I understand why Hume’s argument is not in principle defining miracles out of the equation or begging the question, but it seems that Hume does still practically define miracles out of existence.
Maybe that his point, but let’s presume for the sake of argument a miracle really did happen, would Hume still say your being unreasonable for believing the miracle?
If so, then it seems to me if your reasoning leads you to never allow yourself to believe in an unlikely yet in principle possible event, then it seems to miss something?
I'll refer to you the next post in this series, where I kind of talk about this question. Long story short, Hume is more concerned with arguing if it's ever wise or rational to believe a miracle happened (he answers no) than whether it's possible that a miracle happened or is ontologically possible.
"It could be the case that numerous bunnies are resurrected every year in the forest, but no one is around to see them, and there’s otherwise no evidence of this occurring. Even though this event would be miraculous and true, it would be unwise to believe it, because there wouldn’t be good evidence, as it’s unwise to believe in things without evidence!"
I understand why Hume’s argument is not in principle defining miracles out of the equation or begging the question, but it seems that Hume does still practically define miracles out of existence.
Maybe that his point, but let’s presume for the sake of argument a miracle really did happen, would Hume still say your being unreasonable for believing the miracle?
If so, then it seems to me if your reasoning leads you to never allow yourself to believe in an unlikely yet in principle possible event, then it seems to miss something?
I don’t know if that makes sense.
I'll refer to you the next post in this series, where I kind of talk about this question. Long story short, Hume is more concerned with arguing if it's ever wise or rational to believe a miracle happened (he answers no) than whether it's possible that a miracle happened or is ontologically possible.
https://open.substack.com/pub/joerjames3/p/cs-lewis-misunderstood-and-misrepresented
The example I use:
"It could be the case that numerous bunnies are resurrected every year in the forest, but no one is around to see them, and there’s otherwise no evidence of this occurring. Even though this event would be miraculous and true, it would be unwise to believe it, because there wouldn’t be good evidence, as it’s unwise to believe in things without evidence!"
I don’t why I just saw this, but thank you for responding, and thank you for the clarification!