Talk:Of Miracles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
[edit] Not circular, just definitional
Hume's argument is not entirely circular, but his definitions determine the conclusions. He defines "miracle" as something we can't believe, and it inevitably follows that anything we believe happened was not a miracle. It becomes an epistemological argument. He hasn't proven that miracles don't exist, only that we don't believe in them. — Randall Bart 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- First, he doesn't define a miracle as something that we can't believe (where do you find that?). Secondly, his aim is indeed epistemological — to show that we can never have grounds to believe that a miracle has occurred. You seem to think that that's a criticism. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
