Philo 10 (1):27-34 (2007)
AbstractMichael 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
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 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 PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals.David Hume, L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch - 1976 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 166 (2):265-266.