When given the option to choose a topic for my research paper, the first thing that popped into my mind was miracles. Discussing miracles in detail throughout class really grabbed my attention and interested me so much that it consumed my mind. It consumed my so much that made me begin to question whether I myself is a naturalist or super-naturalist. This essay will discuss what miracles are and world views, Stephan T. Davis’s argument “Is it Possible to know that Jesus was raised from the Dead?” Gary R. Habermas response to Davis’s argument, and conclude with thoughts on the topics, arguments, and who I agree with and why I agree with them. The term “miracle” s sometimes used in general discussion to refer to any unexpected event or a violation of natural law. However, when “miracle” is used in a religious sense, what most have in mind is not only the occurrence of an unusual event but the remarkable event that would not have occurred in the exact manner in which it did if God had not intentionally brought it about. There are two types of miracles that Davis discussed in his essay, “hard miracles” and “soft miracles”. A soft miracle is a miracle that religious skeptics can agree happened, but disagree on how it happened. For example, a person being healed of cancer, a naturalist would say it was science but a religious believer would say it was God that healed the person. A hard miracle, on the other hand is hard for religious skeptics to explain naturalistically. For example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In his essay he also discussed two world views using this example; naturalism and super-naturalism. The naturalist believes that God does not exist, nature is eternal (everlasting), and that event can be explained by nature or science. The super- naturalist believes that God exist, nature depends on Gods interference, and that all things cannot be explained because of Gods interference. Which brings me to Davis’s argumen