Miracles do happen, even today. Just because there is no known answer for something, doesn't negate that it is true. Scientists are constantly revising their understanding of the world. For example, over the years, many "new" planets and stars have been discovered. But their existence was just as real before their discovery as after.
   There is a limit to scientific knowledge, as there are many phenomena that scientists cannot explain. Further, we submit that there are things that scientists claim to understand which really represent nothing more than observation, naming, or manipulation-not true understanding. Given the magnificence and complexity of life and the universe itself, it is incredibly arrogant of a mortal person to dismiss the unknowable as impossible.
   To say miracles are difficult to explain scientifically is one thing, but to say they can't happen is another. The investigation of alleged miracles must be an historical investigation rather than a purely scientific one.
   Other miracles pale in comparison to the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection is a fact of history, the other miracles are not hard to swallow. Christians absolutely believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
   In order to confirm by way of proof the resurrection event, one can apply the same principles of evidence that would be acceptable as proof in a court of law. Many scholars in history have done so.
   The evidence for Jesus' death and resurrection is overwhelming. The New Testament contains six independent testimonies to the fact of the resurrection. These six men (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul) wrote 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Included in their testimonies are various eyewitness accounts as well as reports of other interviewed witnesses of the risen Jesus, including one of over 500 people at one time.
   Were these witnesses credible? Critical minds who have considered their testimony point out that these witnesses were both competent and honest. For example, they had no impure motives for their testimony, such as fear, money, or ambition. They had the opportunity to know the truth, were mentally capable, were not gullible, and the documents of their testimony are reliable. There was more than an adequate number of witnesses to verify truth. And there is no contrary evidence.
   Simon Greenleaf, Professor of law at Harvard from 1833 to 1848 has been called the greatest authority on legal evidences in the history of the world. When Greenleaf applied legal evidences to the resurrection event, he concluded that it was an historical reality, and that anyone who examined the evidence for it honestly would be convinced this was the case.
   In the 1930s a British journalist who was trained in the law, named Frank Morrison, set out to do the world a favor by once and for all exposing the superstition of Christ's resurrection. However, by using the test of evidence permitted in a court of law, he became convicted against his will of the truth of the resurrection, and detailed his findings in a book still in print entitled Who Moved the Stone.
   In the 1990's, an American journalist, also trained in the law, by the name of Lee Strobel, interviewed many biblical scholars in a similar quest. His book The Case for Christ is a brilliant summary of the best modern scholarship on the subject. His study once again confirmed the biblical accounts as factual. (See resource list.)
   C. S. Lewis, Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, acknowledged that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was a major factor in his conversion from atheism. Lewis became one of the twentieth century's greatest intellectual Christian proponents and writers. (See resource list.)
   Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England said that, "...no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true."
   The claim that the testimonies of the New Testament writers were "cooked up" does not hold water. The evidence against a "cooked up" Gospel is that while the various accounts are not contradictory, there are enough differences in the reports that it is clear that the various writers did not get together to compare notes. The evidence unquestioningly supports that the various accounts are truly independent.
   Perhaps the most powerful evidence is the sheer conviction of the disciples. For 40 years after the resurrection, these men traveled throughout the land telling what they knew to be true. All of them were persecuted and all but one eventually put to death for their faith as testimony to the resurrected Jesus. People simply will not martyr themselves for what they believe to be a lie. People will only give their life for what they are absolutely convinced is true.
   Many of the religious and political leaders of the day had every reason to quell the Christian movement by refuting the resurrection testimony. They were unable to disprove it. John R. W. Stott (see book on resource list) insists that the silence of Christ's enemies "is as eloquent a proof of the resurrection as the apostles' witness."
   The early Christian leaders were not a superstitious people, unable to determine truth from reality. They lived in a civilized world of sophisticated Greek and Roman culture. These men were fishermen, carpenters, a physician (Luke), etc., and certainly understood the laws of nature. They attested to the miracles of Jesus in that framework.
   Science does not disprove biblical miracles. Science depends upon observation and replication. Miracles are by their very nature unprecedented events. No one can replicate these events in a laboratory. Hence, science simply cannot be judge and jury as to whether or not these events occurred. The scientific method is useful for studying nature but not super-nature.
   Biblical miracles are rare but poignant. The real question is not whether miracles occur, but whether God exists. If God exists, then miracles are possible. Anti-supernaturalism is atheism.