The Meaning of ‘miracle’ – Part 3
Swinburne’s description of Aquinas’ concept of a ‘miracle’: Aquinas wrote that a ‘miracle’ in a wide sense is any event brought about by a rational agent in virtue of powers greater than normal human powers; and so many events brought about by demons or angels would count as miracles. But in a strict sense, he … The Meaning of ‘miracle’ – Part 3
The Meaning of ‘miracle’ – Part 2
Let’s start with Swinburne’s description of Aquinas’ concept of a ‘miracle’: Aquinas wrote that a ‘miracle’ in a wide sense is any event brought about by a rational agent in virtue of powers greater than normal human powers; and so many events brought about by demons or angels would count as miracles. But in a … The Meaning of ‘miracle’ – Part 2
Miracles and Antecedent Probabilities
Victor Reppert responded succinctly but thoughtfully to my posting on ECREE (the principle that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”): There is a sense in which I agree with the ECREE thesis, it is just that I don’t believe that there is any objective way of proving that one set of antecedent probabilities is rational and … Miracles and Antecedent Probabilities
Victor on Weird Stuff
Victor Reppert has been kind enough to reply on his Dangerous Idea blog to my comments on his earlier posting. I’m replying to his reply, which will evoke a counter-reply, which will get a counter-counter-reply…until one or the other of us has some real work to do and has to break it off. Sigh. That … Victor on Weird Stuff
Skeptical Approaches to Miracles – Part 4
In Miracles and the Modern Mind, Norman Geisler summarizes Spinoza’s argument about miracles: 1. Miracles are violations of natural laws.2. Natural laws are immutable.3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws.4. Therefore, miracles are impossible.(MMM, p.15) Geisler raises four objections to this argument (MMM, p.21). Before considering any objections, however, we need to determine whether … Skeptical Approaches to Miracles – Part 4
From Keith Parsons: Response to Steve Hays
Steve Hays asks whether atheists contradict themselves, saying, first, that no evidence would convince them of a miracle, and, second, that God is to blame for doubters’ lack of belief because he could have performed spectacular public miracles that would have convinced anybody and everybody. If I declare that nothing will convince me that a … From Keith Parsons: Response to Steve Hays