Miracles and the case for theism
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 25 (1):35 - 51 (1989)
| Abstract | THIS PAPER IS A DISCUSSION OF MACKIE’S HUMEAN ARGUMENT THAT MIRACLES CANNOT PLAY A ROLE IN A CASE FOR THEISM. I ARGUE THAT MACKIE IS MISTAKEN IN CONTENDING THAT MIRACLES CANNOT FORM PART OF A CASE FOR THEISM. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT CERTAIN EVENTS DEVIATE FROM THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE, AND IF AFFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WOULD RENDER THAT EVIDENCE MORE COMPREHENSIBLE THAN OTHERWISE, THEN IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT EVIDENCE THAT THESE EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED IS EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS | |||||||||
| 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: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRichard Otte (2004). Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
David Johnson (1999). Hume, Holism, and Miracles. Cornell University Press.
Michael Almeida (2007). Martin on Miracles. Philo 10 (1):27-34.
Leon Pearl (1988). Miracles and Theism. Religious Studies 24 (4):483 - 495.
Richard Otte (1996). Mackie's Treatment of Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151 - 158.
T. Brian Mooney & Anthony Imbrosciano (2005). The Curious Case of Mr. Locke's Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57 (3):147 - 168.
Leon Pearl (1988). Miracles: The Case for Theism. American Philosophical Quarterly 25 (4):331 - 337.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads20 ( #61,504 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
