Post by The Lost One on Dec 3, 2020 9:19:56 GMT
But again, that's not what's happening here. It's not "laws of nature" vs "miracles", it's "laws of nature + miracles" vs "laws of nature only". Therefore evidence for the laws of nature cannot settle the argument in the way Hume suggests.
The absence of such evidence might, yes, mean that we need not dismiss any other things out of hand, but at the same time the only reason to accept they might is through increasingly qualifying assumptions, beginning with the assumption that miracles exist, ultimately made without any quality control of thought. To say that something might happen, even though absolutely extraordinary and unnatural, 'because it would be a miracle' ought not to close off any rational questioning but instead be the start of it.