For first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men. After reading Hume, I was in agreement with a lot of what he was explaining. A researcher should test an 'hypothesis' from a 'representative' sample from the target 'population' being pedantic, this is never really possible; we can never be sure our sample is truly 'representative' — if we could, we wouldn't need a sample for testing, in the first place! Or is it John Locke with his theory of consciousness? A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality: he may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with equal force. David Hume does an outstanding job. In his book, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume defined miracles as a violation of the laws of nature.
According to Hume knowledge of matters of fact come from previous experience. According to the Webster Dictionary, miracle is defined as a paranormal, mystic event observed as to define an action. I believe it is as a result of the complexity of the consent theory. However, it is impossible that miracles will happen tomorrow. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. Hume neatly divides this section into five parts. It may not be altered or edited in any way.
Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection; but addressing itself entirely to the fancy or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues their understanding. But not believing in God can also lead to confusion and skepticism of our own existence. Montgeron, counsellor or judge of the parliament of Paris, a man of figure and character, who was also a martyr to the cause, and is now said to be somewhere in a dungeon on account of his book. As with many issues, theologians are divided on an actual definition of what a miracle really is. Finally, we will examine a biblical, and therefore coherent, view of miracles grounded on the Christian worldview.
First, no miracle on record has a sufficient number of intelligent witnesses, of good moral character, who testify to a miraculous event that occurred in public and in a civilized part of the world. In addition I do not know of any cases where there are multiple independent witnesses to the same event. The essence of Hume's argument is that the issue of miracles is not worth discussing, but Bob then goes on to discuss the evidence. David Hume has an answer to these questions. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. This argument can easily be dismissed as skeptical, for it puts all knowledge of this sort in doubt.
If reason should have its true course, as all naturalists demand, naturalists have to abandon naturalism. Were not the memory tenacious to a certain degree, had not men commonly an inclination to truth and a principle of probity; were they not sensible to shame, when detected in a falsehood: Were not these, I say, discovered by experience to be qualities, inherent in human nature, we should never repose the least confidence in human testimony. Three have been shown in this essay. But he points out that we are incorrect to believe that we are justified in using our experience of the past as a means of evidence of what will happen in the future. His arguments about the way people though up to his day, and still today, are fundamental in explaining how we gain knowledge and what we do with this knowledge. Assuming there were indeed 500 people present, not all could recognize or 'knew' Jesus remember, a few days before, the Romans needed bribe Judas to identify Jesus! Larmer provides three reasons to believe Hume assumed at the outset that miracles were not only improbable but also impossible. Hume presents a test case for his readers—human testimony.
I argue about which conclusions follow from Berkeley's assumptions, but I do not claim that Berkeley's assumptions are true. Naturalism cannot explain order and uniformity. This, simplified, means that you make decisions according to your desires, following your wants and needs. Lewis, in his work M iracles, sought to show the deficiencies of naturalism. He had been seen, for so long a time, wanting a leg; but recovered that limb by the rubbing of holy oil upon the stump; and the cardinal assures us that he saw him with two legs. We expect better weather in June than in December but we can be mistaken. The problem for Hume, and all unbelievers, is that they refuse to understand.
Although Hume may say that miracles are the least likely of events, that does not lead on to say that they do not occur at all; it is possible to say that they do occur but it is not very likely. Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgements, quite obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. Which by definition is a philosophical doctrine: claiming that all knowledge is only derived from physical sensory experiences. The weight of evidence is a function of such factors as the reliability, manner, and number of witnesses. Imagine Hume witnessing the Israelite nation being chased by the Egyptians at the Red Sea. Hume investigates the understanding as an empiricist to try and understand the origins of human ideas.
But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. Since testimony to a miracle is a historical question, Hume misapplies his scientific theory. The evidence remains scattered throughout the neighborhood. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior. For instance, when Hume speaks of the Jansenist miracles, he does not deny that the Jansenist fails one of the stringent criteria of a witness posited in section two. Hume takes two arguments against miracles, theoretical and practical. A convert to the new religion as a result of an experience on the road to Damascus — a 'religious experience' , he had to believe in the resurrection.
These different explanations vary relatively between each person according to the dissimilar faith in which people believes in. Even those who do not allow their reason to go astray by believing the absurd, propagate absurd claims anyway in love of the fanciful. In addition, Lewis rightly notes that rationality cannot be derived from the non-rational. Hume was a septic and also thought reason through empiricism induction. Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine and death, are never the effect of those natural causes, which we experience. It is acknowledged that the authority of scripture and tradition is founded on the testimony of apostles, eyewitnesses to the miracles of our Saviour through which he proved his divine mission.