HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 


Hume seems to contradict himsef by sayign that he holdsnaturallaw might change and yet he says the reason mirlces are false is that it does not change. He contradicts himself as well by sayin that experience can change

If nature is not uniform then mircles are possible. Is that true?

Uniformity and absolute uniformity are not teh saem thing.

Beleivers in an interventionist God never argue that mricles abolish naural law or soften it, or that it is unknown and undiscocerabl enaturl laws at work for we don't know all the laws.


The big bang can be seen as an aboslute unfiromity. It is a once off eent hat nboody has seen and will not be repeated. Some sayt hat if miralces cannot happen for things are uniform then that oculd not have happened eitehr.


We observe in the universe that there is a law of cause and effect. A cause is what counts for something's existence. For example there is no flu without viruses.

Hume says an is does not imply an ought. One problem with that is you could say that a person with athleic prowess does not mean tehy should have it. And what aobut disposigions such as being unfriendly or friendly?

Hume noticed that though peole calim to take free will as in uncaused actions or self-created actions from nothing seriously teh reality is that they do not. They are lying to themselves. However the execptun is how each person thinks he or she has this free will and takes that seriosuly but does not afford the same prividlent to anybody esle.

Hume said that we cannot assume that every action is somehow selfish or basically self-centrued. He advises to go by "the obivous apperance of things." That is to say that if a man lifts a bomb to save otehrs and gets blown up then use him as ane xamle of selflessness and caring.

It is said that Hume's assertion that miracles should be believed not to happen for logic says we must nto believe is putting the matter outside of science. The idea is that science is striclty abou testing adn then thinking and not just thinking adn reasoning. Ayer writes that the view that "scientists do not employ inductive reasoning. They advance hypotheses, submit them to teh severest tests that tehy can devise, adn adhere to them so long as they are not falsified." He says this is nto fully accurate.

For Hume, goodness is not a duty but a habit. The good person is not wone who does the duty but the one who does good withotu thimking almost as a force of habit.

Hume can be read as saying that generally speaking we shoudl take nature as uniteruttped. Bur surely general allows exceptions? Not always.

Is Hume saying nature does not allow miracles for it rolls on unchanged therefore mrialces do not happen? The only way out of the circle is to admit that evidence says miracles seem possible. Is that a matter for history? Or philosophy? Or science? Beleiver ssay it is history for you can only go by what peoel testify to and the evidence they rpesent.

John Lennox says that Hume will not admit there is an observation that would prove his view that miracles are not bleievalbe to be false. Thus his scpeitcal view is non falsifiable. The problem with that

Chrsitians say that belief in a creator gives you a satisfactory reason for trusting nature to work reliabily.

For Kant morality is only morality when good deeds are done otu of a sense of duty and obligation. Hume thinks that duty does not make an act truly good.



hume contradicts himself on experience for he sasy our expeirence is teh sun will always rise but we have to admit we don't know if it will rise to mrrow for it might not. he cannot then say that our uniform experiene refutes miracles for miracles contradict our experience.


‘Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others –the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it –if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.’On this argument, Hume’s assertion that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature calls into doubt the usefulness of identifying a miracle as a violation of law. Finally, it is useful to make a distinction between the miraculous and the supernatural. Professor Lennox has made the point that, while the miraculous will always be supernatural, the supernatural will not always be miraculous. If you believe in a creator God, then the entire creation of the universe is a supernatural event; but it is not miraculous, because the whole process is held together by natural law. The paranormal, ghosts, poltergeists, spirits and spirit possession are