"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."
Have Christians ever been able to rebut Hume? It seems to me like he dealt them a deathblow and they haven't recovered since.
>>1178073
That sure is a nice ought he derived from an is. Would be a shame if someone demonstrated there are no necessary logical connexions there.
>>1178122
>That sure is a nice ought he derived from an is
Except it's not. It's a descriptive statement, not a normative statement.
>>1178128
It is a statement that, based on prior experience, certain things SHOULD be impossible. But just because that is the case in the past, there is no reason to assume that would be the case in the present, or the future, or at other points prior.
Secondly, it ignores the fact that miracles are, themselves, sensory experiences. If 5 men witness the appearance of the Virgin Mary, or see a man turn into a fox, or what have you, why should they disregard their senses based on induction?
>>1178159
>certain things SHOULD be impossible
No, they ARE impossible
>>1178191
>No, they ARE impossible
At this point, you're not asking for a rebut of Hume, you're asking me to argue with you.
>>1178216
Have you actually read Hume? If you haven't, that's clearly the problem.
>>1178274
I have, and you're making claims way outside his epistemological framework.
>>1178277
His framework is purely descriptive, not normative.
>>1178283
Which is why your insistence that experiences can be declared impossible based on logical deduction and induction has nothing to do with Hume.
>>1178300
Hume shows that experience can establish firm, and unalterable laws. Miracles go against these laws, and are therefore impossible.
>>1178159
because our senses can be fooled, their subject to the whims of human psychology and the brains need to process vague images as forms it recognizes.
So if you see something you think it impossible, its worth considering how reliable your own senses really are
>>1178073
Literally circular reasoning
>>1178723
So is Christianity
>>1179141
At least Christianity admits that it is based on faith.
>>1178697
Præstet fides suplementum sensuum defectui.
>>1178361
>Hume shows that experience can establish firm, and unalterable laws.
Pity Hume didn't share any of these laws.
