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
    Hume's evidential framework allows miracles to be assesse... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→God does not perform miracles

    Hume's evidential framework allows miracles to be assessed empirically as violations of established natural law, without presupposing modal necessity.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hume's empirical approach treats miracles as contingent events knowable through evidence, avoiding metaphysical commitments about modal logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural laws describe regularities of experience, not metaphysical necessities, making violations intelligible as empirical departures from patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Assessing miracles through testimony and prior probability requires no modal framework—only comparative evidential strength against background patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Hume's argument implicitly assumes natural laws express necessity—that uniform experience grounds rational impossibility of violations, which *is* modal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim that 'strongest testimony' could outweigh law-violation contradicts Hume's own conclusion that miracles are maximally improbable by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Empirical assessment requires prior probability estimates, but assigning vanishing probability to miracles presupposes necessity, not mere regularities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Against an aspect of God1 linkedAgainst a future action of God1 linked

    Related

    Assessing miracles through testimony and prior probability requires no modal fra...Empirical assessment requires prior probability estimates, but assigning vanishi...God does not perform miraclesHume's argument implicitly assumes natural laws express necessity—that uniform e...
    +3 moreShow less
    Hume's empirical approach treats miracles as contingent events knowable through ...Natural laws describe regularities of experience, not metaphysical necessities, ...The claim that 'strongest testimony' could outweigh law-violation contradicts Hu...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit