Search results
A summary of Section X in David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and what it means. Perfect for acing essays, tests, and quizzes, as well as for writing lesson plans.
David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) 579 26. Sometimes an event may not, in itself, seem to be contrary to the laws of nature, and yet, if it were real, it might by reason of some circumstances be denominated a miracle, because, in fact, it is contrary to these laws. Thus, if a person claiming
30 sty 2011 · Sometimes people claim even crazier shit than, “OJ is innocent.” What could possibly be crazier than that? Fucking miracles.
Abstract. Philosophers continue to debate about David Hume’s case against the rationality of belief in miracles. This article clarifies semantic, epistemological, and meta-physical questions addressed in the controversy. It also explains the main premises of Hume’s argument and discusses criticisms of them.
My aim here is to summarise what I take to be the most plausible views on these issues, both interpretative and phi-losophical, with references to facilitate deeper investigation if desired. The paper is divided into small sections, each headed by a question that provides a focus. Broadly speaking, §§13 and §20 are on.
A miracle may be accurately defined a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent .
Overview. Put simply, Hume defines a miracle as a violation of a law of nature (understood as a regularity of past experience projected by the mind to future cases) [1] and argues that the evidence for a miracle is never sufficient for rational belief because it is more likely that a report of a miracle is false as a result of misperception, ...
