Could miracles prove anything other than our own ignorance?

The classical rationale of Jews for belief in God and the divinity of the Torah are the miracles allegedly performed by God witnessed by multitudes. In fact, the Torah itself beckons the Jewish people to accept Gods existence on this basis. Of course, to prove the validity of Judaism on this account requires demonstrating that these miracles did indeed occur; this is an entirely different subject and is not the focus of this post. This post instead challenges the validity of accepting God or Torah on the basis of miracles, assuming the miracles as prescribed in the Torah did occur.

It is generally accepted that if miracles did occur this is testimony to Gods existence, His ability to interact with the world, and His control over nature.

However, to prove the divinity of the Torah, or the veracity of biblical prophecy, from the miracles of the exodus is unwarranted speculation. For even if it be granted that the exodus occurred and that it was intentional acts by a supreme being, how do we know the Torah is not a fabrication of say, Moses, as opposed to the word of God. Even if we grant that there was a heavenly voice heard on Sinai, we cannot know its true meaning and purpose. Any deduction here is pure speculation. As we are talking about a supreme being totally unknown to us, any speculation concerning the intent of this being’s actions is unwarranted. 

Furthermore, it should be noted that even as far as proving God, at most it can perhaps be said that miracles prove some unknown thing can affect nature, its essence and extent of power remains completely mysterious. As such to use this argument to prove a personal God, an omnipotent God, and virtually any other theological claim, is unwarranted as well. 

However, the argument from miracles is illogical and flawed, even as far as proving the existence of some kind of unknown God. To use this argument to prove God it is necessary to presuppose that otherwise the miracle could not have occurred. The basis for this assumption is that in nature we don’t find these miracles. Yet this is only because we have never experienced such an event. However, insofar as the miracle did occur this demonstrates that in nature this event does occur, contrary to our previous knowledge of nature. Scientific explanations for the laws and behavior of nature may have to be rewritten, but being that this event occurred in our world this proves we had a faulty knowledge of nature. It is illogical to deduce from a miracle that nature is in everything but this one event, that this event is actually an act of God; this is flawed for the same reason it’s illogical to deduce such from any other event we witness in this world. Nature refers to anything that occurs in this world, so long as this occurred in the world this must be classified as nature. As obscure and unintelligible, marvelous and irregular, as a miracle may be, logically speaking it cannot prove anything more than another aspect of natural law, previously unknown. 

Perhaps one will counter that as this aspect of nature is, to us, not explainable it must be an act of God. This sort of argument is extremely flawed for we don’t know enough about nature, nor about the exact events of the supposed exodus story, to determine that no naturalistic explanation can be given. It should be mentioned as well, that such an argument can be used without miracles as well, for in the natural world there is much we don’t understand, one can turn to any one of these phenomena and deduce God. Of course, this would be extremely foolish, but my point is that miracles add nothing new to the question of Gods existence.

Even if one were to disagree with this, though I cannot imagine how, there is a further problem with the argument from miracles. For even if one is qualified in determining that this event cannot be explained via natural phenomenon, one can only determine that there is a second nature in this world, that the currently accepted and understood nature is but one code of reality, there exists along it an entirely different code. (Many polygamists have already claimed that there exists dual natures in the universe, the scientific understanding of the unity of the universe is primarily a result of the monotheistic worldview.) To insist that this is but an intentional act of God is unfair, a miracle simply reflects the existence of a second nature. A second nature is no more remarkable than the first, if the fact that such a nature exists is proof of God, then it is proven from the first nature as well. Miracles or second natures add nothing new.

Perhaps the argument is not from the fact that a miracle is supernatural, for this can only demonstrate new information concerning nature, or at best that a second nature exists. Perhaps the argument is instead from the fortuitous nature of the miracles, they aren’t mere supernatural events, rather they appear to be intended and purpose-driven. Accordingly the argument would actually be another case of the argument from design. The argument from design is much discussed; philosophical rebuttals to that argument (as opposed to scientific rebuttals such as Darwinian evolution) would apply to this as well.