"Of Miracles" by David Hume

[Pyrrho]

I don't see WLC's position as much more than an argument from ignorance, you can't prove there aren't miracles. I would think most sceptics would not make the claim that there are no miracles.

My guess is, most skeptics would say that there are no miracles.  But to see who is right, there would have to be some sort of polling, and not simply of those who are at this site.

Most likely, WLC would deny the occurrence of miracles that are not consistent with his particular brand of religion.  For some examples of the sorts of things I mean, you can take a look at some of the stories in Hume's essay, or take a look at:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

I doubt that WLC will accept the miracle stories of Vespasian curing a blind man with his spittle, or curing a lame man by the touch of his foot, divinely made possible by the god Serapis.

But unless WLC can offer any insight into how one would go about finding out what is a miracle and what isn't, his comments seem pretty useless to me. I mean what are we supposed to do, just believe people every so often that something is a miracle?

There is no current way to verify supernatural causation, so that seems to be the end of it. I don't know exactly what WLC would have us do.

Proving that something did not happen is an interesting thing.  Suppose I decide to no longer fly around my bedroom (see my post above), saying something like, "flying is a young man's game," and no longer claim to fly.  How would anyone prove that I did not previously fly around my bedroom?

My guess is, most would say the mere fact that such a thing is incompatible with the laws of nature is sufficient proof that the flying did not occur.

Wouldn't you believe that it did not happen?  And what would you think of the mental abilities of anyone who did not believe that it did not happen?