*sigh* Hume settled this 'miracle' nonsense well over two hundred years ago. For those theists who are unaware, I'll recap.
Suppose Joe reports a miracle. We have several options to consider before we can decide whether to accept that a miracle did, in fact, occur.
1. Joe is lying.
2. Joe is reporting something he heard (see the OP) and did not witness the miracle himself.
3. Joe is an ignorant boob and couldn't tell a natural phenomenon from a miracle if they both crawled up his arse and died there.
4. Joe's report of a miracle conflicts with other reports of other miracles, and other reports conflict with Joe's. The lessens the likelihood of ANY miracle being true.
5. A miracle actually DID occur.
Laying out these (and other) possible scenarios, we need to ask, which is the LEAST likely explanation? In all ranking of probabilities, #5 comes dead last, every time.
Mind, Hume did not a priori deny the possibility of miracles, but his argument renders their likelihood so low as to not merit serious consideration.
Boru
Suppose Joe reports a miracle. We have several options to consider before we can decide whether to accept that a miracle did, in fact, occur.
1. Joe is lying.
2. Joe is reporting something he heard (see the OP) and did not witness the miracle himself.
3. Joe is an ignorant boob and couldn't tell a natural phenomenon from a miracle if they both crawled up his arse and died there.
4. Joe's report of a miracle conflicts with other reports of other miracles, and other reports conflict with Joe's. The lessens the likelihood of ANY miracle being true.
5. A miracle actually DID occur.
Laying out these (and other) possible scenarios, we need to ask, which is the LEAST likely explanation? In all ranking of probabilities, #5 comes dead last, every time.
Mind, Hume did not a priori deny the possibility of miracles, but his argument renders their likelihood so low as to not merit serious consideration.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
