Need Miracles Be Extraordinary?

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (3):435-449 (1987)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Critics following Hume argue that miracles by nature violate regularities which are as well established as any and which therefore cannot be overthrown by testimony. It is argued here, however, that such criticisms involve errors of inductive reasoning and that if there is even a remote chance that a non-deistic god exists, miracles simply would not be that extraordinary, so that often strong testimony will provide good reason to believe them.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,854

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Hume on Laws and Miracles.Nathan Rockwood - 2018 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 92 (4).
Martin on Miracles.Michael Almeida - 2007 - Philo 10 (1):27-34.
Locke and Hume on Competing Miracles.Nathan Rockwood - 2023 - Religious Studies 59:603-617.
Hume, Miracles and Lotteries.Dorothy P. Coleman - 1988 - Hume Studies 14 (2):328-346.
Schlesinger and Miracles.Richard Otte - 1993 - Faith and Philosophy 10 (1):93-98.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
62 (#346,993)

6 months
9 (#519,282)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Miracles.Michael Levine - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Miracles and the case for theism.Victor Reppert - 1989 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 25 (1):35 - 51.
The Hume Literature, 1986-1993.William E. Morris - 1994 - Hume Studies 20 (2):299-326.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references