|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 1, 2020 21:56:28 GMT
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. Isn't that question begging though? If Hume assumes there is no supernatural that can override the natural, well then miracles cannot happen anyway. Well to be fair (for legal and social reasons one presumes) Hume was careful never to declare God does not exist per se, although his writings were seen as atheistic.
|
|
