William Lane Craig on The argument from miracles
Craig argues that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the historical evidence, constituting a well-evidenced miracle.
Craig's argument from miracles focuses almost exclusively on the resurrection of Jesus, which he considers the best-evidenced miracle claim in history. He argues that three facts are accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars: (1) Jesus's tomb was found empty, (2) various individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus after his death, and (3) the disciples came to believe in the resurrection despite having every predisposition to the contrary.
Craig contends that the best explanation of these three facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead. Naturalistic alternatives — hallucination, conspiracy, wrong tomb, apparent death — all fail to account for the evidence as well as the resurrection hypothesis, he argues.
Critics like Bart Ehrman have challenged Craig's historical methodology, arguing that miracles cannot be established by historical investigation because the historian must always prefer the more probable naturalistic explanation. Craig responds that this principle begs the question against the supernatural and that Bayesian probability, properly applied, can vindicate miracle claims if the background evidence for God's existence is strong enough.
“There are three established facts which any credible historical hypothesis must account for: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the disciples' belief.”