Philo 10 (1):27-34 (2007)
Michael Martin introduces a non-Humean conception of miracles according to which miracles are events that need not violate a law of nature and are brought about by the exercise of a possibly non-theistic, supernatural power. Call those m-miracles. I consider Martin’s argument that the occurrence of an m-miracle would not confirm the existence of God. Martin presents an interesting argument, but it does not establish that m-miracles would not confirm the existence God. I argue that, on the contrary, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Martin’s m-miracles provide at least some confirmation for the hypothesis that God exists
|Keywords||Philosophy and Religion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Miracles as Violations of Laws of Nature.Martin Curd - 1996 - In Faith, Freedom, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today. Rowman & Littlefield.
Miracles: The Case for Theism.Leon Pearl - 1988 - American Philosophical Quarterly 25 (4):331 - 337.
Miracles, Evidence, Evil, and God: A Twenty-Year Debate.Christine Overall - 2006 - Dialogue 45 (2):355-366.
Miracles as Evidence Against the Existence of God.Christine Overall - 1985 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):347-353.
Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God.Rodney D. Holder - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):49-65.
Divine Hiddenness: Would More Miracles Solve the Problem?Jake H. O'Connell - 2013 - Heythrop Journal 54 (2):261-267.
Added to index2011-02-24
Total downloads25 ( #202,051 of 2,164,578 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #128,912 of 2,164,578 )
How can I increase my downloads?