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
    The claim that 'strongest testimony' could outweigh law-v... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

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

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Connections

    1 linked claim

    Hume's evidential framework allows miracles to be assessed empirically as violat...

    Related

    Hume's evidential framework allows miracles to be assessed empirically as violat...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective