Post by Arlon10 on Dec 3, 2020 11:59:59 GMT
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.
I agree that Hume's argument is not much service. He and FilmFlaneur appear to be enforcing a simplistic worldview.
My perspective on "miracles" is that they are only miracles to those who cannot perform them or have any inkling how they are performed. To a god none of its actions would seem miraculous assuming that god understood what it is doing. When people who live far outside civilization first see airplanes they might consider them miraculous. (I think I read somewhere that happened.)
Now my opponents here might jump in and say by that reasoning the origin of life must be explained without any god, which obviously is not true. That would be assuming humans must have all capacities. There is no good reason for such an assumption. Even if it were true that humans can obtain all capacities, that might mean a total reevaluation of what is "natural."