Earman's Argument For The Existence Of Miracles

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion we are introduced to three characters that serve the purpose to debate God and his nature, more specifically, what can mankind infer about God and his nature. The three characters; Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes all engage in a debate concerning this question and they all serve the purpose of supporting their views on the subject. It is the “argument from design” put forth by Cleanthes that is the focal point of the discussion, and it is Demea and Philo who attempt to discredit it.

It is evident in David Hume's writing of "An Equity Concerning Human Understanding" that he does not believe that miracles take place. Hume is a man of logic, who believes in experience over knowledge. Of course it is hard for such a man to believe in extraordinary claims without being there to witness them. Especially when such events require a lot of faith.

Hume argues that we cannot prove that there is a real world outside our experience, much less that our experience is an accurate representation of that world. He says we need to get outside our experience to see whether it does fairly represent the world, however, its near impossible to do that.

In David Hume’s essay, Why Does God Let People Suffer, he allows the reader to question if God exists in the world we live in with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look for and gather proof about other scientific issues. In the following essay, I will demonstrate how David Hume feels that there is a God despite all the suffering and pain that exists in our world. “Is the World, considered in general, and as it

One of the most known philosophers who challenged religion, and the occurrence of miracles. Hume argues in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, that miracles do not exist. To explain this, he states that in order to judge a claim one must weigh the evidence for both sides of the argument, and the side with more evidence can then be seen as fact. Therefore because the evidence against miracles is always going to be outweighed by the evidence against it (Hume 1909). Miracles are single events, occurring to specific people, at specific items and specific places, by nature there is limited evidence to prove their existence, in accordance with Hume’s reasoning. Hume continues to state even if the evidence of a miracle happening were greater than the evidence against it, it can not be true due to people being too accepting of wondrous events (Hume 1909). However his argument has received a lot of criticism, from the time it originally was published to now. For example one of the earliest criticisms it received was his argument in its entirety asserts that miracles are highly unusual, even though those who believe in miracles already accept this claim (Fieser n.d.). Another criticism against Hume was that the experience of natural laws is not as concrete as Hume assumed due to the ability to overturn these laws with the

For example, when Billy’s father said "I think it's a miracle," Papa said, "Remember, Billy said a prayer when he asked for his pups and then there were your prayers. Billy got his pups. Through those dogs your prayers were answered. Yes, I'm sure it is a miracle." (19.178)

While Hume would disagree with Descartes’ proof for God’s existence as well as what influence God has on our thoughts, they would both agree that our knowledge and imagination do not come from within ourselves. Furthermore, both provide skeptical analyses of our experiences as humans that question reality, such as when Descartes’ recognizes the uncertainty of the existence of anything beyond his own mind, or when Hume questions whether we can conceive of anything we have yet to experience externally. Therefore, while the philosophers have marked differences, they share a fundamentally skeptical inquiry of the

In Almost a Miracle, John Ferling writes an excellent book to accompany A Leap in the Dark. Anyone wishing to read a comprehensive treatise on the military history of the American Revolution would do well to delve into Almost a Miracle. It is easy to see why it is so widely praised and why Ferling was given a lifetime achievement award and the Best Book on the American Revolution Award in 2007 by the American Revolution Roundtable of New York.

On the other hand, Hume’s critique is a dialogue between a theist and a skeptic in which the skeptic, Philo, presents arguments against the existence of a creator. Among Philo’s arguments are: because experiences are different, definite conclusions about a creator’s existence cannot be made, since nature

Because it is so prominent, everyone notices that a central concern of Hume's Dialogues is empirical natural theology—how one can discern from Nature, using empirical facts and "experimental" forms of inference available to anyone, the existence and nature of an Author of Nature. But few connect this concern to the simple fact that the Dialogues is itself authored. It is a text with an author, David Hume. At the very least, then, on Cleanthes's approach, (3) there should be some resemblances between the world and this text, insofar as they both imply an intelligent "author;" at the most, this analogy of authorship might prove even more fruitful for theological understanding than the mechanical and biological analogies mentioned by the characters in Hume's text. By this, I do not mean that we can prove God's

In explaining Hume’s critique of the belief in miracles, we must first understand the definition of a miracle. The Webster Dictionary defines a miracle as: a supernatural event regarded as to define action, one of the acts worked by Christ which revealed his divinity an extremely remarkable achievement or event, an unexpected piece of luck. Therefore, a miracle is based on one’s perception of past experiences, what everyone sees. It is based on an individuals own reality, and the faith in which he/she believes in, it is based on interior events such as what we are taught, and exterior events, such as what we hear or see first hand. When studying Hume’s view of a miracle, he interprets or defines a miracle as such; a miracle is a

In his discussion 'Of Miracles' in Section X of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Hume defines a miracle as “a violation of the laws of nature and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws”1. Basically a miracle is something that happens which is contrary to what would happen given the structure of the universe. He also states

David Hume was a Scottish empiricist who became renowned as a philosopher for his metaphysical skepticism and his account of the mind. Born in the 18th century, Hume follows Locke, a fellow empiricist and Descartes, an idealist, in the philosophic cannon. As a result he responds to each. From Locke Hume builds upon his concept of perceptions. Hume’s defining skepticism pertains to idealistic claims of substance, god, and the self.

Firstly, Hume effectively tackles the commonly held assertion that humans are purely rational creatures that successfully implement reason in every situation. Hume concedes

     In being a naturalist, Hume relates humans as being one in the same with animals, at least when it comes to causal reasoning. We are no more reasonable than animals because the faculty of the human mind that allows us to see into the truth has arisen in us naturally. The sharp difference between humans and animals is the ability to draw on the inference of necessary connections in nature and being able to think about them. Hume does not doubt that there may exist some God with a form of discerning between right and wrong, but he denies that our ability to do so came from such a God. We know a God has to exist only as a cause of the effects we ascribe to him. Hume describes God as an “empty hypothesis” because he is used only to explain certain phenomena that we may not otherwise be able to explain. We have no direct knowledge or first hand experience of God and so we cannot give Him any qualities besides those that we