Faith and Philosophy 10 (1):93-98 (1993)
George Schlesinger has recently presented a reply to Hume’s argument concerning miracles. Schlesinger argues that probability theory and some simple assumptions about miracles show that testimony for a miracle increases the probability of God existing; furthermore this testimony can raise the probability of God existing enough that it is rational to believe that God exists. I argue that one of the assumptions that Schlesinger makes is false, and that the justification Schlesinger gives for it does not succeed. Thus I claim Schlesinger’s reply to Hume fails
|Keywords||Contemporary Philosophy Philosophy and Religion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
A Weaker Condition for Transitivity in Probabilistic Support.William Roche - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):111-118.
Similar books and articles
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.
David Hume and the Probability of Miracles.George I. Mavrodes - 1998 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (3):167-182.
Miracles.George N. Schlesinger - 2010 - In A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (Second Edition). Wiley-Blackwell.
A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'.Chris Slupik - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Need Miracles Be Extraordinary?Robert Hambourger - 1987 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (3):435-449.
Review of Schlesinger, War and the American Presidency. [REVIEW]H. G. Callaway - 2008 - Reason Papers 2008 (No. 30):121-128.
Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles.John Earman - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads13 ( #357,754 of 2,178,245 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,504 of 2,178,245 )
How can I increase my downloads?