|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 1, 2020 21:36:13 GMT
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. Hume's argument always bothers me. A miracle is supposedly a supernatural occurence outside the laws of nature, not a natural refutation of them. The believer in miracles doesn't doubt the laws of nature exist so the strength of their evidence isn't really relevant. I think the issue would be the readiness of the believer to accept that the laws of nature can be broken. The refutation would be in their notion that the laws do not always apply, everywhere, and at all times, in ways that do not admit the interference from another less predictable or logical reality. That consistency can be argued a law of itself.
|
|
