What Hume Actually Said about Miracles

Hume Studies 16 (1):81-86 (1990)
Contrary to the standard interpretations, this essay shows that Hume, in Section X of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, explicitly put forward an a priori argument intended to show that, by the nature of the case, there must always be adequate empirical evidence establishing that a reported miracle could not have taken place
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1353/hms.2011.0405
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Matthew C. Bagger (1997). Hume and Miracles. Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (2):237 - 251.
J. C. A. Gaskin (1985). Contrary Miracles Concluded. Hume Studies 1985 (Supplement):1 - 14.
Ruth Weintraub (1996). The Credibility of Miracles. Philosophical Studies 82 (3):359 - 375.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

16 ( #167,478 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #289,836 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.