Miracles and laws of nature
Religious Studies 37 (1):33-58 (2001)
| Abstract | In this paper, I argue that miracles should not be defined as involving violations of natural laws. They should be defined as signs of particular volitions of the deity or of other supernatural agents. I suggest that one may, without any prior belief in the existence of such supernatural agents, reasonably come to believe that one has witnessed miracles. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesToby Handfield (2001). Dispositional Essentialism and the Possibility of a Law-Abiding Miracle. Philosophical Quarterly 51 (205):484-494.
Chris Slupik (1995). A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'. Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Jyrki Kivelä (2006). Kierkegaard's Tangential Interest in Miracles. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 8:115-119.
Morgan Luck (2007). Supernatural Miracles and Religious Inclusiveness. Sophia 46 (3):287 - 293.
Michael Almeida (2007). Martin on Miracles. Philo 10 (1):27-34.
Richard Otte (1996). Mackie's Treatment of Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151 - 158.
Timothy Pritchard (2011). Miracles and Violations. Religious Studies 47 (1):41-58.
George I. Mavrodes (1985). Miracles and the Laws of Nature. Faith and Philosophy 2 (4):333-346.
Stephen Mumford (2001). Miracles: Metaphysics and Modality. Religious Studies 37 (2):191-202.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads38 ( #30,942 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
