No Human Being Can Do Miracles

Are Miracles Logically Incommunicable?

I was surprised past your defense of the value of eyewitnesses. It's not upwards to your regular level of scholarship. You should review David Hume'southward "On Miracles" (from an Inquiry Apropos Human being Understanding).

In short, no corporeality of personal testimony is sufficient to establish a violation of natural police (or even the presence of natural police force). Physicists don't believe the facts of physics because of personal testimony from other physicists; rather, they believe considering they tin practice the experiment for themselves. Furthermore, if you don't believe, y'all can exercise the experiment and run across for yourself. No lesser standard of proof is acceptable for scientific explanations of the world.

The miracles of the Bible are not a legalistic merits (did Judas really sell Jesus out?) but a natural merits (did Jesus violate the laws of buoyancy and walk on the water?). Personal testimony is sufficient for the law, generally because it has to be (prosecutors prefer Deoxyribonucleic acid when they tin can get it); but it is bereft for any kind of description of physical reality. But replicability tin can stand for that, and miracles, by definition, aren't replicable...

-MCP

Howdy Mark,

Cheers for writing. You bring upwardly a very interesting argument - one that has been quite resilient over the years. Every bit you said, David Hume wrote _Philosophical Essays Concerning Man Understanding_ in 1748 and Section X was entitled "Of Miracles". The chapter argues very deftly that if rational people have a choice to believe more than than one explanation of an event, they should choose to believe that explanation which is virtually probable

In fact, Hume argues that miracles are past definition unbelievable. He writes, "A phenomenon is a violation of the laws of nature. There must, therefore, be a uniform feel confronting every miraculous consequence, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is hither a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of whatever miracle.1" Hume further argues that because the only testify offered for miracles is eyewitness testimony, and eyewitnesses have been know to exist incorrect, whatever reasonable man would assume the bystander testimony in fault rather than believe an abrogation of something equally consistent throughout time as natural law. The probabilities demand it!

The Problem of Hume'due south Statement

Equally I said, Hume'due south statement seems quite formidable- merely it'south not without its bug. Whenever someone asks if miracles are probable (or believable) they are really asking is in that location a God, and that is the crux of the problem. You see, Hume at the commencement of his inquiry dismisses God as a criterion for support. Hume says we should guess miracles only on the basis of natural prove - what we find occurring in nature every bit repeatable. The less common an instance, the less rational it is to believe.

If 1 assumes that nature is the standard for judging the reasonableness of an outcome occurring, then Hume may have a point. But past bold this, one assumes there is no God that rules over nature. What he does is in effect is beg the question.

The Reasonableness of Believing in Miracles

However, if we have potent logical reasons for believing the beingness of the Christian God - autonomously from miracles - and so a belief in miracles is non illogical. The argument tin can be stated thusly:

1. The Bible asserts that an omnipotent God created the universe ex nihilo and governs natural laws.
2. If God governs natural laws, God can suspend natural laws
3. A intermission of natural laws is a definition of a miracle.
4. Therefore if the God of Christianity exists, He can perform miracles.

Using the above argument, 1 can meet that miracles are non placed outside the realm of logic every bit Hume would take it. The question really becomes does the God of the Bible exist.

Hume Proves Too Much

The other problem with Hume'southward argument is information technology is and then sweeping in scope; information technology proves too much. According to Hume, any result that would be considered singular in nature (unrepeatable) is by definition irrational to concur. Nevertheless, this cannot be. Have for example the creation of the universe. The universe began to exist or it has existed for infinity. Now, an infinitely existing universe is illogical 2. Nevertheless, Hume would state that a universe that had a showtime is likewise casuistic. Thus we are left with a quandary of only two choices available to united states of america, neither being reasonable by Hume's standards. Withal the universe is here and it is in time! It did have a beginning. Therefore, Hume must exist wrong.

Norman Geisler notes that Hume'southward argument fails because it "equates quantity of evidence and probability. It says, in upshot, that we should always believe what is the most likely. What Hume seems to overlook is that wise people base of operations their beliefs on facts, not simply on odds. Erstwhile the 'odds' confronting an event are high (based on by observation), but the evidence for the event is otherwise very good (based on electric current ascertainment or reliable testimony). Hume's argument confuses quantity of evidence with quality of show. Testify should be weighed, not added." 3

I promise you tin can see that a belief in miracles is non illogical at all. Hume has made an statement that starts with a deprival of a God who tin can work outside nature, then he goes on to argue that information technology is unreasonable to believe in violating nature'southward laws because it is unusual. But, we have seen that both counts of this argument are flawed.

I pray that you will continue to investigate the truth-claims of Christianity. Weigh the evidence for the resurrection and run across if information technology can stand an objective written report.

References

weingartnerfrivinse.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.comereason.org/david-hume-on-miracles.asp

Share this post