Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Hume does not deny the metaphysical possibility of miracles

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's regularity theory of natural law identifies laws with exceptionless regularities, making 'violated law' a contradiction in terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a purported miracle occurs, Hume's own framework entails we should revise the law rather than affirm a genuine violation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, on Hume's own metaphysics, miracles are not merely improbable but conceptually self-undermining, precluding genuine possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's conceivability criterion for possibility applies to simple ideas, but 'law-violation' is a complex concept requiring further decomposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.John Earman argues in 'Hume's Abject Failure' that Hume conflates epistemic conceivability with genuine metaphysical possibility without justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The absence of explicit denial is insufficient to establish that Hume's system affords miracles coherent metaphysical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.According to Hume, there is no absurdity or contradiction involved in suggesting that the laws of nature are violated
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The violation of a law of nature is at least conceivable
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.