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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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