Why Hume's Argument Against Miracles Fails
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 кві 2021
- David Hume wrote a short essay called Of Miracles in 1748. Hume vigorously argued that one can ever rationally believe a miracle claim because there is always more evidence that one did not occur. Michael Shermer has gone so far as to say that “I think his treatise against miracles is pretty much a knockdown argument. Everything else is a footnote”. But is it really? I argue that Hume's argument proposes a false dilemma.
Blog post: isjesusalive.com/hume-miracles/
Source: How to Think About Miracles, Tim McGrew, Lecture - • "How to Think About Mi...
Resources: William Adams, An Essay on Mr. Hume's Essay on Miracles, drive.google.com/file/d/1plzR...
Hume's Abject Failure, John Earman, amzn.to/3sH2MMA
Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, Craig Keener, amzn.to/3tU1KNA
Miracles, Tim McGrew, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/mi...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Help support me: Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Photo of Nicodemus: Description
English: Jesus (Jonathan Roumie) and Nicodemus (Erick Avari) in episode 7 of The Chosen.
Date 4 July 2019, 17:20:23
Source www.press.thechosen.tv/?pgid=...
Author The Chosen press photos (press.thechosen.tv)
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Love the Thumbnail
It's the Bonk Boi
I don't know if I can ever top this thumbnail.
@@TestifyApologetics pls do more thumbnails with the doggo I beg you 😭
@@TestifyApologetics i love them to much 🥲
Doge..
@@TestifyApologetics 🤣
C.S. Lewis gives a similar argument in his essay Miracles. He argues that the reason we see a virgin birth as miraculous is precisely because it is scientifically impossible, not because we are ignorant of it.
I like Lutheran Satire’s take on this in the video Connal and Donnal meet Richard Dawkins. Dawkins states that people don’t just rise from the dead, “and the Irish twins state “yeah, that’s kind of the point.”
that video was pretty funny
I had a long debate with someone about the nature of miracles.
Here's what he said
"Prove to me that miracles are not natural events.
Let God perform a miracle in a repeated scientific test."
To which I replied
"If a miracle were indeed a product of natural power it ceases to BE a miracle. One cannot assume naturalism when examining the case for miracles, or risk arguing from assumptions. And if God were to indeed perform miracles simply for the simple whims of His own creation, who is truly God, and who the subject? "
Ultimately, said fellow did not understand the definition of a miracle, for his next question was for me to define a miracle.
I asked why He would start a debate about miracles without knowing what a miracle was. And if he was simply asking for my definition, he should've done that before making erroneous claims about miracles
Yes, if they were repeatable we'd just think it was some sort of natural law. Also, God doesn't just jump on command.
"One cannot assume naturalism when examining the case for miracles, or risk arguing from assumptions."
I would argue that one cannot assume naturalism in any sort of discussion with theological ramifications. God is almost by definition a supernatural being. If you limit your argument to naturalism, you've already assumed him out of existence from your first principles. Everything else is just covering your butt with circular reasoning.
@@TestifyApologetics In this instance, it also sets up the scientific method as the source of truth over God himself. He isn't God if he is subject to his own natural laws which he put into place.
Naturalists when a being that is presumed to have infinite power doesn’t have to conform to the general “laws” of physics:
This actually brings something to the table I feel is worth pointing out: the “laws” of sciences are not absolute. Newtonian physics was eventually proven to be inaccurate, and yet we still referred to them as the “laws” of physics. Why? Because they’re not actual laws or even concrete. They’re observed patterns we expect things in the future to conform to. When things don’t conform to them, that doesn’t actually mean it never happened, what it may actually mean is that we need to change those “laws” or acknowledge them for what they are: trends that we observe and expect to reoccur. Again, using physics as an example, once relativistic physics became the norm, people didn’t deny Einstein’s theory of relativity because it “broke the laws of physics” because what was actually happening was that it WAS the laws of physics. Now, apply this to a supernatural being who shaped the very fabric of the universe and designed the properties of the universe (such as how gravity, energy, sound, etc. work). How do they affect the laws of physics? Simple: the laws of physics are theirs because physics is theirs. They do not break science or the laws thereof, they control them, and thus the laws of the universe remain intact, it’s just our expectations that are shattered. For instance, if an astronaut, whose ship, launch, and journey operated off of Newtonian physics and thus never took relativity into account when planning (we’ll assume this causes them to have a surplus of fuel rather than a lack simply for the sake of theory, and if this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s based off of an event from Project Hail Mary), and returned sooner than expected, defying all previously held convictions about the laws of physics, are we first to assume that this astronaut’s story is false, and not that our expectations were off or were not met? Our expectations have little to no matter in the truthfulness or untruthfulness of this event, so why do they matter in regards to miracles?
Very happy Mike shared your channel! Excellent content.
Who are you talking about? Mike Winger? If so, where?
Hume also begs the question when he says that "firm and unalterable experience has established these laws" in the sense that they have never been violated (i.e., a miracle has occurred), because in order to make that claim, he must first reject all miracle claims.
Furthermore, another philosopher contemporary with Hume (whose name I can't remember) points out that our "firm and unalterable experience" of the laws of nature is also largely based on testimony.
But then Hume only accepts the testimony saying no miracles have occurred while rejecting the testimony that says miracles have occurred. Why? Presumably because the testimony that no miracles have occurred concur with his own personal experience. But he says he would accept that testimony and reject the testimony in favor of miracles EVEN IF he saw with his own eyes what appeared to be a miracle.
Hume also don't consider the fact that specific evidence can outweigh background knowledge in our assessment of probability (note that the probability theorem had not been developed yet in his day).
To your first paragraph:
It doesn't beg the question because as you and the content creator of this video failed to understand is that there is no false dilemma here primarily because Hume gives his argument on miracles against the testimony of miracles, not experiencing the miracles themselves. Hume would say you should believe the miracle happened to some capacity if you witnessed it yourself, but the testimony of a another person isn't sufficient for you to believe in a miracle. Hume is making the claim that you should epistemically value what you observe rather than what people tell you happened which you did not observe. And this is a very intuitive premise.
The second paragraph affirms my thought that you have no idea what Hume is talking about, mainly because Hume's "firm and unalterable experience" is not testimony, he is referring to the knowledge of the first person empirical experience: the sun doesn't come up in the morning because you had given firm testimony to yourself that it would, the sun comes up in the morning because you had experienced it personally over and over.
"But he says he would accept that testimony and reject the testimony in favor of miracles EVEN IF he saw with his own eyes what appeared to be a miracle." Wrong again. If someone had experienced something with their own eyes, it would become a part of their "firm and unalterable experience", hence would no longer be a miracle, a violation to the laws of nature.
I have a bachelors degree in statistics and Hume's contributions to the preliminary study of probability is significant.
I would add that even ones own experience should be doubted under extraordinary circumstances. Intersubjective experience and repeatability are still neccessary.
If I am witnessing a flying cow singing pop songs and playing a tuba...it is more likely I am on drugs or losing my mind than there really is such a thing.
@@briancolwbut if 500 people stood next to you at that same time of the sighting, and a week later all of them- by your best estimate showing no signs of natural or induced insanity- agreed that they saw precisely the same thing you saw, down to the same minute details, and there was no possibility of some modern tampering methods like a gas attack or technological hoax, would you then be inclined to accept a miracle occurred?
C.S. Lewis had an analogy. To paraphrase:
If I put $10 in my drawer today, and $10 tomorrow, then the third day I open it up and find $5 dollars, what do I conclude?
A. The laws of mathematics have been broken.
B. The laws regarding theft have been broken.
If natural order be interrupted, that does not mean science has 'broken down' or that we should toss away empiricism.
In fact, if you measure out perfectly how a shot in a pool game will put the 8-ball into the corner pocket, take the shot, and it doesn't go in... not because you messed up your calculations, but because I stick my hand on the table and stop it.
What do you do: do you then throw away the Newtonian physics calculations that let you predict that shot, or do you say something (or someone) intruded?
Taking what Paul wrote ("Why should anyone think that it is incredible that God raised the dead?), let's extrapolate further:
If God already has created the universe, why would any think it extreme that He could reach into the system He created?
If there was a God why not just stop Jesus dying in front of everyone? So all the Romans can see the miracle... but no he raises him from the dead in front of no one. Jesus doesn't carry on as before does he? No, no of course not. He is seen by some women and fucks off and never seen again and through hearsay we're supposed to believe in miracles? Bollocks.
Sure, if you presuppose magic, anything could happen.
But it doesn’t.
@@moonshoes11 of course, because magical fantasies is what atheism is made of.
@@Tzimiskes3506
I’m sure you don’t understand what atheism is.
@@moonshoes11 I'm sure that as soon as the true definition of athiesm is stated, you would immediately write your typical script ranting on about how it isn't a belief...
Internet atheists have always been very predictable. You are no different...
*In response to Hume's argument:* According to everything I know, it would be impossible for the universe to exist on its own and it would be impossible for life to begin without an intelligent designer, so it is entirely appropriate for me to believe that it would be more miraculous for the universe and for life to exist without God. In Hume's words, the falsehood of God's existense would be more miraculous than the fact that God exists.
Very good!
It's funny because Hume wrote an entire book concerning these kinds of arguments, the "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". If I remember correctly, he addresses exactly this argument at one point.
How exactly do you "know" that life and the universe cannot exist on its own?
There doesn't seem to be too many examples to draw a logical inference...
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 How can you “know” that the universe cannot have come into existence on its own? Easy. That’s because we NEVER have *observed* complex things forming themselves.
Now before you claim “but macro evolution”, we do NOT have 100% certainty that macro evolution is true precisely because we cannot observe it as it happens, since it supposedly occurs over thousands to millions of years (which makes it hard to prove).
What we HAVE observed is that EVERY complex thing (skyscrapers, cars, planes, guns, computers, video games, etc) ALL have an intelligent designer behind them. But biological life is MUCH more complex than even our most advanced computers. So, it stands to reason that since we can observe that complex things are never the result of random chance and time, then that means that it’s highly unlikely that something such as biological life or even the universe formed itself based on random chance and time (or in other words, formed itself without an intelligent designer).
@@lakerfan0243
So we have never observed complex things forming themselves. Are you sure? Have you never laid on your back on a summer day, watching the clouds?
I have to correct you about evolution: it does not claim change is the result of random chance - it is the result of natural selection, which is not random.
Yes, it seem unlikely that life popped up its complexity. Yet, we have observed formation of nucleotides (which are complex molecules) under natural conditions spontaneously.
The designed universe explanation poses another big question: who designed the designer?
It seems as though the main problem with Hume’s argument against miracles is an ontological one, in that he is essentially defining miracles to be impossible to exist. And the problem with his argument would be clear even from a naturalist point of view. Suppose that I live amongst humans thousands of years ago and we have never seen an albino person be born. So we conclude that the natural law is that no humans have red eyes or any of the other characteristics of albinism present. One day, an albino person is born. This would contradict the natural law, so would we conclude by Hume’s argument that this albino person doesn’t exist and that our eyes deceive us. Now, this obviously isn’t a perfect argument, as the Humean could appeal to the fact that upon deeper inspection into humanness and albinism that this is a purely natural phenomenon, based on genetic factors and so forth. However, there are two problems with this. For starters, if we are to appeal to some higher up level of humanness to explain albinism than the one previously understood to humans when they believed albinism not possible, why couldn’t we appeal to a higher level of reality to explain miracles too. Hume is thus begging the question that only the natural is part of reality, when the very question we are concerned with is whether both the natural and supernatural are parts of reality. This could be additionally extended to the relationship of physics and metaphysics. The second problem would be this: typically arguments for Jesus and the Gospels are examined in a somewhat legal sense. We do not require a rigorous statistical analysis that Caesar Augustus lived the ways physics might to determine the validity of Newton’s laws, but instead rely on individual and important pieces of historical evidence, writings, and witness testimony. So to offer a thought experiment, suppose a murderer is on trial. A number of witnesses to the murder then describe the murderer leaping over a building and fleeing. There are too many witness at too many angles for it to be a singular delusion, and there is no known technology or laws of physics to explain how this man could have leaped over this building. The question is this, at what point, based on witness testimony, would we consider the witness testimony to be more valid than our understanding of the natural world.
I truly hope and pray that your number of subscribers grows exponentially.
You combine simple animations with brilliant narration. Thank you for the work you do. I've been to read through the sources you provide which has been extremely helpful.
Peace and grace to you bro!
Thanks. If it is good, it is grace. I still feel like I have a lot of room for improvement.
@@TestifyApologetics I'm a AV Editor and producer. One thing I've learned is that when it comes to content like yours - less is more. And I'd say you're right in that sweet spot.
When it comes to apologetics, you definitely have your finger on the pulse of finding good recourses and developing good arguments.
I'm currently putting together an into to Apologetics curriculum at my church. Trying to find a good balance of sources for people to read and content to watch. Watching debates can be helpful, but can set a poor expectation of what our conversations will look like with people who are Christians. Your videos are short, to the point, and sourced. It's exactly what I've been looking for as a recommended recourse as a spring board to a richer understanding of the reliability of Scripture.
As far as I remember, Hume’s argument against miracles is not to say that miracles aren’t possible; rather, he is making an epistemological claim rather than a metaphysical claim. That is, he claims that if there is an event that seems like a miracle (or seems to contradict the laws of nature), the rational thing to think always will be that you have made a mistake, or that something has gone wrong and you are mistaken. So to say that Hume doesn’t “prove” that miracles don’t exist is a strawman, since (if my memory serves me right) that isn’t something he argues.
Did you watch the video?
Thank you for this. So glad I found this channel. God is using so many Christians to defend, and teach others in regards to our faith. This channel is a blessing, God bless.
Yep, I hope you're having fun in your echo chamber.
Keep them coming bro. Your videos are a blessing
I enjoy your videos, the information is concise and easy to understand. The graphics are also enjoyable and amusing.
Dude. . . . this was deep. I like the cut of your jib, sir.
Great video! It will be very useful for me to share with others on the subject of miracles.
Greetings from Colombia.
Loved the video, and huge up for the photo of Jesus and Nicodemus from the Chosen
I was just glad it was Creative Commons. Can't wait for tonight's episode!
@@TestifyApologetics Don't you mean EPISODES!! haha
@@MPaulHolmesMPH oh man. That was an awesome surprise. Cutting onions just thinking about the ending. 😭😭😭
This is why I love your channel.
The definition of miracles as a "violation of the laws of nature" is also suspect, since it would only be a violation of the laws of nature if something within nature was producing the effect. But theists hold that these are the instances where God instead wills something directly should come about.
So the laws of nature just describe what normally happens but that doesn't mean an act of agent outside of nature can interrupt it to bring about an effect. In other words if I have 10 dollars in my drawer and one day I notice their are only 5 were the laws of mathematics violated or did a theif come in and steal it?
It seems that you are a fellow CS Lewis fan
@@vaskaventi6840 I like how he explains things.
Yep, Laws of Nature are tendencies
The p.r campaigns throughout the centuries sure aren't subtle about what becomes emphasized and from whom.. its almost like Hume was a distraction from all the liberation theology coming out of Scotland at that time.. and the fact that paley has been reduced to a wager and a watchmaker argument is.. almost an argument in and of itself. The man was a proper philosopher and theologian. You do a fantastic job with these videos. Short and poignant is a fitting medium for our time. Godspeed good sir!
Excellent video! I love how clearly you've laid out the counter-counter-arguments: to argue against miracles based on the laws of nature is to say "nothing can exist outside of the laws of nature because that would mean that something exists outside of the laws of nature"... circular reasoning abounds! lol
this video is so good i had an audible reaction! Good stuff
What Hume fail to see, is that the whole physical reality is unique and extraordinary. Nothingness should logically be the the default state the status quo. The fact that our physical reality exist is as ground breaking and impropable as a miracle . Therefore the existence of nature's law on the contrary of what Hume think, in fact entails a miracle
Nice video man. well explained.
thanks
I like the fact that muhammad was white in the video
Acording to Muslim sources Muhammad was white. Identifiable in a crowd by his whiteness. Ie " that white man over there ". Saying Muhammad was black was punishable by death.
@@markhorton3994and ramses 3 was a ginger
@@onecowstampede9140 I don't know about Rameses 3. Or care. The ancient Egyptians were not black as evidenced by wall decorations some showing noses like hatchets. However they intermarried with their neighbors some of whom were black.
That first quote from Hume would be worthy of one of the benighted denizens of Reddit
I wonder what was Hitchens reaction when he met God after death.
Why would you think he did?
Great video 👏
Very well done vid!
A violation of the laws of nature would also imply to a singularity or at the event horizon of a black hole. I guess the universe is a miracle after all.
i would have mentioned William L. Craigs prior probability argument. That one works very well.
it wouldn't be a miracle if it was a common occurrence 🤔
William Dembski has excellent rebuttal to Spinoza's critique of miracles in his book; Intelligent Design- the bridge between science and theology.
The thing is biblical miracles requiring suspension of natural order is a self-refuting argument. In contrast to Hindu theology, where miracles are never inconsistent with the natural order. It is just that miracles are operated by higher laws which we humans cannot understand. The natural laws we humans are capable of understanding is a very small portion of the greater set of natural laws which is comprehensible to higher being like Gods.
Why is it self refuting
@@Andres.Duran.J Tell me what part of the statement 'Jesus turned H20 to C2H50H' is obvious.
Heads up Testify - Immaculate conception in Christian tradition does not refer to Christ's miraculous conception but rather Mary's conception where she was conceived naturally yet without the stain of original sin.
Yes I learned that recently from listening to Brant Pitre after I recorded this. I should know better, I was baptized and had 1st communion in the RCC.
Great video
This is a really good argument against it
When a athiest takes a shot in a game of pool say "look a miracle". That allows for an explanation of what a miracle is. An agent has suspended the natural order and inserts a new event into the system. Now apply upward.
Anyway, the Immaculate Conception isn't about Jesus, but about Mary. According to Catholicism, she was conceived immaculately, without the Original Sin
Yep, I mentioned that in another comment. A little Protestant ignorance on my part, but I watched a video by Brant Pitre recently that straightened me out.
This reminds me of "Donall and Conall meet richard dawkins" 😂
Haha that video had me rolling! I hope that Lutheran Satire never stops making videos.
@@pigzcanfly444 "No-one has ever risen from the Dead *IF YOU DON'T COUNT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE RISEN FROM THE DEAD* I think I'm onto your little trick here Patrick." - Donnel
"Yeah, yer a sneaky little secularist Patrick"-Connel
@@ScotsThinker that last part where Dawkins is frustrated about them calling him out was hilarious.
Dawkins- "I implore you to point to one thing that I believe without evidence"
Connall & Donnall- "evolution."
Dawkins- "Darnit!"
Evolution has countless evidences
@@austinlincoln3414 no it actually has massive wild speculations, which assert taxonomic lines exist where genetically they have been disproven. I would recommend that you read the documented minutia regarding whale evolution and the time it would take for just 2 beneficial mutations to occur in any given population from an animal like "Pakicetus" or otherwise. The same would be the case across the board for every phenotype if not much worse based upon their gestation periods. It's fallacious and sad that people have been so heavily indoctrinated that they actually believe that non living material came alive and then proceeded to advance to something better when we have proven that each and every genome is degrading over time. That's one way to buy your way out of debt. Burn your savings and pretend that the debt doesn't exist.
I know this isn't your main point, but I love a good dig at Muhammad or Joseph Smith in contrast to how amazing Jesus is.
And the main point is really helpful. Thank you. I'm just a beginner in philosophy, so it's helpful to watch concise videos dealing with philosophical challenges to Christianity.
I think the miacle being described only as a violation of nature's laws is wrong...sure, for some yes, but for others eg returning sight& healing the body are simply something happening that is possible and probable, just that we as humans do not yet have the ability to achieve them...all within the bounds of physics (just not limited by time and current knowledge)
Ironically, it’s like Paul saying he did not know sin before the law
It’s true
I love this channel more for adding Cheems on the thumbnail
Didn't Hume also make an argument against Causation? How can someone who rejects Causation come to any conclusion?
Bruh
Hume does not reject causation, he just shows how it is a notion that is not logically provable. We have a good idea that there are close links between events which we call "causes", however, we are assuming that a universal link exists between two events just because we have never seen X not follow Y, but that absence does not prove the contrapositive.
It’s not a question of whether this or that miracle (say, the resurrection of Jesus) actually happened; it’s a question of whether there could ever be enough evidence to convince us that it happened. Hume says that there couldn’t ever be enough evidence. Personally, I think that, in saying that, he pushes a good argument too far; I think that it is theoretically imaginable that there might, in some very remote circumstances, be enough evidence to convince even the most sceptical (even Hume himself!) that some particular miracle actually happened.
I think Hume’s point is that such a huge mountain of evidence would be required, that, in practice, it could never be enough. So Paley’s argument (starting at about 5:12 in the video) is sound as far as it goes, but it’s entirely theoretical. There has never been such a mass of evidence for any proposed miracle, and it’s hard to see how, in practice, there ever could be.
So the challenge to anyone who claims that this or that miracle actually happened is this: OK, but where’s the evidence that comes up to the standard which Paley has set?
Crickets....
Read "Bridges for Honest Skeptics" 4th edition. It's free on the internet. It has 2 documented miracles in there.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 If you suggest that I read a book of religious apologetic, then I respectfully suggest that you need to explain why. Over the years, I’ve read many such books, starting with C S Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’. So the obvious question which I ask myself is: why read another one? Of course, you may think that the one you recommend is especially good, but, surely you can’t expect people to go to the trouble of reading it unless you say more.
@@willstevens4289 it's not really apologetics, it just lists a lot of different miracles and things that happened to people. it's only the top of the iceberg in regards to that as well.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 It looks as though I can’t get this ‘free’ book without disclosing credit card details. Are you sure it’s not a scam?
Kind of strange that every religion has its miracles and revelations... all of them are true then?
No, we have reason to doubt a miracle claim under the following circumstances when it is reported only long after the alleged event happened or at a great distance from the place where it happened, or when the report would have been permitted to pass without examination, either because such examination would have been impossible in the nature of the case (say, with regard to an event that would leave no public traces) or because the local population would have had no motive to inquire into its truth or falsehood (because, for instance, it fell in with their own prevailing religious prejudices). And it is also reasonable to doubt a miracle claim when no remotely worthy end could have been served if it had really happened-no deep questions about our origin and destiny answered, no striking teachings confirmed, no divine commission endorsed.
If Jesus, currently dead, could heal people, even from a distance, why did he not heal everyone everywhere?
I think you are fair in representing Hume's argument and I can even see your argument against Hume. Where I think you jumped the shark is your claim that 12 apostles were martyred for this belief. Even the most ambitious apologist don't claim this because they know they can't produce the evidence necessary to back that claim up. Sean McDowell, an apologist, who is an expert on the martyred apostles won't go beyond saying there's good evidence for 2 of the apostles at best. For example the claim that Thomas was martyred comes from the gospel of Thomas but so does the claim that he is the twin brother of Jesus. So you can't claim one without dealing with the other. The claim that the apostles were martyred is dubious at best
It is just an illustration for the sake of argument, the historicity would be a different argument altogether. Paley is referring to the apostles of course, but he argues for the evidence of Christianity throughout the rest of his book. It seems clear they were all willing to risk their necks though all things considered, at the very least.
@@TestifyApologetics but that's my point. It isn't clear they were willing to risk there necks. Refer to the debate/conversation Sean McDowell had with Paulagia they go into depth on this topic I think you'll be surprised at what Sean was will to concede to Paulagia on the evidence of the martyred apostles it isn't 12, it isn't even half that.
@@vinnygiggidy It is true that not all of the 12 were martyred. Many more were who were witnesses but not of the twelve, some documented.
Also just because we do not have evidence of the martyrdom of a person does not mean that they were not martyrs. Nero killed every Christian he could catch. He didn't record the names of his garden torches at an infamous party recorded by a non Christian historian.
@@markhorton3994 yes but the reason we don't count them is because they weren't witnesses to the risen Jesus the martyr argument is used as evidence because the claim is ,the reason they were willing to die for there beliefs is because they really did witness the risen Jesus. And the evidence for that is very shaky at best.
@@vinnygiggidy No, I wouldn't be surprised. There's good evidence for the deaths of Paul, James' the brother of Jesus, James the brother of John, and Peter. Outside of that, there's a lot of traditions that I wouldn't say are totally false but just not as verifiable. That said, I think if they were willing to preach the gospel at all they were willing to risk their necks.
Paley's argument falls short on several points:
1. Testimonial evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.
2. Has anyone died willingly for something they believed to be true, but was in fact mistaken?
3. There is no evidence outside of church tradition that the disciples of Jesus died for their belief.
Given that this is ancient history we’re talking about, church tradition is what we’re going to have to work with. You’d be surprised at how much ancient history we lack. Case in point, we have but one off hand reference for the destruction of Pompeii.
@@TitusCastiglione1503
@stuart Shumack
What we have to work with is woefully inadequate compared to the destruction of Pompei. That is why scholars separate legends from facts and don't take miracles seriously.
But let's imagine it's not history: if 12 guys insisted (and they were not lying) they've met Elvis yesterday, would that be evidence? Yes. Should we believe Elvis was still alive? Until we get more evidence, no!
Maybe I'm not understanding here but it seems like you're arguing for gods existence by miracles and arguing that if God exists we ought to expect miracles (against a natural backdrop).
I'm not arguing for God's existence here I'm arguing against Hume's argument, which is that even if God exists, one can never rationally accept a miracle claim based on testimony.
Excellent vids bro. I’ve plugged you on a couple discord servers. Peace 🙏☦️✝️🙏
Thanks!
Taking non existance of the supernatural to argue against God is circular. If the universe was created, that itself is supernatural. Since God created the universe He can do lesser miracles.
Hume's argument is a fallacy.
Seeing something happen many times does not prove that it will happen next time. Seeing only white swans does not prove that there can not be black swans. Turns out that there are black swans. I have seen one.
Doesn't this presuppose that the universe was even created in the first place? Also about the swan analogy lets replace it with fire "seeing only fire being lit up my matches, charcoal and other materials that produce it does not prove that fire cannot be produced by shooting it out of one's hands through magic" how does it sound now? Theres a big difference between that and your swan analogy, miracles are on a whole nother league its not just an occasional rarity, its an astronomical one.
@@karlazeen Your fire analogy assumes that humans must have access to the supernatural for it to exist.
You do have a point. To disprove the supernatural requires disproving God. Or vise versa. To assume that the supernatural does not exist is to assume that God does not exist. That is the circular reasoning referred to.
@@karlazeen The Big Bang theory says that the space time continuum had a beginning. That idea is strongly supported by observation. All attempts to get around that have failed miserably. Saying that something existed before the space time continuum does not change the fact that it started.
Dr. Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase Big Bang in disparagement argued againt it because it seems to require some form of god. That is a personal force outside the universe capable of acting on the universe and choosing to do so. Cosmologists who want to avoid saying God say uncaused cause. Logically that is the Only way that the universe could be here. That does not determine which God but does eliminate the millions of gods who are inside the universe, Norse, Greek, Canaanite, Shinto etc.
Oh, testify, 'immaculate conception' does not mean 'Virginia birth I'm surprised to hear you make such am obvious mistake
I addressed that already in previous comments. As someone who grew up in the Catholic church until I was like 10 I get that I should've known better.
But we DO witness miracles every day. Men can become women at will!
"Nature proves that miracles are impossible."
Yeah, that's the point of miracles: they're impossible without God.
second
You might have had the Christians convinced with this video. But I thought it was poor, though you did do fine research into the history of Christian apologetics. For one, you failed to show why Hume's argument is a false dichotomy. In order to show this, you need to show that there are more than more than two entities to the antecedent in a conditional statement. In other words, you never showed what third option there is between "nature", what Hume defined as the sum of observations and relations between observations from our first person experience, and "miracles" an idea that violates Hume's definition of nature.
What it seems you are trying to say here is not that there is a false dichotomy but a tautology. But a tautology would only be the case here if Hume's argument referred to the rejection of first-hand accounts of miracles, but you know that this wasn't his argument: He argued against the testimony of miracles, not the existence miracles themselves. His argument is epistemic, not ontological.
I know that his argument epistemic. he's saying we should almost always side with the law of nature (because they are constantly confirmed) vs a miracle report because it's always more probable that someone is mistaken or lying than nature's laws are violated. I'm saying that without the stable backdrop of nature, no sign could even stand out so you can't use nature's laws as evidence against recognizing miracles. Elsewhere I argue that iIf the facts can be accounted for without difficulty on the supposition of M but not, without great implausibility, on the assumption of ∼M, then they provide significant evidence in favor of M. (M=miracle)
@@TestifyApologetics "Elsewhere I argue that iIf the facts can be accounted for without difficulty on the supposition of M but not, without great implausibility, on the assumption of ∼M, then they provide significant evidence in favor of M. (M=miracle)"
This seems correct to me but I believe you didn't state the next step of your conception of this argument because the next step would be hard to be convinced of. That would be P2.
P1: If some M can be accounted for without difficulty, then we should believe in M.
P2: There are some Ms that can be accounted for without difficulty.
C: We should believe in some miracles.
However, Hume's definition of a miracle, and I'd argue, the very occurrence of a miracle is de dicto unaccountable.
"I'm saying that without the stable backdrop of nature, no sign could even stand out so you can't use nature's laws as evidence against recognizing miracles."
Did you mean "with Hume's stable backdrop of nature?" Because the way you said this does not make sense.
Say, instead of "without the stable backdrop of nature, no sign could even stand out"
You said, "with Hume's stable backdrop of nature, no sign could even stand out", the empiricists would say "Yes, that's why the argument works".
Feyerabend destroyed him years later
And Adams, Campbell and Douglas destroyed him while he was still alive. Sadly it didn't receive much publicity.
@@TestifyApologetics didn't Thomas Reid attack him as well?
06:03 You didn't 😂😂😂😂😂
About time someone noticed
@@TestifyApologetics At your service!
Rofl that was amazing. The Dillahunty dodge!
@@hurrikanehavok7313 Your level of cognitive dissonance has to be really high to unlock that skill (with all due respect to Matt)
3:50 it's nonsense,the quran is hopelessly awful,I dragged myself in 10 months to chapter 9,and it has 114 of these,one more stupid and poorly written than the other
Before I became a Christian I looked into Islam first and let's just say I was not impressed.
@@TestifyApologetics I can hardly perceive an intelligent person converting to it
@@TandemSix I believe it was Antony Flue who once said that "Reading The Bible should be likened to a reward whereas reading the quran is like penitence"
@@lukesalazar9283 you absolute genius,I was searching for the quote for months
@@TestifyApologetics Hey, great video, are you planning to share your testimony soon?
first
"Bottom line, if there is a God, and he wants to make revelation clear, then miracles aren't improbable, they're bound to happen at some point in history."
Got it, so you debunked Hume with the most blatant, egregious, absolutely textbook example of begging the question that I have ever seen.
Headline: Hume's argument fails. Actual claim: Humes' argument is "Overrated." Clickbait.
No. It fails. Badly. Period. Not click bait
@@TestifyApologetics throughout the video you simply called it overrated, if memory serves. Overrated typically means not as good as widely believed or claimed. It does not typically mean abjectly bad.
@@gravytopiclike you said "it does not Typically" typically is in most cases; usually.
This leads to 2 cases
something can be overrated but not bad.
Something can be overrated and bad
E
Hume was not an atheist, but I'm curious to know what he would think of modern-day atheists who make "naturalism of the gaps" type arguments to explain the existence of would-be miracles. At first glance, this might seem similar to the sort of argument Hume makes, but not really. If you're going to accept that, say, Jesus turned water into wine but deny that this can be known to be miraculous, this completely flies in the face of Hume's argument. If naturalism is compatible with spontaneous acts of creation, the existence of an afterlife, etc. that completely obliterates the distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism that critics like Hume endeavored to make. If naturalism is compatible with any sort of event, what does "naturalism" even mean anymore?
...or otherwise deny the uniformity of nature to posit hitherto unknown natural explanations for seemingly nature-breaking events.
You quote Hume correctly, but miss that he argues that TESTIMONY is sufficient to establish miracles. There are other kinds of evidence, if for example we were to find the garden of Eden but unable to pass a sword wielding angel as described in Genesis, that would be evidence oprn to examination. If you see the angel and tell me about it, and the angel can no longer be seen, there is no way for me to examine the evidence myself.
This is terrible. Can you demontrate the existance of magic?
prove to me that you're no fool, walk across my swimming pool.
Isaiah 7:14
"The Lord himself will give you A SIGN:
👉🏻The VIRGIN will be pregnant. She will have a SON, and she will name him IMMANUEL."
That is why it is called "Miracle" or a "Sign" from God. If it is from nature alone, then it wouldn't be called a miracle. it's just "Natural" and boring and no value at all.
Concerning the argument from Tim McGrew (I hope I spelled it right), the ohrase IN A RELIGIOUS CONTEXT is key here. It is fairly obvious that, in a religious context, miracles cannot be dismissed since the existence of a being who can perform miracles is assumed through presupposition. However, outside of religious context, it can be dismissed.
So the question remains, when people are talking about whether miracles can happen, which context are they using?
Many Christians will admit that some of the fantastical miracles of the Old Testament (such as fire falling from heaven or the sun standing still) do NOT occur today. My question would be, why not? If the bible is assumed as true, then there is no reason why the miracles of old cannot occur today as they have previously. So, where are the prophets proving the existence of god by calling fire from heaven? When it comes to miracles that people will agree have never been witnessed to have occurred at all (outside of the Old Testament), then we have a problem. As no one today will admit that they have ever witnessed a fireball fall from heaven ever, and that it certainly doesn't happen today, there are two options as to why. Either the god of the Old Testament prefers not to perform such outstanding miracles anymore for whatever reason, or the miracles never occurred to begin with. One explanation requires a presupposition while the other is based on observable evidence (or lack thereof).
So testify's argument comes down to testimony. If multiple people that you trust will die for a claim, then it's true.... There is a man named Sia Baba in India that millions believe that he performed miracles, and would most likely die for that belief. Does this count as proof?
Life is a miracle if God made life that’s a miracle if matter made life that’s a miracle.
By Humes theory we observe life comes from life than life from matter would then be more miraculous then if a living being (God) created life- Using Humes position we can say the miracle of life is from God.
Similarly with the resurrection the choice is either Jesus is God or 500+ people all hallucinated the risen Jesus at different times and then suddenly the hallucinations just stop.
Since we already have God in the picture from the life observation above it is then less fantastical if Jesus is God as opposed to hundreds of people sharing a hallucination.
So using Humes theory Life comes from God Jesus resurrected and is God.
Thanks for your help finding miracles and God Hume.
You mean magic?
Come on, now….
Grow up.
No u.
@@TestifyApologetics
I’m not the one who believes in magic.
Keep commenting, you're boosting me in the algorithm. Also I made a video where I address the distinction between miracles and magic. You might wanna look it up.
@@TestifyApologetics
What you will always fail to do is demonstrate miracles occur.
You can’t demonstrate the resurrection.
Besides you’ve made a circular argument.
@@TestifyApologetics
I’m not worried about boosting the algorithm.
I am curious whether or not you care if your beliefs are true,
And if you can demonstrate any god claims?
When I first came to this channel I thought its author was genuine, this is one of the things which makes me question that. He draws a UFO as something that is not real, as something that people hallucinate or lie about at the same time as he is trying to refute that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Maybe he does that to appeal to a normie viewer who has never paid attention to the UFO topic so they think the topic is bonkers? In any case, UFO phenomena has rock solid evidence behind it, the only reason why some people don't think it is real is because it flies in the face of our understanding of reality. For those people no amount of evidence is enough. Anyone who isn't ready to accept UFO phenomena is real based on evidence isn't ready to accept Christianity is true based on evidence either.
One can't possibly become a Christian because of evidence for Christianity and decide UFO phenomena is fake based on evidence. The author of this video either
1) did not decide to become a Christian based on evidence and rational thinking, rather he convinced himself Christianity is true because he wants Christianity to be true
2) lies about UFOs
3) doesn't know anything about the UFO phenomena
By the way, the so called aliens in UFOs are demons. UFO phenomena js demonic. This is blatantly obvious from the facts for anyone that has digged into this topic.
Christ was son mary not david ..miracle of allah which Christians misunderstood to god
You're wrong.
So Allah had the audacity to deceive hundreds of millions for more than 600 years,make a impossible to debunk case that Jesus was crucified and then he dares to send people to hell ?
@@lukesalazar9283 true
@@TandemSix from christ time his 4followers knew
@@hillaryochieng9352 yes,they knew Jesus was raised from the dead
4:19 - But your God essentially did write with white chalk on white board for everyone except select few, way less than one human in a milion. Even if disciples had an experience of bodily risen Jesus, rest of us has contradicting accounts full of fantasy elements (you might believe that your God could be funky enough to raise multiple Jewish saints on the day of crucifixion, but such event being missed by everyone except one especially Jewish gospel writer is implausible) where niche religious expectations of their authors are conveniently met. To make it worse, apostolic letters which are way better source for actual events than gospels (whichever they mention or contradict), fail miserably at referring to risen Jesus as someone with touchable body.
3:20 is not only non sequitur, but also hilariously false. "Miracle" is simply "nominally improbable event brought on by a deity". If someone tells you that God Almighty helped them to find their car keys, them being delusional is way more probable than their claim, because delusional people are plenty, there are no gods with established existence and even popular gods lack reasons to help with mundane human affairs.
Accepting this bollocks reasoning puts you in laughable position of accepting every insane miracle claims as at least reasonably probable.
"religious contexts" is just put there to make it sound less insane I guess? I can _ad hoc_ construct arbitrary religious system that will reform any imaginable "context" into genuine "religious context"
3:39 - Anachronism. There is almost no bound to falsehoods that uneducated people seemingly inevitably believe, even today. In ancient times "uneducated" was social standard.
"Born of the virgin" claim was relatively unremarkable for that time.
Origen had no problem claiming (while defending Christianity against pagan critique) that things that happened around Jesus are not insane because the same things happened in pagan myths and legends, so...
5:15 - if I didn't know by now the extent of Christian hubris I wouldn't even catch that this is supposed to be description of the fate of the apostles.
At best you have sketchy sources for martyr death of few of them, which would be exactly the fiction you want for Jesus followers
But more importantly, where does one draw from the absurd claim that officers (!) of religious cult that was marked as hostile/dangerous (necessary for persecutions) would be left alone just because they recanted?
"We have this leader of tens/hundreds problematic people in our hands, but he said he won't do it anymore... okay, I guess we can trust him. This can't backfire in any way and surely won't encourage other people to accept their faith"
This is some B movie logic