Hume's Posteriori Argument against Miracles Is not Valid Essay

Humes Posteriori Argument against Miracles Is not logical - Essay ExampleThe a posteriori argument states that even if miracles were a possibility according to evidence, they in fact, check never occurred (Johnson & Anthony, 72). Humes a posteriori argument has some merit from a general perspective, they are tangled from the perspective of an individual miracle test-case, i.e., the alleged resurrection of Jesus. I will argue that although the first of Humes three a posteriori arguments succeeds in recording that there may be no miracle proofs, it doesnt show that there is not a sufficient probability for establishing our test case. Anti-Thesis In his first argument from a posteriori considerations, Hume sets out the qualitative requirements of a proof and a successful probability for a miracle along with the three-figure requirements of a miracle proof, and he argues for the (implied) thesis that the quantitative requirements of a proof stimulate not been satisfied (Hume, Enqui ry, 116-117). For Hume, the chase qualitative conditions are required for a hefty individual miracle-testimony the witness must be passing educated, socially outstanding, patently honest, have lots to lose by lying, and be situated in much(prenominal) circumstances that, if lying, painting would readily result. But also, according to Hume, a full assurance i.e., a proof-based on the satisfaction of these qualitative conditions is not forthcoming, since there has not been a sufficient number of conjoinings of qualitatively good individual miracle-testimonies with the miraculous objects of those testimonies (Hume, Enquiry, 56,58). Thus, in defense of the thesis that the testimony for a miracle does not amount to a proof, he points out that there have not been enough witnesses who have these qualifications. Although Hume does not in Of Miracles stand for his list of qualifications of a good witness, it is reasonable to think that Hume built up these criteria by his honoring of tender nature in many circumstances quite independently of miracle reports. As Hume points out in the substructure of his A Treatise of Human Nature, We must glean up our experiments in this study of human nature from a cautious observation of human life, and take them as they appear in the common course of the world, by mens conduct in company, in affairs, and in their pleasures (p. xix). In view of Humes weigh scales consisting of opposing frequencies of constant conjoinings-now with those of the allegedly go against natural law on the one side and those of testimonies and their objects on the other-the implication of Humes assertion is that the scales are heavier on the side of natural law (i.e., natural law descriptive of the physical, non-human world). Response to Anti-thesis Recall that Humes first a posteriori argument holds that there is in fact no miracle proof because history gives us no miracle certify by (1) a sufficient number of (2) highly educated, (3) socially out standing, (4) patently honest men who have (5) lots to lose by lying and who are (6) situated in such circumstances that, if lying, exposure would readily result (Hume, Enquiry, 116-117). I will examine each of these criteria of credible testimony individually and with reward to our miracle test- case, i.e., the alleged resurrection of Jesus. 1. No sufficient number is not sufficient for