Post by goz on Dec 3, 2020 20:28:12 GMT
I don't have huge problems with your argument here - but it is not Hume's argument.
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."
He and FilmFlaneur appear to be enforcing a simplistic worldview.
... and herein lies your own problem with 'science' and the way YOU simplistically declare that if you can't understand the exquisite and complex and complicated workings of 'science' in the natural world, that the God of the Gaps argument is our own simplistic fix to everything.
here might jump in and say by that reasoning the origin of life must be explained without any god, which obviously is not true.
.. and here is evidence of that simplistic nonsense. Because you assume that the complexities of the origins of life are beyond human (your) understanding, you assume incorrectly that there must be a God as first cause. This premise then applied to 'miracles' is just the same.
If a ' miracle ' is alleged to have occurred, one of two things is happening.
1. The miracle is not as it seems to the beholder and there is a misapprehension for whatever reason ( usually justifying the existence of a god)
2. The natural laws causing the alleged 'miracle' are not fully understood by the proponent of belief in the miracle.