Search results
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 .
Hume on Miracles, Part 2. Main points. There were three parts to this session. An interpretive question about what Hume meant to do in Part 1 and, implicitly, what he meant to do in Part 2. The four reasons for doubting testimony concerning miracles in Part 2. The conclusion of Part 2. One: interpretive question.
30 sty 2011 · So far, no miracle has even close to enough people testifying for it, much less trustworthy people. You say a hundred people witnessed the miracle? Funny how that miracle would entirely confirm the religious beliefs of all hundred of them - what a strange coincidence!
The argument described is a form of demonstration, seeking to rule out miracles on the basis of relations of ideas; a miracle is defined as a violation of a law of nature; but a law of nature is defined as exceptionless, inviolable; therefore the ‘miracle’ shows the putative law not to be a law after all; therefore no law has been violated ...
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, ...
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.
