Hume's Posteriori Argument against Miracles Is not Valid Essay

Humes Posteriori Argument against Miracles Is not Valid - Essay ExampleThe a posteriori cable states that even if miracles were a possibility according to evidence, they in fact, consent never occurred (Johnson & Anthony, 72). Humes a posteriori dividing line has some merit from a general perspective, they are problematic from the perspective of an individual miracle test-case, i.e., the alleged resurrection of Jesus. I will argue that although the offshoot of Humes three a posteriori arguments succeeds in masking 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 vicenary requirements of a miracle proof, and he argues for the (implied) thesis that the quantitative requirements of a proof have not been satisfied (Hume, Enquir y, 116-117). For Hume, the following qualitative conditions are required for a good individual miracle-testimony the witness must be highly educated, socially outstanding, patently h peerlessst, have lots to lose by lying, and be situated in such spate that, if lying, exposure would readily result. alone 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 anatomy 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 defend his list of qualifications of a good witness, it is reasonable to think that Hume built up these criteria by his ceremonial of human nature in many circumstances quite independently of miracle reports. As Hume points out in the introduction of his A Treatise of Human Nature, We must collect 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 room behaviour 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 violated 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 attested by (1) a sufficient amount of (2) highly educated, (3) socially outstanding, (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 respect to our miracle test- case, i.e., the alleged resurrection of Jesus. 1. No sufficient number is not sufficient for