Miracles

[philopker]

Does anyone here believe in miracles? If so, what do you make of Hume's argument against miracles, or, more specifically, against rational belief in miracles? Obviously you don't find it convincing, but I was wondering why? I myself think it is a very powerful argument, which is why I am curious.
I mentioned this in a response to another thread but it was so off topic and buried in other responses I don't think anyone read it.

[Jman28]

I do not believe in miracles, although I think you should define miracles when asking that question. What makes something a miracle rather than just a highly unlikely event that occured?

I am not familiar with Hume's argument, and I don't want to Google it. I'm gonna just guess that I agree with it and then hopefully go to sleep.

[TStoneMBD]

i believe in miracles because i have encountered some personally.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe in miracles because i have encountered some personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too personal to share?

Also, what is your definition of a miracle?

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone here believe in miracles?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper410/stills/en83om01.jpg

i do.

[TStoneMBD]

if you would like to hear about this please pm me as id rather not talk about it in open forum.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe in miracles, although I think you should define miracles when asking that question. What makes something a miracle rather than just a highly unlikely event that occured?

I am not familiar with Hume's argument, and I don't want to Google it. I'm gonna just guess that I agree with it and then hopefully go to sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The problem of miracles
One way to support a religion is by appeal to miracles. But Hume argued that, at minimum, miracles could never give religion much support. There are several arguments suggested by Hume's essay, all of which turn on his conception of a miracle: namely, a violation of the laws of nature by God. One argument claims that it's impossible to violate the laws of nature. Another claims that human testimony could never be reliable enough to countermand the evidence we have for the laws of nature. The weakest and most defensible claims that, due to the strong evidence we have for the laws of nature, any miracle claim is in trouble from the get-go, and needs strong supporting evidence to defeat our initial presumptions. In a slogan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This point has been most applied to the question of the resurrection of Jesus, where Hume would no doubt ask, "Which is more likely – that a man rose from the dead or that this testimony is mistaken in some way?" Or, more blandly, "Which is more likely – that Uri Geller can really bend spoons with his mind or that there is some trick going on?" This argument is the backbone of the sceptic's movement and a live issue for historians of religion. For a critical and technical (Bayesian) analysis of Hume, see John Earman's Hume's Abject Failure – the title of which gives you an idea of his assessment. For a rebuttal of Earman's interpretation of Hume, see Robert Fogelin's A Defense of Hume on Miracles."

From wikipedia entry, "David Hume"