In chapter six, The Problem of Miracles, Craig states that some skeptics today consider Biblical miracles a pre-scientific, superstitious worldview belonging to the ancient and middle ages. Some theologians like Rudolf Bultmann sought to demythologize the Bible of miracles and rid it of this stumbling block.
In the Age of Reason or the Enlightenment during the 1600s, Deists, although believing in God and general revelation, denied special revelation from God which would include miracles.
Sir Isaac Newton in the 1687 in his Principia perceived of the world as giant machine created by God and set in motion with never the need for God’s intervention. It was called the “Newtonian world-machine.”
Benedict De Spinoza in 1670 argued against both the possibility and evidential value of miracles. His first argument: Miracles Violate the Unchangeable Order of Nature. He argued that the laws of nature proceed from God’s nature and therefore a miracle, which is contrary to God’s nature is not possible.
His second argument against miracles: Miracles Insufficient to Prove God’s Existence. God’s unchangeable order of nature proves God’s existence and a miracle would break this order and lead us right into arms of atheism.
David Hume the eighteenth century Scottish skeptic attacked the identification of a miracle by saying “in principle” and “in fact” it is impossible to prove that a miracle has occurred. “In principle” it is impossible to prove a miracle has occurred because of the unchangeable laws of nature. Hume rejected the resurrection on this basis. “In fact” Hume argues, there is no full proof of any miracle ever occurring.
This denial of miracles continued into the twentieth century with D. F. Strauss and Albert Schweitzer also claiming the regular course of nature cannot be interrupted by God.
Craig, however, argues that miracles should not “be understood as violations of the laws of nature. Rather they are naturally (or physically) impossible events, events which at certain times and places cannot be produced by the relevant natural causes.” Now the question is, what could conceivable transform an event that is naturally impossible into a real historical event? The personal God of theism. For if a transcendent, personal God exists, then he could cause events in the universe that could not be produced by causes with the universe. It is precisely to such a God that the Christian apologists appealed.
Richard Swinburne argues, a natural law is not abolished because of one exception.
Craig ends all his chapters with Practical Applications. His concluding paragraph is helpful: In addition, I do think that people to whom we talk about Christ do sometimes have covert problems with miracles. They do not formulate their misgivings into an argument; they just find it hard to believe that the miraculous events of the Gospels really occurred. Insofar as we sense this is the case, we need to bring this presupposition out into open and explain why there are no good grounds for it. Show unbelievers that they have no reasons for rejecting the possibility of miracles and challenge them with the thought that the universe may be a much more wonderful place than they imagine. In my own case, the virgin birth was a stumbling block to my coming to faith in Christ---I simply could not believe such a thing. But when I reflected on the fact that God had created the entire universe, it occurred to me that it wouldn’t be too difficult for him to create the genetic material necessary for a virgin birth! Once the non-Christian understands who God is, then the problem of miracles should cease to be a problem for him.