What is Hume’s argument against miracles?
David Hume, in Of Miracles (Section X.
of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding), claimed either that, because a miracle would be a ‘violation of the laws of nature’, miracles are impossible or that one cannot have a justified belief that a miracle occurred..
What are miracles According to Hume’s definition?
Hume defines a miracle as an event that (a) is caused by God (directly, or indirectly through an ‘invisible agent’) and (b) ‘violates’ (or ‘transgresses’) a law of nature (76, 77).
What is a miracle in the philosophical sense according to John Mackie?
In his essay, Mackie follows David Hume’s argument that while it may be logically possible for a miracle to occur, it is seemingly impossible to prove that one has in fact occurred. Mackie asserts that miracles are a special instance where one may not simply take another’s word for it that the event has occurred.
What are the three fundamental laws of nature?
Science includes many principles at least once thought to be laws of nature: Newton’s law of gravitation, his three laws of motion, the ideal gas laws, Mendel’s laws, the laws of supply and demand, and so on. Other regularities important to science were not thought to have this status.
What are the four fundamental laws of nature?
According to the present understanding, there are four fundamental interactions or forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction.
Can the law of nature be violated?
Laws of nature are (a subclass of the) true descriptions of the world. Whatever happens in the world, there are true descriptions of those events. It’s true that you cannot “violate” a law of nature, but that’s not because the laws of nature ‘force’ you to behave in some certain way.