|
|
Post by Archelaus on Nov 30, 2020 2:08:15 GMT
And David Hume is absolutely right. A miracle is intended to transcend the rules of reality. Now, when you run into the matter of circumstantial evidence, then, it doesn't hold up. The Synoptic Gospels, at best, is a collection of testimonies written decades after the fact. Now, Christian thinking is very broad, but I'm not too dismayed that some past and present would dismiss the miracles as unreliable. They are missing what is an essential aspect of God's character. God creates reality and he can transcend reality whenever he wants. I think you misunderstand Hume's point which is that the evidence for miracles happening at all is outweighed by the evidence for the laws of nature. To say that 'God is special and so can do anything' is not evidence of anything except credulity, although such an unverifiable statement will always make the existence of the magical believable to some. No, I understood it perfectly. Miracles as those listed in the Bible are just recorded testimonies. When weighed against what's natural, it's a contradiction, but it's intended to be that way. My last sentence was intended to be a statement of faith rather than being logical.
|
|
