Wednesday, May 7, 2008
"Contrary" to what Hume says about Miracles
According to Hume a miracle is “a violation of a natural law”. Thus, miracles do not exist since there cannot be a violation of a natural law without the natural law being adjusted to fit the violation. Violation, however, could mean contrary to. Thus, one can say a miracle is “contrary to a law of nature.” If miracle is defined with “contrary to” rather than “violation” then miracles can occur. Miracles are occurrences caused by nonnatural forces and hence, contrary to natural laws. This is a different way to think about it. It is a bit less cynical than Hume's thinking that miracles do not exist. To learn more about this go to....http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I see just what you are saying here how you can not violate something thing that is natural. i never really thought of it that way.
i think that his definition of miracles is wrong. i mean, how do u no if soemthign is a violation o f nature? even though there are some things u CAN predict about nature, sometimes there are surprises that i think are a part OF nature. for instance, evolution.. was that a miracle.. a violation of nature because it was soemthign unexpected and out of the ordinary? no. its not a violation, i think that everythign that happens, happens because nature intended it to happen at that certain point. although its ahrd to explain..it still happened...
Post a Comment