I personally believe that such definition of a miracle is not proper, but that it does not negate the existence of miracles. First of all, let us explain what a natural law is, for me, an occuracne that occurs in the natural world and is the basis of the formation of laws of nature. Human beings try to analyze nature and understand the laws of nature, but that does not mean that such an analysis will completely understand all the laws of nature. Meaning that we can not necessarily comprehend all the laws of nature. If we can not comprehend the laws of nature, then we cannot say that a miracle can not exist, because a miracle, that is an instance in which the laws of nature are upheld for some time. Since the word miracle contains the words natural laws within it, we can not understand what it means for a miracle to occur.
Furthermore, I disagree with the whole definition of word miracle that Hume has used. Why? Given that we can not understand all the natural laws as I just mentioned, can a miracle not just be an extension of the principles of nature that we do not yet understand?
4 comments:
If a miracle were to occur, how would we know it is a miracle without knowledge of natural laws? We would just see the event, then try to understand it through natural laws, and if we couldn't with our present knowledge we would have to expand our knowledge by using the event. I do not believe in miracles, and I think Hume makes a valid point. I do believe in God and I am a Christian, but I believe miracles are just named so because the people did not understand them at the time. And I think we could use Parmenides' theory about how "all is one". If nothing is a miracle, then everything is a miracle.
I agree that if you define a miracle as something that contradicts laws which cannot be broken, then that does seem to beg the question in the favor of skepticism. At the same time, I think that steve makes a good point: how would we know what miracles were unless they were anomalies within a system of natural laws?
STEVE-
I wonder, then, what makes you a christian if you dont believe in miracles. It kind of puts you in a rough position. First, you would have to admit that the bible is not entirely true- that it is actually mistaken about certain events (and so therefore it cannot be the word of God).Secondly, you would have to admit that the resurrection of Christ didn't occur either. You might even wonder what you really know about this Jesus character, since plenty of the miracles he does are deeply involved with who he claims to be, namely, the son of God. If all the miracles aren't really miracles, then were they sleights of hand, or did the stories simply never happen? If they were just tricks, then Jesus is a deceiver. If the stories never happened, then I wonder what you CAN believe about Jesus. I'm a Christian by the way and would like to hear your response.
Miracles would be very difficult to explain, but that all depends on your definition of the word miracle. If you mean it to be some thing that it is not or can not be, which is something itself that you would have to explain, then ofcourse i can't happen, on the other hand, if you explain it as something that can happen but only happens in exceptional circumstances, then it can possibly occur.
a miracle is something that just occures seemingly without a cause, right? Hume simply says that we have no example of this ever happening.
I am alway surprised to hear a someone who studies philosophy to be a religious person. Becuase a religion is something that says it already knows it all, right? where the philosopher says all i know is that i know nothing, it is the practice of killing ideals so you can live by a better one. BUt then again that is also saying that thats all there is? idk.
Post a Comment