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:
209 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 209
  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 |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. 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 |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. 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  
  16. 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  
  17. 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  
  18. 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  
  19. 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  
  20. 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  
  21. 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  
  22. 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  
  23. Christopher Cherry (1975). On Characterizing the Extraordinary. Ratio 17:52 - 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 |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. 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  
  25. 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  
  26. 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  
  27. 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  
  28. 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  
  29. 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  
  30. Gary G. Collwell (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  
  31. 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  
  32. 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  
  33. David Corner, Miracles. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. William Lane Craig (2006). Sobel's Acid Bath for Theism: A Review Essay of Jordan Howard Sobel's 'Logic and Theism'. Philosophia Christi 8 (2):481 - 490.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. William Lane Craig (2001). Replies to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus. Philosophia Christi 3 (1):67 - 76.
    Evan’s Fales’s idiosyncratic interpretation of the origin of the empty tomb narrative in the gospels of the New Testament is shown to be flawed in taking pagan mythology rather than Palestinian Judaism as the proper interpretive context for the life of Jesus.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. William Lane Craig (1998). Creation, Providence and Miracles. In Brian Davies (ed.), Philosophy of Religion. Georgetown Univ Pr. 136-162.
    Creation and conservation are defined and distinguished; providence based on divine middle knowledge is defended; and miracles as naturally impossible events are defended.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Oliver D. Crisp (2008). Born of a Virgin: Proving the Miracle From the Gospels. By John Redford. Heythrop Journal 49 (2):312–313.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Martin Curd (1996). Miracles as Violations of Laws of Nature. In Faith, Freedom, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today. Rowman & Littlefield.
    Some philosophers have argued that miracles cannot occur because it is impossible for an event to violate a law of nature. This paper examines three attempts (by W.L. Rowe, N. Smart, and R. Swinburne) to refute this argument. It concludes that none of them is successful if one wants to use the law-violating character of alleged miracles as evidence for God’s existence and nature.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Paul Davies (2004). The Fifth Miracle. Zygon 39 (1):261 - 265.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Stephen T. Davis (2003). The Rationality of Christian Belief in Resurrection: A Reply to Michael Martin. Philosophia Christi 5 (2):501 - 517.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Stephen T. Davis (2001). Replies to Evan Fales: On God's Actions. Philosophia Christi 3 (1):51 - 52.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Stephen T. Davis (1984). Is It Possible to Know That Jesus Was Raised From the Dead? Faith and Philosophy 1 (2):147-159.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Hent de Vries (2001). Of Miracles and Special Effects. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 50 (1-3):41 - 56.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. John M. DePoe (2008). Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel's Reading of Hume. Philosophia Christi 10 (1):229 - 238.
    This paper defends a Bayesian approach to confirming a miracle against Jordan Howard Sobel’s recent novel interpretation of Hume’s criticisms. In his book, ’Logic and Theism’, Sobel offers an intriguing and original way to apply Hume’s criticisms against the possibility of having sufficient evidence to confirm a miracle. The key idea behind Sobel’s approach is to employ infinitesimal probabilities to neutralize the cumulative effects of positive evidence for any miracle. This paper aims to undermine Sobel’s use of infinitesimal probabilities to (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Paul J. Dietl (1982). On Miracles. In Steven M. Cahn & David Shatz (eds.), Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press. 130 - 134.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Theodore M. Drange, Science and Miracles (1998).
    The problem I wish to investigate is the relation between science and religion, with a special focus on religion's appeal to miracles. Let us define a "miracle" simply as an event which violates at least one law of nature. I realize that the term is used in other ways. For example, it is sometimes additionally required that miracles be caused by a supernatural being. For our purposes and in the interest of economy, that further requirement can be dispensed with. (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Daniel O. Dugan (1995). Praying for Miracles: Practical Responses to Requests for Medically Futile Treatments in the Icu Setting. HEC Forum 7 (4):228 - 242.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Travis Dumsday (2008). Locke on Competing Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 25 (4):416-424.
    It is typically thought that miracles, if they occur, can provide evidence for the truth of religious doctrine. But what if different miracles occur attesting to the truth of different and incompatible religions? How is one to decide between the truth of the supposed revelations? Much of Locke’s short work, A Discourse of Miracles, is concerned with this question. Here I summarize and evaluate Locke’s answer.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Jeffrey C. Eaton (1985). The Problem of Miracles and the Paradox of Double Agency. Modern Theology 1 (3):211 - 222.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Esther J. Ehrman (2002). Erich Unger's "the Natural Order of Miracles": II. The World of Nature and Miracles in the Pentateuch. Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 11 (2):153-189.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 209