Abstract
This paper explains that David Hume argues that there can be no evidence for miracles, in spite of the many claims made for miracles throughout historical and religious literature; if there were evidence for a "miracle", then it would no longer be a miracle but rather just a new scientific fact. The author points out that miracles are mostly based on claims and testimony and not at all on hard evidence; the more outlandish the claims, the more probable it is that the testimony is false even if the witness is credible. The paper stresses that, according to Hume, belief in the miracles in the Bible is an extension of this human psychological need.

From the Paper
"Therefore, the laws of religion cannot be classified as the laws of nature. Miracles are in most cases permitted by the laws of religion but not by the laws of nature. Hume does not deny the efficacy of religion, but he does want to distinguish the laws of religion from the laws of science. The laws of science are based on direct human experience, which is backed up by the experiences of others and found to be consistent and reliable over time. Few people know someone who has experienced a "miracle," let alone having experienced one first hand. When we do experience a "miracle" first hand, there is usually a scientific explanation for the experience."

Tags:scientific, claims, false, consistent, psychological

Abstract
The paper shows Hume's opinion that life after death does not exist, and neither do miracles. The writer discusses the influence Hume had on Kant and the differences between them. In conclusion, the writer explains how Hume protects himself from criticism of the church by stating that religion is founded on faith, and not on reason. The writer posits that the reason Hume left the Presbyterian seminary was because he knew he could not positively answer the final question before ordination: "Do you believe in God?"

From the Paper
"But how does Hume know that no one has ever been seen alive after having been seen to be dead? After all, there are plenty of reports of raisings from the dead in the Bible. Presumably Hume thinks all those reports are false. But how does he know that? It looks as if he is saying that they must be false because miracles just don't happen. In this case what Hume is using is circular logic. Miracles don't happen because there are no such things as miracle thus miracles can't happen.

"Hume puts no faith in human testimony either. In his opinion no amount or quality of human testimony could be sufficient to outweigh the negative evidence. He seems close to saying that you can know in advance, and without looking at any of the favorable evidence, that all miracle reports are false "

Tags:immanuel, kant, religion, presbyterian, faith, christianity

Abstract
The paper begins by stating Humes' definition of miracles, which helps to narrow down exactly what the author is considering by using the word "miracle". It then goes on to discuss Humes' consideration of evidence, his argument pertaining to the passion of surprise and wonder involved in miracles, his comments on the "beginnings" of miracles, and lastly the contradictions of miracles among various religions. The author's conclusion blends Humes' argument with her own beliefs, forming a debate of faith and reason in relation to miracles. The paper quotes the text extensively.

From the Paper
"If the knowledge is not readily available to prove such a miracle wrong, it would become ever more possible that it could gain followers and support. Once such a thing is proved to be false, everyone, even the strongest believers, come to agree. For instance, when the world was proved to be round, even though throughout history everyone believed it to be flat, the evidence and sources were undeniable. Likewise, with miracles, every phenomenal event has probably stemmed from humble and innocent beginnings, that develop into an uncertain force to refute."

Tags:beliefs, philosophy, reason, spiritual

Abstract
This paper offers a thorough, logical analysis of both sides of the argument for and against the existence of miracles. The paper opens by explaining that throughout history, numerous people have witnessed or experienced rare events that they believe to be inexplicable by the laws of nature. Many of these individuals are so appalled and dumbfounded by these events that they assume that a "greater" or "higher" power is involved. The paper cites "On Miracles" by David Hume, "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis, and the film "Religulous" by Bill Maher. The author arrives at the conclusion that miracles do not exist and are a false claim set by religion in order to account for the unexplained events that occur, thus giving people comfort from the shadows of the unknown. The paper finishes by stating that the true definition of a miracle is an event that occurred with a favorable chance outcome - nothing more and nothing less.

From the Paper
"The mathematical process known as probability explains the chances of something happening, and why some things are more probable than others. You will most likely live to see tomorrow, but possibly you won't? Indeed. You probably won't win a million dollars, again this is possible. Another fine thing we have is cause and effect, which can work hand and hand with probability. Now here's a scenario: Joe reaches into his pocket and $20 falls out without him noticing; the chances of this happening are slim I doubt Joe loses $20 every time he reaches into his pocket. Now the chances of someone walking to the place Joe had been (not very unlikely) and finding Joe's lost money, a miracle? No - the cause (Joe in his pocket) led to someone else (effect) having $20. These two elements, if you will, lead into a coincidence. Miracles are false accusations; no force other than gravity caused you to get the money. When a coincidence happens, people tend to link that to a greater being rather than just pure chance: The truth of the situation is when cause and effect and probability join in to create the coincidence. Thus, pure chance allowed Joe to find $20, not God nor a miracle."

Tags:philosophy, miraculous, Religulous, Maher, agnostic, atheism

Abstract
In this paper the writer outlines the philosophical views of David Hume and Rene Descartes. The writer points out that quite simply, Hume believes that humans experience what can be properly called knowledge and he rebuts the notion that human testimony about "miracles". The writer notes that Descartes may be the father of modern philosophy, but his work is riddled with inconsistencies that make him hard to follow. In any event, the writer explains that Descartes cleaves to a view that knowledge and truth may - or may not - come from an external and omniscient power.

From the Paper
"Hume, as is well known, is an inductionist (it may be said that he is an empirical inductionist) and he holds that knowledge is derived from experience. Hume does not believe that human beings can, by mere inference alone, divine that one pool ball hitting another pool ball will move the second of the two. A priori reasoning will not lead us to the truth of things; that can only be found by examining and observing. He adds that anything that is not proved by experience is mere custom or habit (or superstition). In the end, we can only arrive at true knowledge through inductive reasoning; in other words, we derive fundamental principles from the observation of particular facts or instances."

Tags:philosophy, descartes, hume

Abstract
This paper examines the possibility of miracles from a purely philosophical point of view. It centers on the consideration given to the theme by David Hume. Though an avowed atheist, and dismissive of the Christian faith, Hume provides a robust, penetrating and unbiased examination. The writer discusses that the startling outcome is that Hume does allow the possibility of miracles, even though other Enlightenment philosophers were busy belittling the miracles of Christianity as superstition. The paper shows how empirical skepticism allows for miracles. It then goes on to show that even deterministic science must come to conclusion that miracles are possible, even though scientists themselves are steadfast in their denial of it.

From the Paper
"Hume was the first to tackle the question squarely, in the chapter titled "Of Miracles" in the 1948 publication An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. From purely metaphysical considerations the conclusion is that miracles are indeed possible. We must remember that the core of Hume's philosophy is empirical skepticism. The materialists, weaned on the mechanics of Newton, were pronouncing outright miracles impossible. The laws of motion and gravity were successfully explaining the heavenly bodies, and hardly anyone suspected that they were not universal in scope. Newtonian mechanics has no place for miracles. This was almost a proof of the invalidity of miracles. But the proud determinism that they espoused had no philosophical foundation to it. Descartes, and the Cartesians, tried desperately for a metaphysics of materialism, but to know avail. Finally Hume overthrew all the strained Cartesian designs, and advanced a devastating critique of reason, as applied to empirical sense data, to deliver objective knowledge. It turned Enlightenment thinking on its head. Knowledge is not possible, and yet miracles are."

Tags:superstition, enlightenment, belief, faith, Hume, positivism

Abstract
David Hume was an undeniably brilliant philosopher who, at times, suffered in his writing the inability to adequately express his actual philosophy and thoughts. One of his most stunning arguments was, in actuality, a refutation of the Skeptics, a movement started in great part by Descartes, who attempted to convince Aristotelian philosophers that our experiences with the world are based solely upon our senses and, as such, our senses and thus our perception of the world and reality can be deceived. Therefore, the skeptic encourages us to question the validity of trusting only our senses for our knowledge of the world. While Descartes' and the other Skeptics' arguments were and continue to be the stuff of philosophical cliche (the "prove you exist" argument) the truth is that, as David Hume points out, there is no real point in pondering whether or not we actually exist. The fact of this futility is proven in the very real problem in that if we assume that the universe is the individual creation of just the "I", then the very same person is also taking on the role of God, which, according to Hume and others like him, is an impossibility. The ultimate end of the Skeptics argument, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, is that it is possible that all of us are the creation of some one person's imagination and that, as such, our existence is subject to the whims of one person's perception of reality and the self. Hume's argument, that such skeptical investigations of reality and the actuality of the self is pointless, is one which has a great deal of validity. But, there are counter arguments to his counter-argument, and in the interests of a full academic exploration of his philosophy, it is necessary to explore some of those arguments. It is the purpose of this paper, then, to examine three problems found in Hume's argument and to demonstrate that the exploration of reality from a skeptical point of view is nothing more than an exercise of thought, one that can ultimately only lead lead to psychological diagnoses of breaks in sanity rather than a treatise on our actual reality.

Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that David Hume was seen as a very prominent figure in history both in the Scottish enlightenment and in Western philosophy. The writer notes that interest in Hume's work in recent years has become more centered on the philosophical writing that he did, but it was for being a historian that he originally gained some notoriety. The writer points out that much of what Hume had to say became closely involved with others as they examined their own philosophies and ideas. This made Hume's work much more significant because so much of what he stated and believed in was studied by others and expanded on as time passed. The writer concludes that Hume meant a great deal to many philosophers, and this is part of the reason that his work is still so alive and important today while the work of others of his time have not been as closely studied.

From the Paper
"In David Hume's article on empiricism, he attempts to show how some things that people believe to be real are the product of false knowledge, and there is a difference between things that people perceive to be true and things that actually are true. Hume's theory is that only things that can be proven, such as mathematics, are absolutely true. Other things may seem to be true because something usually happens related to something else, but even though this seems to always be the case there is room for argument in that it does not have to be the case every time, simply because it has happened that way in the past. Hume believes that the only truth is mathematical truth, and that there are many other things in the world that people falsely perceive to be true because they have not subjected those things to an examination that is serious enough to show otherwise."

Tags:Humean, philosophy, empiricism, History, of, Great, Britain

Abstract
This paper looks at commentaries on Hume's works by Vladimir Price called "The Ironic Hume." The writer lays out a few suggestions of ironic interpretation not mentioned by Price, the purpose being to get them on the table for philosophical discussion. It begins with a few comments on the intellectual freedom of the eighteenth century. This was the time in which Hume lived, a time in which someone like him, a man with integrity, wit, and great intelligence, had to carefully choose his words. The writer then examines Hume's Of Miracles, turning to "The Natural History of Religion", and the "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" (with the heaviest focus on this last). The paper focuses on certain passages which appear to feature more than the usual Humean ambiguity. Price s ironic interpretations are then examined, which provide material which the the writer claims grasps Hume s intent.

From the Paper
""Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man" (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (ECHU) I.4: 452). So David Hume advised anyone who would venture into the deep and perplexing regions of abstract philosophy. Indeed, those trying to interpret Hume's own writings, particularly when they relate to religious issues, must stay on their toes. After reading these works, one realizes that Hume's writing style is deceptively simple. Packed within each sentence, each phrase, and often, each word, are meanings within meanings, deep irony hovering over lighter irony, and grand, major points made around smaller, but no less important, staccato-type ones. Certainly, after delving into the challenges lying deep within Hume's religious writings, philosophers might feel the need to relax their vigilance and engage in some business of purely ordinary human gratification. Hume would encourage them to do so."

Tags:miracles, dialogue, religion, natural, history, ambiguity, ironic