, 1985, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Craig, William Lane, 1986, “The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective,” in David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, eds., Gospel Perspectives VI. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, pp. 9–40.
Craig, William Lane, 2008, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Dawes, Gregory, 2001, The Historical Jesus Question, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Dawes, Gregory, 2009, Theism and Explanation, New York: Routledge.
Dawid, Philip and Gillies, Donald, 1989, “A Bayesian Analysis of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles,” Philosophical Quarterly 39, pp. 57–65.
Douglas, John, 1757, The Criterion, London: A. Millar.
Dulles, Avery, 1971, A History of Apologetics, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999.
Earman, John, 2000, Hume's Abject Failure, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrman, Bart D., 2003, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd ed., New York: Oxford University Press.
Farmer, Hugh, 1771, A Dissertation on Miracles, London: T. Cadell.
Flew, Antony, 1961, Hume's Philosophy of Belief, New York: Humanities Press.
Flew, Antony, 1966, God and Philosophy, London: Hutchinson.
Flew, Antony, 1967, “Miracles.” Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 5, New York: Macmillan and Free Press, pp. 346–353.
Fogelin, Robert, 2003, A Defense of Hume on Miracles, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Garrett, Don, 2002, “Hume on Testimony Concerning Miracles,” in Millican, Peter, ed., Reading Hume on Human Understanding: Essays on the First Enquiry, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 301–334.
Greenleaf, Simon, 1847, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists, by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, 2nd ed. London: A. Maxwell & Son.
Habermas, Gary, 1996, The Historical Jesus. Joplin: College Press.
Hájek, Alan, 1995, “In Defense of Hume's Balancing of Probabilities in the Miracle Argument,” Southwest Philosophy Review 11, pp. 111–118.
Hájek, Alan, 2008, “Are Miracles Chimerical?” In Jonathan Kvanvig, ed., Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–104.
Hesse, Mary, 1965, “Miracles and the Laws of Nature,” in C. F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History, London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., pp. 33–42.
Holder, Rodney, 1998, “Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49, pp. 49–65.
Houston, Joseph, 1994, Reported Miracles: A Critique of Hume, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, Charles, 1857, Doubts Concerning the Battle of Bunker's Hill, Boston and Cambridge: James Munroe and Co..
Hume, David, 1748 et seq., An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Ed. Tom L. Beauchamp. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Huxley, Thomas Henry, 1894, Hume: with Helps to the Study of Berkeley, London: Macmillan and Co.
Jenkin, Robert, 1708, The Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion, 2nd ed., vol. 2, London: Richard Sare.
Johnson, David, 1999, Hume, Holism, and Miracles, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Joyce, George Hayward, 1914, The Question of Miracles, St. Louis: B. Herder.
Kruskal, William, 1988, “Miracles and Statistics: the Casual Assumption of Independence,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, pp. 929–940.
Langtry, Bruce, 1985, “Miracles and Principles of Relative Likelihood,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 18, pp. 123–131.
Langtry, Bruce, 1990, “Hume, Probability, Lotteries and Miracles,” Hume Studies 16, pp. 67–74.
Larmer, Robert, 1988, Water Into Wine? An Investigation of the Concept of Miracle, Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Larmer, Robert, 2004, “Miracles and Overall: An Apology for Atheism?” Dialogue 43, pp. 555–568.
Leland, John, 1755, A View of the Principal Deistical Writers, vol. 2, London: B. Dod.
Leslie, Charles, 1697, A Short and Easy Method with the Deists, London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1815.
Less, Gottfried, 1773, Wahrheit der christlichen Religion, Gšttingen & Bremen: Georg Ludewig Fšrster.
Levine, Michael, 1989, Hume and the Problem of Miracles: A Solution, Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.
Levine, Michael, 1998, “Bayesian Analyses of Hume's Argument concerning Miracles,” Philosophy and Theology 10 (1), pp. 101–106.
Levine, Michael, 2002, “Review of Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles,” Hume Studies 28.
Lewis, C. S., 1947, Miracles. New York: Macmillan.
Lias, John James, 1883, Are Miracles Credible? London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Locke, John, 1706, A Discourse of Miracles, In Ian T. Ramsey, ed., The Reasonableness of Christianity, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958, pp. 78–87.
Mackie, J. L., 1982, The Miracle of Theism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGrew, Timothy, 2005, “Review of Robert Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles,” Mind 114, pp.145–149.
McGrew, Timothy & Lydia, 2009, “The Argument from Miracles,” in William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, New York: Blackwell, pp. 593–662.
Millican, Peter, 2002, Reading Hume on Human Understanding, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Montgomery, John Warwick, 1978, “Science, Theology, and the Miraculous,” Journal of the American Scientific Association 30: 145–153.
Morgan, Thomas, 1739, The Moral Philosopher, vol. 2, London: Printed for the author.
Mozely, James Bowling, 1865, Eight Lectures on Miracles. London: Rivingtons.
O'Collins, Gerald, and David Kendall, 1996, “Reissuing Venturini,” in O'Collins and Kendall, eds., Focus on Jesus: Essays in Soteriology and Christology, Herefordshire: Fowler Wright Books, pp. 153–75.
Oppy, Graham, 2006, Arguing about Gods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Overall, Christine, 1985, “Miracles as Evidence Against the Existence of God,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 23: 47–53.
Overall, Christine, 1997, “Miracles and God: A Reply to Robert H. Larmer,” Dialogue 36: 741–752.
Overall, Christine, 2003, “Miracles and Larmer,” Dialogue 42: 123–135.
Owen, David, 1987, “Hume versus Price on Miracles and Prior Probabilities: Testimony and the Bayesian Calculation,” Philosophical Quarterly 37: 187–202.
Paley, William, 1794, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, London: John W. Parker and Son, 1859.
Peirce, Charles S., 1958, Values in a Universe of Chance: Selected Writings of Charles S. Peirce, Ed. Philip P. Wiener. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Powell, Baden, 1859, The Order of Nature: Considered in Reference to the Claims of Revelation, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts.
Price, Richard, 1777, Four Dissertations, 4th ed. London: T. Cadell.
Russell, Paul, 2008, “Hume on Religion,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Schlesinger, George, 1987, “Miracles and Probabilities,” Nous 21: 219–232.
Schlesinger, George, 1991, “The Credibility of Extraordinary Events,” Analysis 51: 120–126.
Sherlock, Thomas, 1729, The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, n.d. [1843].
Sobel, Jordan Howard, 1987, “On the Evidence of Testimony for Miracles: A Bayesian Interpretation of Hume's Analysis,” Philosophical Quarterly 37: 166–186.
Sobel, Jordan Howard, 1991, “Hume's Theorem on Testimony Sufficient to Establish a Miracle,” Philosophical Quarterly 41: 229–237.
Sobel, Jordan Howard, 2004, Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Beliefs in God, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Sober, Elliott, 2004, “A Modest Proposal,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68: 487–494.
Spinoza, Baruch, 1670, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. London: Trübner and Co., 1862.
Starkie, Thomas, 1876, A Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence, 10th ed., Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson & Co.
Stephen, Leslie, 1876, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, vol. 1, London: Smith, Elder, & Co.
Stewart, M.A., 1995, “Hume's Historical View of Miracles,” in Hume and Hume's Connexions, M.A. Stewart (ed.), University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Strauss, David Friedrich, 1879, A New Life of Jesus, 2nd edition, Volume 1, London: Williams and Norgate.
Swinburne, Richard, 1970, The Concept of a Miracle, London: Macmillin and Co.
Swinburne, Richard, 1977, The Coherence of Theism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Swinburne, Richard, 1979, The Existence of God, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Swinburne, Richard, ed., 1989, Miracles, New York: Macmillan.
Swinburne, Richard, 1993, Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Swinburne, Richard, 2003, The Resurrection of God Incarnate, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, James E., 2007, “Hume on Miracles: Interpretation and Criticism,” Philosophy Compass, 2(4): 611–624
Toland, John, 1702, Christianity Not Mysterious, London: n.p.
Trench, Richard Chenevix, 1847, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord, 2nd ed., London: John W. Parker.
Troeltsch, Ernst, 1913, “Über historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie,” in Gesammelte Schriften 2, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, pp. 729–753.
Tucker, Aviezer, 2005, “Miracles, Historical Testimonies, and Probabilities,” History and Theory 44: 373–390.
Twelftree, Graham H., ed., 2009, The Cambridge Companion to Miracles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tweyman, Stanley, ed., 1996, Hume on Miracles, Bristol, Thoemmes Press.
Venn, John, 1888, The Logic of Chance, 3rd ed., London: Macmillan and Co.
Venturini, Karl, 1800, Natürliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth, Copenhagen.
Voltaire, 1764, Philosophical Dictionary, in The Works of Voltaire, vol. 11, New York: E. R. DuMont, 1901.
Wardlaw, Ralph, 1852, On Miracles, Edinburgh: A. Fullarton and Co.
Warfield, Benjamin, 1918, Counterfeit Miracles, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Whately, Richard, 1819, Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte, Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1874.
Whately, Richard, 1826, Elements of Logic, London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1870.
Zabell, Sandy, 1988, “The Probabilistic Analysis of Testimony,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 20: 327–354.

The Problem of Competing Claims by Richard Carrier