Emg827
发表于 2025-3-23 11:37:56
What is Involved in Knowing That a Miracle Has Occurredf we also had good reason to believe it “… was a non-repeatable as opposed to a repeatable counter-instance to a formula L which we have on all other evidence good reason to believe to be a law of nature” (p. 20).
institute
发表于 2025-3-23 17:21:25
Conclusion: Miracles and Contemporary Epistemologystion but one that can be limited at the outset. It can be limited partly arbitrarily, but also because much of the contemporary debate in epistemology is, I think, neutral with regard to the type of evaluative and normative question about the possibility of justified belief in miracles that we have been examining.
ANTIC
发表于 2025-3-23 20:11:29
http://reply.papertrans.cn/43/4300/429921/429921_13.png
巡回
发表于 2025-3-24 00:27:42
Hume’s Account of , Reasoningks that all reasoning about matters of fact, any . reasoning, is a species of reasoning founded on the relation of cause and effect. Our judgments concerning the reliability of testimony, whether to ordinary or extraordinary events, should therefore be consonant with the principles of reasoning from
蚊帐
发表于 2025-3-24 04:19:08
Miracles and Reasoning Based on Experiencef such testimony and not just a “probable” argument. We should, therefore, expect an argument to the effect that past experience, when properly considered (i.e. considered in accordance with the above principles), completely supports a judgment against the credibility of such testimony. In accordanc
一再困扰
发表于 2025-3-24 06:30:40
http://reply.papertrans.cn/43/4300/429921/429921_16.png
PATHY
发表于 2025-3-24 12:27:33
http://reply.papertrans.cn/43/4300/429921/429921_17.png
Individual
发表于 2025-3-24 18:07:34
Miracles and the Logical Entailment Analysis of Causations so despite Hume’s explicit acknowledgement that they are possible. . any knowledge (i.e. justified true belief) of miracles is likewise impossible. I have shown this latter impossibility to be intrinsically connected to the former.
庇护
发表于 2025-3-24 21:25:56
Are Miracles Violations of Laws of Nature?[., p. 114]. Yet if my explanation of Hume’s argument thus far has been correct this premise actually plays no significant role in the argument. The premise is really a gloss for the underlying supposition that one cannot have an “impression” of a supernatural event. Because no such impression can b
Mortal
发表于 2025-3-25 00:15:06
http://reply.papertrans.cn/43/4300/429921/429921_20.png