Miracles Are The Proof For Existence Of God

In the argument with McCloskey about using “proofs” to establish a case for Gods existence I would first agree with McCloskey that we should not use “proofs” for Gods existence since “proofs” cannot be a 100% proof of Gods existence. But there are two arguments that can help explain the existence of God. The first is the best explanation approach which is the best explanation for the things we witness. Another classical argument is cumulative case approach, in this approach we use more than one argument to make a case for Gods existence. Both of these approaches to the existence of God is easier to understand than just the “proof” argument. We must also understand the defeaters of the arguments and also that the God of the Bible is

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)

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.

The idea of a miracle and its context depends on the definition in which it is used; the first definition of a miracle is a “transgression of the laws of nature” such as walking on water. This was used by Hume who stated that for a miracle to occur a law of nature must be broken, with this focus on laws of nature he aimed to show that it is irrational to believe in miracles because it is irrational to believe in a violation of any natural law, as by believing in this God becomes redundant. He puts forward the method of proportioning the belief to evidence – if you weigh up the miracle against another option what is more likely? That a miracle, a transgression of a law of nature, has occurred or

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

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

David Hume argues against miracles and states that they are improbable because most are reported by those who deceive others, the sensation of wonder that overrides the sense of reasoning, or because they are inapplicable to our scientific culture today. Hume addresses that in essentially all cases, the probability of a miracle truly happening, in comparison to any one of his listed reason, is highly improbable. He does not implicitly state why miracles cannot occur.

Miracles are not always prevalent at times, but are ways for God to bring the world closer to how He had originally intended the

David Hume is one of the world’s most well-known and relevant philosophers, in his time and still to this day. In one of his most famous writings, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he dedicates a whole chapter to exploring the validity of miracles, based on his own premise (That they defy the laws of nature), a chapter so large, it is separated into two parts. Exploration of Miracles is a large topic for philosophical discussion as it has caught the attention and caused the works of many of the world’s most famous philosophers, such as David Hume, Richard Swinburne and Peter Atkins.

He says that miracles are further disproved by the fact that most of them are reported by ignorant, barbarous people of past generations. Some of the things that these people have reported as marvelous are common among later generations, so their mysteriousness has been lost and they are no longer miracles. If you are wondering why stories like these do not originate today, Hume says they do, but we rule them out as lies. According to him, people have always had tendencies to stretch the truth and

He would have come to the proper conclusion if he actually followed previously stated logical reasoning. Here is one of the biggest deviants away from David Hume’s actual argument and weakens Whately’s case. Hume, notes that the witness material is weak for the miracle accounts since their are no direct witnesses, and at that point in history, there was still not enough manuscriptual evidence supports to say whether the New Testament writers were actually writing with in the lifetime of eye witnesses. So, in Hume’s actual argument there was a possibility for there to be that disconnect and decay in the transfer from eye witness testimony to indirect accounts. Also, he puts no effort in ascertaining whether or not there actually was any informational gatherers or not. He just doubts it for no reason, again going back to his frowzy skepticism he is not only doubting the improbably and odd events, but facts and evidence that leads to an oddity. However, though that is a bad argument it is a good analogy for the satire. Since, Hume to my understanding does a similar thing at times. As with the textual evidence for the New Testament miracles he assumes the most skeptical approach because if he does not it has the possibility to lead to miraculous

David Hume, a Scottish philosopher made the claim the “miracles are a violation of the laws of nature” (Hume). Meaning that through science and reason there is a very limited chance that what some thinks is a miracle is actually one. Though, Hume does say that you can define a miracle as the opposite of what you actually think is a miracle. As the document goes on, he writes that “nothing is an esteemed miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature” (Hume). Hume shows that even though we think that certain things have to be miracles it is no feasible that they happen. A miracle can only happen once, so if this thing that people are classifying as a miracle happens over and over again it is most likely not a miracle, but something natural and scare at the same time. If miracles do happen though, they are going against the natural force of nature. However, other writers had different ideas about the importance of miracles with the Christian

Philosophers, whether they are atheists, or believers have always been eager to discuss the existence of God. Some philosophers, such as St Thomas Aquinas, and St Anselm, believe that we have proven that God exists through our senses, logic, and experience. Others such as Soren Kierkegaard, and Holbach, feel that we will never have the answer to this question due to our human limitations, and reason. The believer tends to rely on faith for his belief, and claim they do not need proof in order to believe in the God's existence. The atheist however, tends to lean more towards common sense and reason, such as science, or the theory of evolution for an answer. The determinalist for example believes that all actions are caused by nature,

Miracle can be defined as powerful deeds and signs that Jesus accomplished. In the bible there are very many miracles that occurred during the time of Jesus. Lohfink defines miracle as a challenging act, in contrast with the bible which views it as an unusual act that relieves a person of negative aspects in their his or her life. Lohfink further clarifies that with the modernism influence, the miracle concept is going through a strip stream, where through miracles God breaks natural laws to show his love for us (Lohfink

“Broaden your horizon.” “Think outside the box.” These are just two statements that represent the cultural value to have an imagination and the value for one to stretch themselves. C. S. Lewis makes the case that our imaginations are too small. He states that events such as miracles, speaking in tongues, or visions are real cases. Just because they are outside the scope of our understanding does not mean that they are not possible. In miracles, he focuses on the presence of miracles in the world and how they are real.