Sophia 44 (1):7 - 23 (2005)
|Abstract||In his book The Concept of Miracle and his paper ‘For the Possibility of Miracles’ Swinburne claims that there are no logical difficulties in supposing that there could be strong historical evidence for the occurrence of miracles. This claim is based on three assertions; two of which I demonstrate are only true contingently. In this paper I identify several logical difficulties regarding the possibility of attaining historical evidence for the occurrence of miracles. On the strength of these logical difficulties I hope to demonstrate that there is sufficient reason to doubt Swinburne’s central claim.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jacqueline Mariña (1998). The Theological and Philosophical Significance of the Markan Account of Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 15 (3):298-323.
Chris Slupik (1995). A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'. Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Steve Clarke (2003). Luck and Miracles. Religious Studies 39 (4):471-474.
Raja Bahlul (1990). Miracles and Ghazali's First Theory of Causation. Philosophy and Theology 5 (2):137-150.
Richard Otte (1996). Mackie's Treatment of Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151 - 158.
Stephen Mumford (2001). Miracles: Metaphysics and Modality. Religious Studies 37 (2):191-202.
Rodney D. Holder (1998). Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):49-65.
By John Whipple (2008). Hobbes on Miracles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):117–142.
Steve Clarke (2003). Response to Mumford and Another Definition of Miracles. Religious Studies 39 (4):459-463.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #39,272 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?