"Of Miracles" by David Hume

[JuliaL]

I haven't had the chance to read it all, but what do you think of William Lane Craig's article which covers the argument by Hume?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...erspective

OK, I read most, well, maybe half, of it.
Pretty much my interpretation is that WLC is opposing Spinosa and Hume on miracles by saying, "Well it could happen."
Yea, if natural laws aren't actually 100% inviolable, or if we are interpreting the universe wrongly.
The bible could  be true even if it is totally consistent with a scam by sleazy bronze age con-men.

But that's a far cry from showing that the miracles of the bible did  happen as described.
What it doesn't explain, for me, is why:
The bible doesn't include any useful information subsequently proven true.
Why God decided to go dormant for 2000 years after hanging with the patriarchs, streetwalkers and Levites the previous 4000.
All advertised falsifiable miracles are indistinguishable from hoaxes.
The dead sea scrolls weren't stored on blu-ray in a stasis field waiting for some goatherd to find them.

Unfortunately, Craig has a profitable gig putting an intellectual gloss on what are very low probability, misleading arguments.
Miracles could  have happened if what we call natural law, isn't.  I'm more interested in whether or not they did.

[nihilistcat]

Yeah but didn't pee wee get busted with his wee wee in his hand in a porn theater in NYC?

That is nothing compared with William Lane Craig.  A guy masturbating is nothing compared with an asshole spreading bullshit.

I'm always amused by the fact that every time I see that dude, he seems to be wearing lip stick (or lip gloss). 

Those evangelical preacher/theologian types always seemed creepy to me (like Catholic priests). 

They're either little boy or crack ho fuckers, or they're these total dip shit goofy southern imbeciles. Like that guy Joel Osteen, what an idiot, and this guy routinely gets airtime on CNN ... WTF?

Who remembers this tool?

[Pyrrho]

You are really bringing up disturbing images. If there were a god working miracles, none of that would happen and we would have a nice, pleasant thread, without thinking about the sick perverts who claim to be favored by God. And still, Pee Wee Herman does not deserve to be compared with these sick freaks.

[robvalue]

I tried to read that WLC article, and it seems to come down to this:

God exists, and is very powerful. Therefor, God can do amazing things, and we will call them miracles.

Everything else is window dressing. He has not demonstrated God exists. Obviously, if God exists, with all the power normally attributed to him, he can do amazing things. It's a tautology. And even if it were true, he still offers no way you could ever distinguish a miracle from a non miracle. Because there isn't one.

[JuliaL]

I tried to read that WLC article, and it seems to come down to this:

God exists, and is very powerful. Therefor, God can do amazing things, and we will call them miracles.

Everything else is window dressing. He has not demonstrated God exists. Obviously, if God exists, with all the power normally attributed to him, he can do amazing things. It's a tautology. And even if it were true, he still offers no way you could ever distinguish a miracle from a non miracle. Because there isn't one.

What I got was that WLC claimed Spinoza and Hume were wrong to say that miracles couldn't happen because of the regularity of nature.
Spinoza said the perfection and regularity of God provided the regularity of natural law and miracles couldn't fight that.
WLC said that God's override of natural law was just another aspect of God.
Hume said you should apportion belief according to evidence.
WLC said that miracles are a special case by God and He isn't bound to conform to his prior consistent actions.

I say, sure, an omnipotent God could override any of the rules He set up  IF HE EXISTED.  That's a really big IF.

[robvalue]

Exactly; if. Basing your whole position on a totally unfounded assumption is ridiculous. If Hume was alive today he's be turning in his grave. He eats WLC for breakfast and still has change out of tuppence.

If God doesn't exist, then miracles don't exist. Equally valid, equally useless.

[robvalue]

Additional: if I understand correctly, Hume isn't claiming that there are no miracles, he's stating that the claim that something is a miracle should always be rejected. Is that a fair assessment?

Because all WLC is trying to do is establish that miracles are possible. Even if they are, it does not refute Hume's position.

The amount of bullshit he wraps around logical fallacies and tautoligies is quite astonishing though. If theists have the truth, why all the unfounded assumptions, lies, logical fallacies, unfalsifiable claims and emotional manipulation? And nothing else of substance. Ever.

Yes I said it, ever. Give me any piece of apologetics which is actually supposed to make a positive case that God exists beyond reasonable doubt, that a certain religion is "true", or in fact that any supernatural event has ever happened, and it will rely at some point on one of those things. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that. I'm not saying claims put forward are false, I'm saying they can't be demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

There, I've put my tackle on the chopping block. If anyone can prove me wrong on that, I'll be in for a serious shell shock.

[Foxaèr]

By miracles Hume actually means "I'm too fucking dumb to realize that that there is an alternative explanation."

[Pyrrho]

Additional: if I understand correctly, Hume isn't claiming that there are no miracles, he's stating that the claim that something is a miracle should always be rejected. Is that a fair assessment?

There is some debate over the exact nature of Hume's position.  Probably because some of his remarks seem more pointed than others.  But that is fair enough for present purposes.

Because all WLC is trying to do is establish that miracles are possible. Even if they are, it does not refute Hume's position.

Yes.  Even granting that something might have some degree of possibility, that does not mean that anyone should believe it is true.  If I were to tell you that I am presently naked in a hot tub with Madonna and Oprah, it is something that is in some sense possible, but no one should believe the story, without proper evidence to confirm it.

The amount of bullshit he wraps around logical fallacies and tautoligies is quite astonishing though. If theists have the truth, why all the unfounded assumptions, lies, logical fallacies, unfalsifiable claims and emotional manipulation? And nothing else of substance. Ever.

Yes I said it, ever. Give me any piece of apologetics which is actually supposed to make a positive case that God exists beyond reasonable doubt, that a certain religion is "true", or in fact that any supernatural event has ever happened, and it will rely at some point on one of those things. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that. I'm not saying claims put forward are false, I'm saying they can't be demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

There, I've put my tackle on the chopping block. If anyone can prove me wrong on that, I'll be in for a serious shell shock.

I think pretty much every strong atheist agrees with you on that, as well as many weak atheists.

[Angrboda]

If I understand Hume's position, it's an argument to the most likely hypothesis, a la Bayes. I haven't finished Craig's paper but he seems to be arguing that assigning the probability of a miracle to be low in comparison to the alternatives is a form of begging the question. I confess I have some sympathy for Craig's position.