Miracles and principles of relative likelihood

Abstract
I EXAMINE VARIOUS SUGGESTED PRINCIPLES FOR WEIGHING TESTIMONY TO PAST EVENTS AND IDENTIFY ONE WHICH SEEMS TO BE BOTH TRUE AND ROUGHLY IN THE SPIRIT OF DAVID HUME’S ESSAY. I ARGUE THAT HUME FAILS TO PROVIDE GOOD REASONS FOR SAYING THAT THIS PRINCIPLE, WHEN APPLIED TO REPORTS OF MIRACLES PURPORTING TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, WILL ALWAYS LEAD US TO REJECT THE OCCURRENCE OF THE MIRACLE
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00165046
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,756
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Hobbes on Miracles.By John Whipple - 2008 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):117–142.
Vindicating the “Principle of Relative Likelihood”.Keith Chrzan - 1984 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (1):13 - 18.
Mackie on Miracles.Bruce Langtry - 1988 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 66 (3):368 – 375.
Locke on Competing Miracles.Travis Dumsday - 2008 - Faith and Philosophy 25 (4):416-424.
Martin on Miracles.Michael Almeida - 2007 - Philo 10 (1):27-34.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

34 ( #153,040 of 2,178,142 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #316,663 of 2,178,142 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums