About this topic
Summary Here you find all texts about miracles that do not fit into the sibling leaf categories. In particular texts about the definition of the concept of a miracle, about the possibility of miracles, and about epistemological questions about miracles.
Key works Larmer 1988
Introductions Larmer 1988. Encyclopedia entry: McGrew 2011.
  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:
278 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 278
  1. Robert Merrihew Adams (1992). Miracles, Laws of Nature and Causation--II. Aristotelian Society 66 (66):207--224.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Dennis M. Ahern (1977). Miracles and Physical Impossibility. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):71 - 79.
    WHILE THERE IS AGREEMENT AMONG MANY (BUT NOT ALL) THEOLOGIANS AND PHILOSOPHERS THAT A MIRACULOUS EVENT SHOULD BE CONCEIVED IN OPPOSITION TO THE NATURAL ORDER, THERE IS DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHY THIS OPPOSITION MUST BE PRESENT. IN THIS PAPER I EXAMINE ANTONY FLEW’S EXPLANATION OF HOW AND WHY MIRACLES AND NATURE ARE OPPOSED, SUGGESTING THAT HIS ACCOUNT IS, AS IT STANDS, PROBLEMATICAL AND IN NEED OF REVISION. I ARGUE THAT IF MIRACLES ARE TO BE THOUGHT OF AS SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTIONS INTO THE (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. William P. Alston (1997). Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection. In Stephen Davis, Kendall T., O.’Collins Daniel & Gerald (eds.), The Resurrection. Oxford Up 148-183.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Robert H. Ayers (1980). C. S. Peirce on Miracles. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 16 (3):242 - 254.
    THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS AN EXPLICATION OF THE FOLLOWING: (1) PEIRCE’S USAGE OF THE TERM "MIRACLE"; (2) HIS CRITIQUE OF HUME AND MILL WITH RESPECT TO PROBABILITY AND INDUCTION; (3) HIS CONCLUSION THAT SCIENCE CAN NEITHER DENY NOR AFFIRM MIRACLES, AND (4) HIS CLAIM THAT MIRACLES ARE INTRINSIC ELEMENTS OF A GENUINE RELIGION. THE CONCLUSION IS THAT IN (4) "MIRACLES" REFERS NOT TO INTERFERENCE IN NATURE BY A "DEUS EX MACHINA" BUT TO THE APPEARANCE OF CREATIVE EVENTS AND GENIUSES IN HISTORY (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Raja Bahlul (1990). Miracles and Ghazali's First Theory of Causation. Philosophy and Theology 5 (2):137-150.
    In the 17th Discussion of his Tahafut al-Falasifah (“Incoherence of the Philosophers”), Ghazali presents two theories of causation which, he claims, accommodate belief in the possibility of miracles. The first of these, which is usually taken to represent Ghazali’s own position, is a form of occasionalism. In this paper I argue that Ghazali fails to prove that this theory is compatible with belief in the possibility of miracles.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David Basinger (1995). Miracles, Evil and Justified Belief: Further Clarification. Sophia 34 (2):58 - 62.
    In an ongoing dialogue, Robert Larmer and I have been discussing whether the undisputed occurrence of certain conceivable events--for instance, astonishing healings--could require all honest, thoughtful individuals to acknowledge that God has supernaturally intervened in earthly affairs. I have not denied that a theist could justifiably consider the occurrence of certain possible (or even actual) events to be strong evidence for theism. But in this essay I continue to deny that the occurrence of any conceivable event would require the acknowledgement (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David Basinger (1987). Miracles and Natural Explanations. Sophia 26 (3):22 - 26.
    IN A RECENT DISCUSSION ON THE MIRACULOUS, ROBERT LARMER ARGUES THAT THERE ARE CONCEIVABLE OCCURRENCES FOR WHICH IT WOULD BE MOST REASONABLE TO BELIEVE NO NATURAL EXPLANATION WILL BE FORTHCOMING. IN RESPONSE I ARGUE THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH OCCURRENCES. IT IS, IN PRINCIPLE, ALWAYS JUSTIFIABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT ANY CONCEIVABLE EVENT IS THE PRODUCT OF SOLELY NATURAL CAUSAL FACTORS.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David Basinger (1984). Miracles as Violations: Some Clarifications. Southern Journal of Philosophy 22 (1):1-7.
    SINCE THE TIME OF HUME, A MIRACLE HAS MOST FREQUENTLY BEEN DEFINED IN PHILOSOPHICAL CIRCLES AS A VIOLATION OF A NATURAL LAW CAUSED BY A GOD. I ARGUE THAT THERE IS A MEANINGFUL SENSE IN WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT A NATURAL LAW HAS BEEN VIOLATED. BUT I FURTHER ARGUE THAT SINCE AN EVENT CAN ONLY BE A VIOLATION IN THIS SENSE IF IT IS NOT CAUSED BY A GOD, NO MIRACLE CAN BE SAID TO BE A VIOLATION OF (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David Basinger (1983). Flew, Miracles and History. Sophia 22 (2):15 - 22.
    ANTONY FLEW HAS ARGUED THAT THE HISTORIAN MUST MAINTAIN WITH RESPECT TO ANY ALLEGED MIRACLE WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT NOMOLOGICALS THAT THE EVENT DID NOT IN FACT OCCUR AS REPORTED. I ARGUE THAT THE LINE OF REASONING HE USES TO SUPPORT THIS STANCE IS MUCH MORE SUBTLE AND CONVINCING THAN MOST OF HIS CRITICS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED. BUT I CONCLUDE IN THE LAST ANALYSIS THAT HIS ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David Basinger (1980). Christian Theism and the Concept of Miracle: Some Epistemological Perplexities. Southern Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):137-150.
    MANY ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEISTS CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED (OR AT LEAST HAVE THE CAPACITY TO IDENTIFY) OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA AS MIRACULOUS. I ARGUE THAT, ALTHOUGH THE CHRISTIAN THEIST CAN SUCCESSFULLY CIRCUMVENT THE STANDARD HUMEAN EPISTEMOLOGICAL BARRIER, HE CAN STIPULATE NO OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF A MIRACULOUS OCCURRENCE, EVEN IF IT IS GRANTED THAT THE CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS AND THAT THE CHRISTIAN CANON ACCURATELY DESCRIBES HOW THIS BEING RELATES TO OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. I CONCLUDE, ACCORDINGLY, THAT ’MIRACLE’ MUST NECESSARILY (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Monroe C. Beardsley & Elizabeth Lane Beardsley (2009). Do Miracles Occur? In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. John Beaudoin (2007). The Devil's Lying Wonders. Sophia 46 (2):111 - 126.
    That demonic agents can work wonders is a staple of much Judeo-Christian theology. Believers have proposed various means by which the Devil’s work can be distinguished from the miracles wrought by God, primarily so that no one is led astray by the Devil’s ’lying wonders.’ I consider the likelihood of our using the suggested criteria with any success. Given certain claims about the demonic nature and certain facts about the way theists often handle the problem of inscrutable evil, it seems (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. John Beaudoin (2006). Natural Uniformity and Historiography. Philosophia Christi 8 (1):115 - 123.
    According to some, the historian must for working purposes assume that nature is uniform, i.e., that miracles do not occur. For otherwise, it is suggested, he may place no confidence in the historical reliability of the records and artifacts on which he relies: such confidence can exist only where it is assumed, for example, that ink marks in the form of words do not sometimes appear spontaneously on old bits of paper. In this article I spell out this methodological thesis (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. W. David Beck (2001). Replies to Evan Fales: On God's Existence. Philosophia Christi 3 (1):49 - 50.
    In this response to Evan Fales’s review article of ’In Defense of Miracles’ in this same issue, I argue briefly that all of his objections to my statements of the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments are mistaken.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Francis J. Beckwith (2001). Replies to Evan Fales: On History and Miracles. Philosophia Christi 3 (1):42 - 45.
    This article is a response to Evan Fales’s critique of Francis Beckwith’s chapter ’Philosophia Christi’ Series 2, 3.1 2001) that appeared in the 1997 book, ’In Defense of Miracles’ (InterVarsity Press, 1997). Beckwith argues that Fales seems to misunderstand his argument. In his reply, Beckwith clarifies his original case and then moves on and addresses Fales’s argument that if miracles regularly occur, the reason for believing in miracles would be undermined; they are contrary to the regular course of nature. Beckwith (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. M. Bévenot (1936). The Miracles of Lourdes. Hibbert Journal 35:254.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Paul Richard Blum & Elisabeth Blum (2010). Wonder and Wondering in the Renaissance. In Michael Funk Deckard & Péter Losonczi (eds.), Philosophy Begins in Wonder. An Introduction to Early Modern Philosophy, Theology, and Science. Pickwick
    Wonder, <span class='Hi'>miracle</span>, occult science, poetry, and the epistemological implications in Renaissance authors: Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico, Pietro Pomponazzi, Agrippa of Nettesheim, Giordano Bruno, Francesco Patrizi, Tommaso Campanella, Francisco Suárez.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Margaret A. Boden (1969). Miracles and Scientific Explanation. Ratio 11:137 - 144.
    A "MIRACLE" IS AN OBSERVABLE EVENT INEXPLICABLE BY SCIENCE BUT EXPLICABLE IN TERMS OF SOME SUPERNATURAL AGENT. UNLESS ALL TALK OF SUPERNATURAL AGENCY IS MEANINGLESS, THIS CONCEPT SUCCESSFULLY DENOTES A (PERHAPS EMPTY) CLASS. DESPITE THE FALSIFIABILITY OF SCIENCE, IT MIGHT SOMETIMES BE REASONABLE TO DENY THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY FUTURE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF A GIVEN EVENT. BUT THAT EVENT COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A "MIRACLE" ONLY IF IT ACCORDED WITH CERTAIN MORAL AND THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE PARTICULAR SUPERNATURAL BEING SUPPOSED (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Lynn Boliek (1974). The Integrity of Faith. Philosophia Reformata 39:41 - 68.
    THE EFFECT OF THE CRITIQUE OF THEORETICAL THOUGHT OF THE DUTCH PHILOSOPHER, HERMAN DOOYEWEERD, UPON THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD OF RUDOLF BULTMANN IS PLACED WITHIN THE MAIN STREAM OF SCHOLASTIC METHOD. THIS IS DUE TO HIS ASSUMPTION, ALONG WITH THOMAS AQUINAS, OF A RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL CONCEPTUALITY (SUPPLIED BY MARTIN HEIDEGGER INSTEAD OF ARISTOTLE), THE REALM OF NATURAL REASON TO WHICH THE TRUTHS OF REVELATION MUST BE SYNTHESIZED. THE GOAL OF INTEGRITY OF FAITH, I.E., SHOWING ITS RELATION TO OTHER KNOWLEDGE IS INEVITABLE. (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Paul Brazier (2009). Signs of God: Miracles & Their Interpretation. Mark Corner and How Much Does God Foreknow? A Comprehensive Biblical Study. Stephen C. Roy. [REVIEW] Heythrop Journal 50 (3):521-523.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Paul Brazier (2009). Signs of God: Miracles & Their Interpretation. Heythrop Journal-a Quarterly Review of Philosophy and Theology 50 (3):521-523.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Luke Brekke (2009). Arguing for Miracles in the Eighteenth-Century Public Sphere. Eighteenth-Century Thought 4:111 - 142.
    Notions of a developing public sphere in the eighteenth century have assumed, following Jürgen Habermas, that this is a necessarily secular space in which the better argument alone would prevail. This project examines efforts by French Jansenists to use the new public sphere to argue in public that God had performed miracles through a Jansenist saint, the late deacon François de Pâris, and thus expressed His rejection of the standing order in church and state. These works, culminating in Carré de (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Norbert Brieskorn (2009). Suárez and the Question of Miracles. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 65 (1):1315 - 1318.
    God is the creator of the laws of nature and therefore he is able to change and to irrupt them. The suspension of one norm is completely consistent with the affirmation of the law as a whole; and therefore the miracle underlines the eternal law as valid and the fidelity of God.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Gregory Brown (1995). Miracles in the Best of All Possible Worlds: Leibniz's Dilemma and Leibniz's Razor. History of Philosophy Quarterly 12 (1):19-39.
    In the first section of this paper I discuss what Leibniz meant by a miracle and why Leibniz’s definition of the best of all possible worlds implies that it is a world in which miracles are minimized. In the second part of the paper I argue that human happiness within the best of all possible worlds also requires, on Leibniz’s principles, that miracles must there be minimized. In the third section of the paper I consider what, if any, miracles actually (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Herbert Burhenn (1977). Attributing Miracles to Agents: Reply to George D. Chryssides. Religious Studies 13 (4):485 - 489.
    IN HIS ESSAY IN VOLUME 11 OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES", CHRYSSIDES MAINTAINS THAT OUR USUAL CONCEPT OF MIRACLE IS INCOHERENT BECAUSE AN EVENT CANNOT BOTH VIOLATE A SCIENTIFIC LAW AND BE ATTRIBUTED TO AN AGENT. AGAINST THIS VIEW IT IS ARGUED THAT WE DISTINGUISH A MIRACLE FROM A MERE CURIOSITY AND ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE MIRACLE TO AN AGENT NOT ON THE BASIS OF A CAUSAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVENT BUT RATHER BY ASKING WHAT PURPOSE THE EVENT MIGHT SERVE.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Peter Byrne (1978). Miracles and the Philosophy of Science. Heythrop Journal 19 (2):162–170.
    THIS ARTICLE ATTEMPTS TO SHOW THAT A BELIEF IN MIRACLES AS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF NATURE IS COMPATIBLE WITH A DUE RESPECT FOR SCIENTIFIC METHOD. SOME MODERN THEOLOGIANS HAVE THOUGHT THAT SCIENTIFIC DETERMINISM INVOLVES A RIGID INSISTENCE THAT EVERY EVENT HAS A CAUSE AND THUS THAT RESPECT FOR SCIENCE CALLS FOR REINTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF MIRACLE. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT A WEAKER COMMITMENT TO DETERMINISM IS RATIONALLY MORE ACCEPTABLE AND THAT THIS COMMITMENT LEAVES THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF MIRACLE (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. George Campbell (1839). A Dissertation on Miracles. Garland.
    An examination of the principles advanced by David Hume, Esq., in An Essay on Miracles; with a correspondence on the subject by Mr Hume, Dr. Campbell, and Dr. Blair. To which are added sermons and tracts. In 1763 Campbell published A Dissertation on Miracles which was intended as a demolition of Hume’s essay On miracles.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Percy A. Campbell (1950). Our Natural Universe Including Man: An Inquiry Into Consciousness, Life, Death, 'Miracles', Cosmic Rays, Etc. College Offset Pr.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Tristan Casabianca (2013). The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach. Heythrop Journal 54 (3):414-423.
    Criteria of historical assessment are applied to the Turin Shroud to determine which hypothesis relating to the image formation process is the most likely. To implement this, a ‘Minimal Facts’ approach is followed that takes into account only physicochemical and historical data receiving the widest consensus among contemporary scientists. The result indicates that the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high; historians and natural theologians should therefore pay it increased attention.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Gary Chartier (2004). The Resurrection of God Incarnate. Conversations in Religion and Theology 2 (1):11 - 28.
    Richard Swinburne’s ’The Resurrection of God Incarnate’ offers a careful and complex argument designed to show that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate and that God raised him from death after his crucifixion. In this essay, I explain Swinburne’s unique argument for this proposition and develop five objections to contentions he makes in this course of elaborating this argument. The most significant is the suggestion that Swinburne fails to take seriously the possibility that Jesus did rise from the dead but (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Christopher Cherry (1975). On Characterizing the Extraordinary. Ratio 17 (1):52 - 64.
    IT SEEMS PLAUSIBLE TO DIVIDE ALLEGEDLY EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS, "SECULAR" OR OTHERWISE, INTO TWO BROAD CATEGORIES. THE FIRST CATEGORY COMPRISES EVENTS WHICH APPEAR TO BE EXTENSIONS OF THE FAMILIAR, SINCE THEIR CHARACTERIZATION APPARENTLY INCORPORATE A REFERENCE TO EVENTS WHICH ARE SCIENTIFICALLY COMMONPLACE. THE SECOND COMPRISES EVENTS WHICH APPEAR TO BE TOTAL BREAKS WITH THE FAMILIAR, SINCE APPARENTLY NO SUCH REFERENCES CAN BE ELICITED. THE WRITER EXAMINES IN DETAIL POSSIBLE BASES FOR THE DISTINCTION, IN CONNECTION, ESPECIALLY, WITH THE NOTION OF THE DEFEASIBILITY (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Christopher Cherry (1974). Miracles and Creation. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 5 (4):234 - 245.
    THE ARTICLE DISCUSSES WHETHER THERE CAN EVER BE CONCLUSIVE GROUNDS FOR ACCEPTING ANY MIRACLE CLAIM WHATSOEVER. THE USUAL ’EMPIRICAL’ MODEL FOR THE MIRACULOUS IS EXAMINED AND REJECTED AS VARIOUSLY INCOHERENT. THE AUTHOR PROPOSES AND ELABORATES ON ALTERNATIVE ’ANALYTIC’ MODELS, ACCORDING TO WHICH A MIRACULOUS ACT IS A "CREATIVE" ACT. THE LOGIC OF CREATION IS EXAMINED, AND FURTHER PROBLEMS ADUMBRATED.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. M. Chevallier (1988). Jansenist Miracles and Convulsions in the 18th-Century - Evil and its Knowledge - French - Vidal,D. Revue D'Histoire Et de Philosophie Religieuses 68 (3):378-379.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. George D. Chryssides (1975). Miracles and Agents. Religious Studies 11 (3):319 - 327.
    IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CENTRAL PROBLEM ABOUT MIRACLES IS NOT WHETHER SCIENTIFIC REGULARITIES CAN BE VIOLATED, BUT WHETHER SUCH VIOLATIONS COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO AGENTS. FOR A PHENOMENON TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO RATIONAL AGENCY, REPETITION BY THE AGENT MUST IN PRINCIPLE BE POSSIBLE: BUT IF REPETITION IS POSSIBLE, THE PHENOMENON CAN BE SUBSUMED UNDER SOME SCIENTIFIC REGULARITY. THE BELIEVER IN MIRACLES WISHES TO CLAIM THAT MIRACLES ARE BOTH CAUSED (BY AN AGENT) AND UNCAUSED (BY VIOLATING SCIENTIFIC REGULARITY); BUT THESE (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. David K. Clark (2001). Replies to Evan Fales: On Miracles in the World Religions. Philosophia Christi 3 (1):61 - 63.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. F. Clark (1992). Signs of Sanctity - Miracles in the Thought of Gregory-the-Great - McCready,Wd. Heythrop Journal-a Quarterly Review of Philosophy and Theology 33 (3):339-340.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Steve Clarke (2007). The Supernatural and the Miraculous. Sophia 46 (3):277 - 285.
    Both intention-based and causation-based definitions of the miraculous make reference to the term ‘supernatural’. Philosophers who define the miraculous appear to use this term in a loose way, perhaps meaning the nonnatural, perhaps meaning a subcategory of the nonnatural. Here I examine the aetiology of the term ‘supernatural’. I consider three outstanding issues regarding the meaning of the term and conclude that the supernatural is best understood as a subcategory of the nonnatural. In light of this clarification, I argue that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Steve Clarke (2003). Luck and Miracles. Religious Studies 39 (4):471-474.
    In another paper published here, I criticized Stephen Mumford's causation-based analysis of miracles on the grounds of its failure to produce results that are consistent with ordinary intuitions. In a response to me, intended as a defence of Mumford's position, Morgan Luck finds fault with my rival approach to miracles on three grounds. In this response to Luck I argue that all three of his criticisms miss their mark. My response to Luck's final line of criticism helps shed (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Steve Clarke (2003). Response to Mumford and Another Definition of Miracles. Religious Studies 39 (4):459-463.
    Stephen Mumford concludes a recent paper in Religious Studies, in which he advances a new causation-based analysis of miracles, by stating that the onus is ‘on rival accounts of miracles to produce something that matches it’. I take up Mumford's challenge, defending an intention-based definition of miracles, which I developed earlier, that he criticizes. I argue that this definition of miracles is more consistent with ordinary intuitions about miracles than Mumford's causation-based alternative. I further argue that (...) has failed to demonstrate any advantages that his approach to miracles has over an intention-based approach. (shrink)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Steve Clarke (1997). When to Believe in Miracles. American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (1):95 - 102.
    Brierley et al argue that in cases where it is medically futile to continue providing life-sustaining therapies to children in intensive care, medical professionals should be allowed to withdraw such therapies, even when the parents of these children believe that there is a chance of a miracle cure taking place. In reasoning this way, Brierley et al appear to implicitly assume that miracle cures will never take place, but they do not justify this assumption and it would be very difficult (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Jf Collange (1987). Miracles of Jesus and Theology of the Miracle - French - Latourelle,R. Revue D'Histoire Et de Philosophie Religieuses 67 (4):426-427.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Jf Collange (1987). That You May Believe - Miracles and Faith Then and Now - Brown,C. Revue D'Histoire Et de Philosophie Religieuses 67 (4):426-427.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. John Collier (1986). Against Miracles. Dialogue 25 (02):349-.
    ROBERT LARMER ARGUED THAT EVEN IF ALL PHYSICAL EVENTS ARE SUBJECT TO DETERMINISTIC NATURAL LAWS, MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE. HE CONCLUDED THAT BECAUSE MIRACLES AND NATURAL LAWS ARE COMPATIBLE, HUME’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE RATIONALITY OF BELIEF IN MIRACLES IS FALLACIOUS. I FIRST SHOW THAT EVEN IF LARMER’S ARGUMENT FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES IS CORRECT, IT DOES NOT TOUCH HUME’S ARGUMENT. I THEN ARGUE THAT LARMER’S ARGUMENT IS MISTAKEN.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Gary Colwell (1983). Miracles and History. Sophia 22 (2):9-14.
    THE TWO-FOLD PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION IS: (1) TO CRITICIZE THE FIRST THREE OF HUME�S REASONS FOR REJECTING AS UNRELIABLE THE HISTORICAL RECORDS OF MIRACLES; (2) TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION WHICH CHALLENGES THE "A PRIORI" JUDGEMENT THAT AUTHENTIC MIRACLE REPORTS CANNOT FORM A RELIABLE PART OF HISTORY. HUME FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE NATURALISTIC EXPLAINABILITY OF AN EVENT SAID TO BE A MIRACLE IS NOT LOGICALLY IMPLIED BY ITS ACCURATE DESCRIPTION.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Gary Colwell (1982). On Defining Away the Miraculous. Philosophy 57 (221):327 - 337.
    HUME AND HIS FOLLOWERS HAVE TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO ESTABLISH THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES BY APPEALING SOLELY TO THE DEFINITIONS OF MIRACLE AND NATURAL LAW. HUME’S ARGUMENT TRADES UPON THAT PART OF THE DEFINITION OF MIRACLE WHICH PERTAINS TO THE NUMERICAL INSIGNIFICANCE OF MIRACULOUS EVENTS. HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE LARGE NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NON-REPEATABLE IRREGULAR EVENTS AND REPEATABLE REGULAR ONES LOGICALLY CANNOT BE USED AS A CRITERION BY WHICH TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENTIAL STATUS OF NUMERICALLY SMALL NON-REPEATABLE IRREGULAR EVENTS. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. David A. Conway (1983). Miracles, Evidence, and Contrary Religions. Sophia 22 (3):3 - 14.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Winfried Corduan (2001). Replies to Evan Fales: On Recognizing a Miracle. Philosophia Christi 3 (1):45 - 46.
    In my reply to Fales I point out that it is not enough to acknowledge a hypothetical scenario according to which he might be willing to recognize a miracle. The question remains as to who should establish standards of recognition to begin with, and I am challenging the entrenched notion that skeptics, with their a priori rejection of the supernatural, should be the ones who dictate to theists what those criteria must be.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. David Corner (2007). The Philosophy of Miracles. Continuum.
    An exploration of the connection between rationality and a belief in God draws on recent work in the theory of action to show that God's agency can be attributed to an event in nature without eliminating the possibility of a scientific explanation.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. David Corner, Miracles. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Mark Corner (2009). Signs of God: Miracles and Their Interpretation. Heythrop Journal 50 (3):521 - 523.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 278