Talk:Of Miracles

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of religion

Not circular, just definitional

Hume's argument is not entirely circular, but his definitions determine the conclusions. He defines "miracle" as something we can't believe, and it inevitably follows that anything we believe happened was not a miracle. It becomes an epistemological argument. He hasn't proven that miracles don't exist, only that we don't believe in them. — Randall Bart 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, he doesn't define a miracle as something that we can't believe (where do you find that?). Secondly, his aim is indeed epistemological — to show that we can never have grounds to believe that a miracle has occurred. You seem to think that that's a criticism. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First person experience

Should that criticism even be allowed to remain? I added the who? tag, but first person experience of miracles is commonly known as an anecdote and is not really evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSix (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the Shroud of Turin was a 14th Century fraud anyway it seems a bit strange to have a reference to it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.198.52 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]