How NOT to Think About Miracles...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- Did David Hume destroy the argument from miracles once and for all? No, not at all. Hume said we are never rationally permitted to believe human testimony about miracles. Ever. But his reasoning lead's one to fall into an epistemic trap door in which they can't get out.
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.c...
you believe because you have seen - blessed are those who believe yet have not seen
Hmm Jesus did not mean what you think he meant there. God bless you.
@@sabhishek9289 what did he mean, then.
@@sabhishek9289”You are ignorant, God bless you.”
So educated and helpful!
@@perfectstranger1152 Jesus blessed all the other people who did not see but chose to test and believe the testimonies of the disciples and witnesses who did see Jesus resurrect from the dead.
@@MINDWARDEN Sorry about that.
Cynicism pretending to be skepticism is a belief system that one needs to be skeptical about.
Similar to nihilism pretending to be realism
You two have described modern atheism quite well without actually naming it.
Fascinating
@@airkami”I’m just being real bro. Nothing matters trust me. We’re just meatbags floating through space. No I don’t get enough sunlight how could you tell?”
Atheist: "If God is real why doesn't he give us a sign?"
God: *does miracle*
Atheist: "Well, miracles are impossible, so therefore those miracles didn't happen, therefore God can't exist"
Me when I hear this from afar: 🤦♂️
Wrong "us"
Don’t forget the “more intellectual than thou” language and the petty insult followed by calling you delusional.
@@RabidLeech.It's a consistent formula. 😂 😂 😂
The real question is how is one able to determine that a miracle has happened.
We should pray for and help the Apostate Prophet an ex-Muslim and ex-atheist UA-camr who turned agnostic after his trip to Israel with David Wood because he felt a special connection to it.
I sent him your video on why atheists should (re)consider Christianity on X but he might not have seen.
Yes, but don't rush these things. God can work through the agnostic and the lapsed atheist too (he let David Wood get a prison sentence before he called him).
Lots of people were praying for Jordan Peterson to come, full "Ned Flanders", to Christ when they first caught wind of his lectures on the Bible stories. However, I would argue God has done more through him where he was than where some Christians would like him to be. Dennis Prager joked about a friend of his saying he'd love him to come to Christ but he's too valuable as a Jew.
Wow I always knew Christians were desperate to rely on other beliefs that are different compare to others
@@RoninofRamenOh, by the way the Apostate Prophet's wife just became a Christian again after a decade of atheism after believing God inspired her through Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
One thing that Christians often overlook is that God always made miracles obvious and never chastised people for not believing accounts of miracles. For example, Moses saw the burning bush, and that miracle was only meant for him. He never referred to it to others. Similarly, Jesus miracles were for those present. People were never expected to believe accounts of the miracles, they would be drawn by the stories and could then see new miracles for themselves.
The only account of a miracle that people are called to believe is the resurrection of Christ. That's one miracle for which there is lasting evidence, such as the empty tomb, the testimony of first-hand observers who became martyrs, etc. Noah's flood and Creation itself is also a miracle for which there is lasting evidence, although these are not crucial.
Even for a Christian, it's perfectly fine to discount a story of a miracle if there is no lasting evidence. Such as 'this child saw heaven' or 'this statue bled' etc.
I completely agree with this.
Lasting evidence? What are you talking about? The only "lasting evidence" for the resurrection is the New Testament, and those *are the accounts* . God always expects people to believe the reliable eyewitness testimony of his miracles. Nowhere in the Bible is it ever said that we should discount eyewitness testimony. If we did, we would have to disregard the whole Bible.
you are right. that's why he gifted us with countless miracles through his saints in his catholic church, which we can study to be absolutely sure that miracles always have happened.
Nobody should believe because of scripture alone. If you can, good for you.
But Jesus said himself 'unless you see miracles, you won't believe'.
And so we need the miracles of the saints
@@MeisterEck When Jesus said that, he wasn't paying them a compliment. You are displaying for us in real life how Catholics twist scripture to their own ends. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have not seen [these miracles] and believe." Scripture alone is indeed sufficient as it is the reliable eyewitness testimony of the apostles, who died for their testimony.
@@uncensoredpilgrims Jesus didn't give us only scripture but his own church! How would you have a bible without the catholic church? how would christianity have spread without the miracles of the apostles?
Please inform yourself first...
I’m skeptical of these “skeptics” skepticism. As a skeptic myself, I believe in Christianity and believe it’s the most probable worldview out of all the worldviews out there. I follow where the evidence leads, not dismiss conclusions blindly
"Their skepticism is on the surface . It's for other people's values. About their own ideas they are not nearly skeptical enough."
C.S. Lewis Abolition of Man
@@Michiganman800literally. A true skeptic should question everything, including their own skepticism.
Me too. I was skeptical about Christianity for a loooong time. Had a friend talk to me about it occasionally for about ten years before I came around. I asked so many questions (but not in an rhetorical antagonistic way, I asked actually wanting to know the answer and learn about his faith) and expressed much skepticism. He was so patient with me that I really hope God rewards him exceptionally for that when he goes to heaven.
How is it probable?
Hume: Electric eels don't exist because I've never seen one and everyone knows they are impossible because the water would short them out.
Is that a literal quote or is that applying his logic to another example?
@@philippbrogli779 Sorry about the confusion. That's applying his logic.
For me, I believe they exist based on the testimony of people I don't know but believe to be trustworthy.
@@jerrybessetteDIY Fair point. I do so too.
I was an atheist most of my adult life, up until about 4 years ago.
The atheist belief only stands providing you grant them that one miracle where nothing became everything . I gave up on atheism about a year before i became Christian. It just became unsustainable for me to rationally believe the universe and reality we find ourselves in didn't require a creator. The only thing in the universe we are aware of that can create laws, rules, mathematics and codes is a mind or something that was created by a mind. Stands to reason we are in a creation. God is the uncaused cause. After this the idea that the creator could enter is creation to fix it didn't seem so outrageous to me. Then a kind of road to Emmus moment and here we are. What a ride.
I used to be an atheist also
In the beginning
3 words 14 letters
Praise the goodness of God
There's no serious philosophical position that claims nothing became everything. I really don't understand where theists get this from or why they would claim it's a commitment or entailment of atheism.
@@anthonydesimone502 I was an atheist for most my life and I 100% believed the universe spontaneously came from nothing. That the universe was completely material and completely pointless. I was an extremely well read atheist. Almost all my friends and family are atheists and they believe something similar, although they all have different philosophical positions.
@Cross-Carrier atheism isn't even committed to materialism. Even though most atheists are materialists, there's no necessary relationship there.
There's no scientific or philosophical reason for assuming the universe came from nothing. All materialist positions I've come across just hold that the natural world is eternal.
Why would you have believed it came from nothing?
Hume also rejected cause and effect, which undermines his whole argument about miracles. He said that just because you see something happen one way over and over again doesn't mean you should assume it will happen that way the next time. But his whole basis for rejecting miracles is that they go against what we see happen time and time again. Part of me thinks he was just trying to be a philosophical troll.
Matt Dillahunty is Hume reincarnated
@Pyr0Ben
Matt is even dumber than Hume. I’ve seen him lose debates to Muslims, and all you have to do to beat a Muslim in a debate is let them talk.
I think it was more of a "technically" response to his own work. For example: if I said, "we can always assume x because x constantly happens, it is the most probable." I could respond to myself that it is not IMprobable that something else COULD happen, but as something else hasn't yet happened, we can only assume x is the only thing that can occur when doing y.
@@Pyr0Bennah, Hume was at least intelligent, Dillahunty is not.
@@Pyr0Ben Hume is way more sophisticated than Dillahunty.
Learned about Hume in my highschool philosophy class, that one argument made me drop it.
I'm glad I took a philosophy class but I really never want to study philosophy seriously. All that class taught me is some people put a lot of thought into very crazy ideas.
High school!!? I wish we had a philosophy class in high school. That closes we came was a class about old world religions.
How is this comment 11 days old
And no one lost anything valuable that day, there's nothing wrong with his argument and the video does nothing to show it's wrong.
@@BygoneT thanks for your complete non engagement with argumentation.
Bro, you are setting up an epic argument and i am ready for it... ace content, subscribed
The reason why philosophy in high school is so boring is that instead of studying Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas we study nerds like Voltaire or Hume
🤢
Honestly I had a class were we studied Rene, Spinoza, Nietzsche Kant and eventually Hume.
Hume left me so disappointed, he is the equivalent of a party popper but of philosophy.
At least you had philosophy classes, we have "civil ethics" and I cringe so hard at it cuz it tries to masquerade as relevant philosophy
Honestly though, Hume is extremely important for epistemology. Guy literally destroyed empiricism (though he tried to solve the problem by reverting to customs and habits, which is pretty stupid and logically invalid, so yeah).
As INSANE as Augustine was, at least he's interesting. Hume is literally just like "nah, I don't think so, and I refuse to elaborate."
The big bang itself is by definition supernatural, and therefore a miracle
The big bang is the earliest point in time where the laws of physics make sense. It is not nothing exploding as is commonly misunderstood. We don't have a clear idea of what happened before the big bang, in fact it may very well be a category mistake to speak on a before the big bang.
Look into the block universe for more information on this idea.
No, and the onus is on you to prove it. Everything that occurred during and immediately following the big bang is notable because they do follow the scientific laws we understand. We have no knowledge of what preceded the big bang, so you can't really argue that the events before it are supernatural either.
@@polygondeath2361 You know the definition of the word supernatural right? You said no, then just completely agreed with everything I said in the same breath.
@@jhonjacson798 Right, literally anything outside the natural world would be supernatural. Super-natural. Not natural. Not within the laws of our universe because there was no universe.
@@ransamfast did you bother to read my comment, and if you did what about my comment implies the big bang was supernatural
I remain skeptical of the magic mud puddle (primordial soup) until evidence of the complex chemistry required is demonstrated.
I’m believe in evolution, I think it makes sense. But at the same time, if the bit about life popping up from non-life was true, you’d think it would have happened more than once.
@@John_the_Paul The reality though is that many Christians believe in evolution as well, just that God guided it and it isn't not necessarily totally naturalistic.
@@chrisazure1624 Evolution is just a theory of course, it's not the truth. There's a lot of evidence of course but we don't have proof that it's 100% true
@@chrisazure1624 Facts... As a theistic evolutionist, I am still unconvinced of the idea that life could have arisen naturally. Evolution is about the development of life, not the origin of it. The origin of life would be called abiogenesis, a theory which I (and many others) remain _highly_ skeptical of.
Im gonna be straight with ya.
At this point if they told me they had evidence of primordial soup working, I would assume they were lying.
"Laws of nature" themselves are simply a series of testimonies derived from the experiences of many humans. What can we really know for certain? Pray for wisdom and discernment in all that you do
Your second point was a really good one. If we have to dismiss any event which seems to break the laws of nature as we currently understand them then we could never make significant advancements in our understanding of physics.
This is quickly becoming one my favorite apologetics channels. Keep up the great work.
Your video are refreshing, engaging, extreamly educational, and a blessing to me and many others. Thank you for making these. Keep it up, friend!
From what I can tell, miracle questions could be asking a couple things
1 - Did the event happen?
In the case of witnessing an event, you may be well on your way to saying the event happened. In the case of eyewitness testimony though, you may be unconvincing to others. It could also be worth looking into whether or not you've been misguided in some way too.
2 - What is the cause behind the event?
You may NOT be this far though. If you were an atheist ir agnostic, not presupposing God, you may witness event X and attribute it to a stretch of insanity / hallucination / lying / etc.
God is effectively not on the list of approved explanations, so its not a considered one. Not to say it is incorrect, only to say we wouldn't have valid reason to believe it is.
in other words are you saying that “miracles aren’t god because that’s not a valid option?
@@intercakefederation If you don't already have reason to believe God exists, then you also dont have reason to believe it is responsible for any miraculous events.
This is assuming 2, as in we can already tell the event happened and are now trying to wrap our heads around it.
Hume's argument is literally 'the laws of nature are consistent so I trust (have Faith) that they'll stay the same', therefore with the original statement kept in mind, miracles (extraordinary events that by definition seem to break the Laws of nature) are less probable therefore they didn't happen, This like a basic argument of disbelief/personal incredulity, and completely neglects the fact that eyewitness testimony, archaeological evidence, scriptural evidence (Historicity of The Bible), Christianity become the Largest Religion in the world (via 'The Helper'), prophecies fulfilled, and all the other evidence (which gives the miracle more probability he just decides to throw out the window because 'it's unlikely/a miracle'..), Him saying eyewitness testimony is unreliable is also self-refuting when he himself admits to observing the laws of nature around him being consistent (if someone saw something like a miracle he could only speak to his own experience/perception, and give evidence supporting it and make a judgement of its based on the information availible to him at the time/perception). His entire argument is probabilistic in nature, but a Miracle by nature & definition are probabilistically very rare. It's a terrible argument.
If we reject evidence it makes decision making simple.
Lutheran Satire Donnell and Mconnell are great here.
Just get rid of all the boron and declare it doesn't exist.
When a witness to miracles completely changes their life, ignores all threats to their safety, and is willing to die to give testimony, that is extraordinary evidence. When thousands of people do that all at once, it is compelling evidence.
By that logic you have to treat every religion as being on equal evidentiary ground. Martyrs exist for every religion and everyone does for the miracles they allegedly saw.
jhonjacson has there ever been an event where thousands of muslims (or any non-christian beleif system) who’ve witnessed a miracle and died as martyrs for it? If so, could you give me an example of that?
@@intercakefederation There are not thousands of martyrs that died because they saw a miracle, they died because of their fervent faith that the miracles occurred.
There are, indeed, thousands of Muslims that died because they believed in the miracles attested to by Muhammed, I mean hell they do it TODAY! (suicide bombers anyone?)
Then why aren't you a muslim?
@@jhonjacson798 People start religions because they witnessed God, or they start religions because they want money, power, and women by convincing other people to believe in a lie. Nobody starts a religion to fool other people into believing a lie without expecting an earthly reward. The first Christians did not get rich, promoted chastity, and suffered persecution because they did not seek power. Human nature does not seek suffering for no benefit.
Christianity is unique in their founders got no reward on earth.
wasnt Humm who said that we can never know what the laws of nature were? Lol
He was pretty inconsistent
Kinda yes, kinda no. He showed how empiricism fails to give account of it, but he tried to solve this problem by referring to habits, which is obviously a dumb move.
@@TestifyApologetics less inconsistent than God and biblical contradictions imo
Congrats on of 50k subs
If we can reject extraordinary-sounding claims out of hand because we didn't witness the event, then we have to reject the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and so on. Have YOU ever seen a dinosaur become a bird? I haven't!
"2.) God wants to communicate with us in a way we can know he's talking to us."
Suppose God is a delusion. This would imply that any communication received from God would not be communication from an external source, but an internal source. We can evaluate one's capacity to communicate with the divine by asking questions by asking questions that the God/gods should know but the recipient of their wisdom does not.
For example, what color is my shirt? If God exists, being omniscient, he should know the color of my shirt. But anyone who hasn't seen my shirt should not know this. If God is a delusion then anyone who claims to receive communication from God, like Muhammad or Joseph Smith, shouldn't be able to learn the color of my shirt solely through their connection with the divine.
Fulfilled prophecy.
@@jerrybessetteDIY
1. "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you [Adam] eat from it you will certainly die."
"After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters"
2. "And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you [Abraham], the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God."
Genesis was written anonymously, but both Jewish and Christian religious tradition attributes the authorship to Moses who lived after Abraham.
3. 'Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”'
Preterists claim these verses are metaphorical. Others claim that the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 fulfilled this despite the existence of the wailing wall.
4. Matthew 2:23 refers to a prophecy being fulfilled by Jesus living in Nazareth which is not found in the Old Testament.
5. “Truly I [Jesus] tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
So the Son of Man already came in his kingdom or a couple of disciples are still alive 2000 years later?
@@mesplin3 All of these have been answered lol, use google. Here is a brief summary: 1. Death is not always referrring to physical death 2. This has yet to be fulfilled, and can still be fulfilled because Abraham will be resurrected with every other person 3. The Wailing wall is a retaining wall for the Temple mount so the Temple destruction does fulfill tthis. Also if you came back to your neighborhood and said "They destroyed everything!" and the foundations were left you would not be lying. Hyperbole is not a lie, and to the Jew in AD 70 it would have felt as if no stone was left on another
4. This is likely the summary of statements saying that Jesus would be of low estate, or like you said it could just be a wellknown prophecy of the time not given in the Old Testament
5. In Matthew 17 they see what the Son of Man will look like when He comes, also John later sees a vision of Christ coming in His glory. Christ does not have to arrive for this prophecy to be fulfilled
@@stephenhalfwit-6897 I don't doubt that people come up with answers to explain away dubious prophecies. That's the problem with claiming biblical prophecies as evidence for divinity. For something to be evidence, there needs to be an element of risk: P(X | evidence) > P(X). If apologists can simply backtrack to metaphor or to more dubious claims, then any prophecy within the Bible doesn't risk its status of divinity.
Starting with supposing something is a delusion when it has been witnessed by many is cynicism not skepticism. That point was made in this video. When someone communicates with God they are given specific information not all information, so not everyone who has ever communicated with God knows the color of your shirt.
Love your content, keep it up!
I like that you are taking the Sagan Standard on its face, we both know it is absurd (due to "extraordinary" being subjective) but taking it and then making an objective standard that Atheist would agree to is an argument I find to be very effective. I always go straight (when discussing Hume's argument or Sagan's) to what would make something seemingly unlikely, such as if there were no instances of a thing occurring prior to the claim of it occurring. As you can't without including metaphysical presuppositions make a standard that is fair.
Then using this I combine it with both science and history. I bring up Hannibal crossing the Alps (a favorite of IP's as well) because it would meet the definition in this case of something that has never occurred prior (giving it thus the lowest probability of occurring), then I bring up how little evidence we have of it yet still historians accept it. If the criteria of embarrassment alone is enough to meet the burden of proof, then we must submit that the gospel accounts meet the burden of proof.
The ideal is that all miracles should be investigated
But reality is that No one does this.. But your free to spend the rest of your life attempting to disprove i just went to hell and back.
Religious people must to some degree use their reasoning to see that for other people, they are the ones making the claims, just as any religious person isnt going around wasting their life on arguing against aliens, unicorns ect.
Everyone thinks their miracles are unique and important, but dont waste their life on other peoples miracles.
Hume is more honest here..
I for one would belive miracles if god did them now, but wierdly enough he stopped doing it as SOON as we had riggerious ways to investigate miracles..
Other Christians tell me that god stopped because he didnt want to Force us to belive, but merely to do so freely. Your telling me that it would be logical of me to expect god to do miracles, and since i havent seen one yet, i assume you want me to wait? That would be more honest then most Christians
Guess god played favourites again, so il just wait for my miracle before beliveing
I talk about when one can rationally investigate a miracle and a common sense filter to put claims through in a future video. Hume was given this while he was still alive and could've done better
@@TestifyApologetics most people already apply a "common sense filter", they do what Hume does and begin with what is based on the laws of nature, and whats not (this is just their interpretation of the world of course, and Hume did talk about the problem of induction, while he himself wasnt as consistant with it in other domains) . What would be common sense today is that no miracle Jesus performed would be taken at face value in a court for example, No matter how many people swore it happened.
But that doesnt really adress the other points i made in the comment, but il guess il watch your future video If the algorythm wills it (or god i guess)
The smart big boiis never even consider miracles because they are not dumb babies -- Idk hume or someone maybe
your pacing and speed of talking is perfect in this vid. previous vids ive seen you were speaking pretty fast tbh. great improvements bro
Any chance for an Exodus video? Keep up the good work!
Actually one is coming up soon but it might be a little different than what you might think. I argue for the Exodus but in a different kind of way
Good job. I like this episode!
Thank you
Atheists: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Testimonies: "Whoa this looks like magic or something"
Atheists: "LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE"
The way I see miracles is that most of the time it is a personal revelation from God to you. It is for you and not for others. You know your own mind so if you witness a miracle and you believe it's real then you can be confident in that belief but you can never climb into someone else's mind and live their experiences so it's hard to determine whether other people's experiences are real. But often I think miracles are a form of inner anointment, "Inner anointing is in you for you (1 Jn 2:27) Outer anointing is upon you for others (Acts 1:8) Inner anointing is for my walk Outer anointing is for my work.". They're for your benefit and not necessarily for others. But that's just my opinion.
“Miracles break the laws of nature” yeah that kinda is the definition of a miracle
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Subjective. Who gets to decide what is extraordinary? Do unextraordinary claims require unextraordinary evidence? Both require credible evidence. It can be left at that.
The Humean argument seems to be require induction (inference from past experience) -- the very thing that Hume himself famously rejects.
Hume, like many of his contemporaries, thought they were much smarter than they were.
Thats crazy to hear about the meteorite disbelief back in the day. Thanks for the video!
His argument boils down to considering two alternatives, and concluding that whichever one is more likely *must* be true. Really? Improbable and unlikely events occur all the time. Whether or not one believes in the supernatural, that is really poor and superficial reasoning.
Hume's Anti Miracle argument has become for Atheists, what Pascal's wager is for Theists.
Existence springing forth out of a Big Bang does not count as a miracle?
Considering Justin Matyr and other early church fathers claimed the miracles of other religions were real, but actually done by demons shows a lot about some modern Christians. They’re throwing out the angels and demons nonsense and coming up with philosophical arguments against them now.
I liked the video, but the graphics move a little too fast.
1. If the universe exists, an all-powerful being that exists outside of time had to have made a conscious decision to create it.
2. If an all-powerful being that exists outside of time and can make conscious decisions exists, then that same being can defy the laws of nature and work a miracle at any point in time.
3. The universe exists, unless this is all a simulation or I'm just trippin off that wock.
4. But if this is a simulation or something, then miracles can happen for that reason to.
1 does not follow.
#1 is a presupposition. if the universe exists, it either had an intelligent origin or an unintelligent origin. Both origins require immense power, maybe not all powerful. Both require a cause that pre-exists space, time, and matter. The question is which is more reasonable. I believe it's far more reasonable to conclude an intelligence is behind it. An intelligence can set laws, manipulate energy to things it wouldn't naturally do, solve problems, think ahead.
Your logic basically boils down to if the universe exists, then an all-powerful being exists. The universe exists, therefore this being exists. It's not logically coherent.
@@ratamacue0320 Yes it does. The universe being infinitely old isn't physically possible and the universe can't create itself.
@@preettygoood7774 Have fun trying to demonstrate that.
@@preettygoood7774 to start with, how did you determine that a body-less (EDIT: and non-corporeal) being can exist? How did you determine that a brainless mind can exist? How then did you determine that these things *do* exist? And that they caused the formation of the known universe?
I think the issue here is that someone sympathetic to Hume is unlikely to be moved by this video. Hume's basic point as I understand it is that the regularity of nature is well attested, miracles have at best a shaky track record, therefore p(m|t) < p(-m|t) (where m = miracle, and t = testimony). Whether or not we'd be able to adjudicate a miracle in history granting this doesn't actually tell us whether or not the inference holds (unless we're trying to level a reductio or something, but then that needs to be laid out). In fact, it seems to me the idea that we couldn't know whether or not a miracle occurred in history purely on the basis of testimony is exactly Hume's point (so the point at 1:59 isn't going to land).
Similarly, the proponent is likely going to just reject the idea that the best way for God to reveal himself to the world would be through a miracle in history, as it simply follows from Hume's argument that this sort of revelation will/ should only be compelling to eyewitnesses.
Also, as presented here, nothing Hume says suggests that miracle claims can't be investigated, merely that testimony is not sufficient epistemic warrant for believing that a miracle has taken place. Suggesting that we should investigate miracle claims actually seems to me to endorse Hume's position, as it grants that the testimony isn't sufficient in and of itself.
Further, I think it's a mistaken to infer that on Hume's view, you'd never be rational in thinking anyone has seen a miracle, even one you've seen yourself. Granting that you believe the miracle you witnessed firsthand, when faced with testimony, you are evaluating whether that person saw an event (since you already endorse the miracle). The justification for believing the miracle occurred in this case is not the person's testimony, but your own experience. It's the difference between evaluating whether someone witnessed a miracle given they said they did, and whether someone witnessed a miracle given they said they did AND you know the miracle actually occurred.
To the question as to why we should reject the testimony of others absent witnessing the miracle yourself (around 4:05) I suppose I'm left scratching my head a bit, as the justification was seemingly provided by Hume: because nature behaves regularly, testimonies to miracles are spotty, etc. It's fine if you have some response to this justification, but to simply ask these questions again at the end of the video is to not engage with Hume's argument by my lights.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment, however I find it a little strange that Hume defenders think I don't understand him.
Hume says (Referring to Cardinal de Retz regarding the Calanda miracle) "he therefore concluded, like a just reasoner, that such an evidence carried falsehood on the very face of it, and that a miracle, supported by any human testimony, was more properly a subject of derision than argument."
He also goes on to say "But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of religion; men, in all ages, have been so much imposed on by ridiculous stories of that kind, that this very circumstance would be a full proof of a cheat, and sufficient, with all men of sense, not only to make them reject the fact, but even reject it without farther examination."
"Fools are industrious in propagating the imposture; while the wise and learned are contented, in general, to deride its absurdity, without informing themselves of the particular facts, by which it may be distinctly refuted."
If this isn't saying "don't investigate" I don't know what does.
Furthermore, Hume says "if the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then, and not till then , can he pretend to demand my belief."
OK, that sounds good! But what does Hume do? Does he examine the central Christian miracles? No, the whole trial proceeds by proxy. He basically looks at goofy stuff like the Jansenists and Vespasian and says "well, the evidence for these sucks so the resurrection sucks too."
Huh? What? So no, Hume doesn't investigate. He doesn't even investigate THESE miracles. He just dismisses them as goofy and moves on.
Also, see the previous video. Using the ordinary course of nature to argue against miracles is silly, as miracles would never stand out without the backdrop of an ordinary course of nature.
5:28 Bro visited his friend
I don't think Hume would have argued that if you witnessed a miracle with others that you would have to logically disbelieve the testimony of the other witnesses. He wouldn't see it as logically necessary as you would fit into a different category than the one listening to witness accounts. The category of the one who is deceived or is a deceiver. Interestingly if he witnessed a miracle he would probably assume he was deceived, as Dawkins and others have said it would be more logical to believe they hallucinated.
Logical fallacy: argument from incredulity. Nuff said.
My refutation of Hume involves the proof of God based on science. The General Theory of relativity shows the universe began with infinite energy and the start of time. The law of entropy shows the universe was perfectly ordered at the beginning. If you go before the Big Bang, you have infinite energy, infinite order, before time. That's a pretty good definition of God.
Given that God must exist based upon science, miracles are completely possible.
"All models are wrong. Some are useful."
clever thumbnail
I just noticed : )
very clever indeed
I came to say only that the thumbnail meme is savage.
Hume knocked out
Well I have never seen any proton in my life because I don't have a hadron collider, that's why they don't exist.
Hume's skepticism about miracles is all about probabilities. The consistent laws of nature make them highly reliable, while human testimony can be shaky, especially for extraordinary claims like miracles. It's not about outright dismissal; it's about needing stronger evidence for extraordinary claims.
Hume's approach is about being rationally skeptical, not dogmatically dismissive. High epistemic standards are crucial to avoid accepting false claims. Believing in miracles without rigorous evidence lowers these standards.
Science relies on inter-subjective verification. If many credible witnesses independently verify a miracle, it could be more rational to consider its possibility. But, the consistency and reproducibility of an event are key.
Historically, the acceptance of meteorites came with accumulating credible evidence over time. Similarly, miracles need substantial, verifiable evidence. Skepticism can evolve with new data.
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence to ensure thorough vetting. Maintaining high standards for evidence preserves our ability to discern truth. Without these standards, we risk accepting falsehoods.
Hume’s skepticism emphasizes rigorous evidence and rational scrutiny, maintaining a balanced approach to extraordinary claims while keeping an open mind.
How do you determine the threshold of evidence required to believe an extraordinary claim like a miracle? How would you distinguish between a genuine miracle and a natural event that we currently do not understand? Are there other extraordinary claims outside of religious contexts (e.g., UFO sightings, paranormal activity) that you find credible? Why or why not?
How much chat gpt did u use for this comment? Dude literally says miracle claims are a joke and a wise person doesn't bother looking into them.
Be more concise
Is not that you are wrong, but Testify is attacking Hume's argument not Hume. You are saying because eventually meteors were proven is okay, but you fail to understand that Hume would have simply rejected the notion of rocks falling from the sky. Hume's argument doesn't even let you analize data.
@@TestifyApologetics So your response, instead of answering the questions, is to basically accuse me of using ChatGPT and then simplifying Hume to 'dude literally says miracle claims are a joke'?
So, is this how you dodge questions that don't allow you to post them as memes? Next time I'll be sure to make a Spider-man reference so you can make another post for you and your followers to mock.
Impressive.
@@airkami Go read Hume's Miracles: A Comprehensive and Critical Introduction" by Robert J. Fogelin.
That more concise?
*_Argument from Ignorance_* Logical Fallacy! Hume was an expert at this sloppy, critical thinking. AND *_False Equivalence._* One false report of something extraordinary does *_NOT_* equal ALL reports of something extraordinary.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Miracles aren't rare they are just hard to see.
Didn't Hume beleive in the problem of induction too?
Hume kind of gets a bad rep from people misunderstanding his arguments about how we acquire knowledge through habituation. Even more as Donald Livingston (top Hume scholar of our time) has argued, Hume was not only a theist but fideist believing anytime you act like we live in an intelligible and consistent reality you’re presupposing belief in God
I like to think if someone is learning about Hume then they are probably familiar with as hominem and how we can extrapolate the idea that being wrong doesn’t make a person disreputable
But Hume also kinda of went against other theist philosophers. His arguments lay the foundation for a scientific/ humanist approach of things. While other thinker acted like God existed, Hume acted like he didn't, that's why lots of atheists love Hume.
Yet, how does this follow from his empiricism?
@@panperl1212 he wasn’t an empiricist. At least not in the sense that Hobbes and Locke were. Sure he believed that we first come to knowledge from the senses but by that standard Aristotle and Aquinas would have to be empiricists too. He’s better classified as a Ciceronian humanist or perhaps somewhat controversially as the first phenomenologist
@@LartinBeats-rg6pf atheists love Hume because they misunderstand him. French intellectuals actually made fun of him because of his theist commitments. He may have been harsh against Puritanism but his contention was that Puritanism wasn’t really a religion in the sense that it was an inherited sacred tradition in the same way Anglicanism and Catholicism were (Catholic counter-revolutionaries loved Hume) but was instead a form of false philosophy like rationalism
Miracles are an odds game. This sounds twisted, but it proves my point. If you were to line up an extremely large number of people and they all jumped off the sears tower one after another, eventually one would survive, then eventually another and then another. It might be 1 for ever 100k or million or a billion or more, but would those be a miracle or just odds?.
Bruh no one would survive just like no one parts a sea at a command or comes back from the dead after being crucified
@@TestifyApologetics I agree; those things definitely never happen, nor have they ever happened.
Do you know the difference between and argument and an assertion?
How I feel when told I should believe accounts of miracles.
Superintendent Chalmers: "The Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?"
Principal Skinner: "Yes."
Superintendent Chalmers: "May I see it?"
Principal Skinner: "No."
Points for the steamed hams ref
The shroud of Turin is a miracle you can see
There is a difference between saying "miracles dont exist" and saying "there is no point in believing in them".
More importantly you completely misunderstood his philosophy. Hume teaches to separate our judgement from what we see. Its a great relationship advice btw but in this instance it means "if I see water turned into wine it is beyond my understanding which means I shouldnt assume its a miracle but I shouldnt assume its fake either. I should refrain from having a judgement on something I clearly dont understand."
Then he is simply saying that if you really have to decide between these two options then you should go with the one that is a 'lesser miracle'. That is of course subjective and it usually depends on our experience with the world. If God using this as a way to convince you sounds like a lesser miracle to you... well I guess you do you. That is the fun part of philosophy. And also the reason why people today arent really sure whether or not Hume was an atheist
" if I were wrong don't you think I'd know it" .. Sheldon Cooper ( who , at the time, couldn't have been more wrong if he'd worked at it... Which knowing him he probably did).... bazinga...😎
If you are living an extremely dull life it is reasonable to deny anything interesting happening.
The Christian memelord is back
Technically the greatest miracle in history is the big bang. Everything is created from nothing.
The skeptic has to prove nothing to maintain their position
I mean taking this to the extreme is stupid. He must have been Conned or Something in the past. But in all honesty your first instinct should be skepticism. Even if you are religious, you probably believe other religions are fake or at least, super old pagan ones are, which means statistically, the miracle is more likely to be incorrect like those thousands of previous cultures
I'm gonna talk about that soon ofc no one wants to be a sucker
I clicked on this with a quick glance thinking the title was how not to think about muskets good video but I won't line I'm a little disappointed
Idk about miracles but i saw a half goat half man once . It was at a stop sign and i was pivking up my mom from work we were talking. As we both of take a breathe out of no where in front of us was a half goat half man ran pass us and the car went quite for 2 streets down i finally got the courage to ask my mom if she saw that she told me u saw it tooo . I got chills
Interesting, do you live in the UK by chance?
It's impossible to tell for sure if you're being serious or not, but what you describe sounds like a "satyr."
The Satyr שָׂעִיר is mentioned together with Lilith לִילִית in Isa34:14
Trolling
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is hollow rhetoric; it's not a rational proposition. It sounds catchy but ask the advocate of said standard to justify it and they can't (a lot of pretentious word salad will follow but they won't succeed).
The framing of the claim is pivotal to the attribution of the extraordinary label. If I say that "God raised a man from the dead", this could be claimed as extraordinary if we presuppose any evidence for any form of deity is extraordinary due to an ascribed infrequency of theophanies. Conversely, it's not extraordinary at all that a being with the qualities attributed to the God of the Bible could and would raise someone from the dead. So does extraordinary in all contexts reduce to "frequency of similar reports". That makes NDEs a real headache for the pure materialist because those run into the millions. Not entirely sure at this point if there is a universal concensus on how frequent theophanies should be to approach typical. Halley's Comet only shows up every 75-76 years and I was too young to observe it last time it was here. I could easily conclude it was a hoax since nobody in my generation remembers seeing it.
The question with God is further compounded vs the comet as can we have an accepted standard for frequency of events where there is a contingent on agency. A particle in a field will always do the same thing under the same conditions because (as far as one can observe) it doesn't possess agency. Where as beings with agency are free to buck trends at any point dependent not just on external conditions but internal conditions and the presence of the observer. A solution in a test tube doesn't perceive it's being watched. Where as Mr. Hughes who typically leaves for work at 7am may well delay his departure to call the police the morning he notices the binoculars sticking out of his hedge.
Furthermore, even giving a pass to the claims side of things. Do we objectively want "extraordinary" evidence? If I'm going to believe and extraordinary claim I'd rather it was grounded in rather ordinary evidence. If the evidence is also extraordinary how am I supposed to evaluate it? The whole of empirical science is based on a cycle of induction and abduction. Observation that is repeated sufficiently to establish a trend and then fitting a model to it to allow predictions to be made. If empirical science is the gold standard here, lots of ordinary evidence would be better than one piece of the "extraordinary."
For a staunch naturalist, the idea of miracles is incapable with their worldview. Which is more close minded then those who hold the belief that acts can have either a supernatural or natural explanation
I do not understand why Hume is considered a great philosopher, he spouted complete nonsense that refutes itself like Hume's Fork. He is one of the worst of all time.
What is the difference between the evidence that proves a dog was in his yard and the evidence that a dragon was in his yard? Isn’t it the same kind of evidence?
clearly the difference is the size of the doodoo
@@TestifyApologetics 🤣
My biggest issue with miracles is that most people are not honest and consistent with what type of evidence would convince them. So if a Christian believes in the miracles in the Bible I don't think they would honestly apply the same standard for other religions. For example let's say we had a tribe of 30 from Namibia and their leader was called George. Let's say George taught ethical and theological teachings all his life and at 43 he died. Let's say that all the 29 other people from their tribe swore that before he died he levitated 5 feet into the air for 5 minutes before dying. Let's say they were so sure that they were ready to die for that belief, if a Christian would be consistent how could he not be convinced that George did levitate and that their testimonies were sufficient evidence and convert to Georgeism immediately?
I'm gonna talk about miracles in other religions and supposed double standards in this series, so stay tuned
@@TestifyApologeticsI’m so excited. It’s something that always gets brought up. Yet it’s strange that the people who bring it up to me saying I’m inconsistent never give me actual examples of how and what religions have equal amounts of evidence and which evidence I reject over the same in my religion. If you can’t even give an example, how can you say I’m inconsistent?
There is several ways that the above falls short.
1. Can the 29 people who claim they saw the person levitate convincingly get others to believe it to. Without threat of violence if they don't. I would wager any money it's a extremely difficult swallow.
2. What if there was a rival tribe whose leaders were very powerful due to the support from the people and the twenty nine started a cult that eated away from the support they had. It's logical in this case to assume that they would do everything that this new belief was ridiculous and stupid and blatantly false humiliating the new leaders. Immediately killing the support it has.
I am not saying this proves categorically that Christians but what I am saying is there no rational explanation here for why so many people in first century Israel and the rest of the roman empire would believe jesus has resurrected from the dead if it was provably false. Rationality here indicates that they would be as sceptical as someone today not less. Not only that but there is no rational reason as to why the Jewish leaders wouldn't just reveal his dead body and quash this new religion for good if Jesus was dead.
The problem is that sceptics have not put a rational explanation for these truths which we know happened which fits better than the resurrection. They instead assume grief or halcuniatiom but neither of these adequately explain any of the above issues. No amount of halcuniation would convince you that you had breakfast and touched someone and the phrasisees definitely weren't grieving
How do you know we aren’t consistent? If you can find another real religious belief out there with equivalent evidence for their belief system, I’d love to hear it.
1. Do they suffer a life of persecution and die without recanting?
2. Have thousands of people witnessed many other miracles by him and heard him teach?
3. Did he fulfill a host of specific prophesies?
4. Did he claim to be God incarnate and accept worship?
5. Did he live a sinless life and die to save me from my sin?
Note: The Anti-Christ is coming and will deceive most people with miracles and subtle words.
Hi, can you do a video about Matthew 16,28?
Jesus seems to give a pretty narrow timeframe about his returning. However, as all disciples already have tasted death, is he wrong? How can this be interpreted?
Or maybe you already made Video.
What comes immediately after that prediction? Remember the original text had no chapter divisions. In each gospel, the Jesus' transfiguration is the next event in the story. The transfiguration is the fulfillment of that prediction, because the disciples saw Jesus in his glory.
@@bbgun061 Thats correct, but it's only a few days and not only some but all are still alive. So this explains only half of it.
And seems to set the lifetime of some disciples as the timeframe.
"there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"
@@fabiankonrath2804 Only some of the disciples went on the mountain with Jesus and saw his glory. The others had to wait until they had tasted death to see it.
Kenjaku as Yuji's Mom having the gravity technique is OP. Imagine he can just force the mayonaise out of your hotdog with gravity manipulation.
Que?
4:11 it's not that it's impossible. It's that it's always more prudent to assume either 1. They are lying. Or 2. They have misunderstood a natural event.
This is in fact what happened in the case of meteorites. Not miraculous at all. It's actually a great example of why it's prudent to think that supposed miracles are always the result of lying, natural events, or just low probability incidents that happen rarely but are possible even if we believe in no God.
Humes rules make More sense then miracles lol
Straw man 😂😂
the emojis really help strengthen your case
In professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
First
You commented first 12 days ago but the video only released 4 minutes ago?
@@TinyFord1 Well time travel anything possible with The Political Checkmate.
Bend your knee to the 🇻🇦
theres a whole bunch of things wrong with this vid
1. 1:05 you just admited yourself that evidence based on laws on nature rather then personal testimony are more consistent therefore most claim about biology and science have more value then claims of miracles
2. 1:37 I agree this was an oversight by hume but this doesnt even correlate to his past statemant about how personal testimony of supernatural events doesnt hold alot of value
3. 2:30 then he would give the perfect evidence that we would all know but he doesnt he asks us to accept presuppositions like when he told thomas after giving him perfect evidence that "blessed is he who has not seen" this indicates that god doesnt want people to have the proof that he gave thomas
4. 2:36 no it wouldnt because if where using your examples they where in extremely anecdotel situations that can never be demonstrated or repeated
5. 3:11 thats literally not what hume said he said that miracles by testimony are unreliable compared to the laws of nature
6. 3:19 no because you'd actually have to HAVE SOMETHING OBSERVABLE thats why a bunch of people seeing a bunch of magical events arent reliable they need something to demonstrate it
7. 3:28 it means you and the people who saw this now have the burden of proof you now have to demonstrate or prove that what youve witnessed exists
8. 3:40 no it means you have to put in the legwork to provide people with proof of what happened otherswise all you have is a single vision
9. 3:48 this logic is cooked thats not at all what youd have to do youd have to demostrate it to the people who are skeptical about it
10. 4:13 you literally said in the beginning EXACTLY WHY its because humans arent always consistent with testimony
11. 5:08 exactly but youd still need to provide proof of claim of witnessing a supernatural event with evidence that makes it observable to everyone not just you a small group of people
No, you don't have to reject testimony of other miracle stuff if you have seen miracles. If you see a miracle, your background knowledge is different from Hume's and so you wouldn't have the same sort of barrier to belief that he does. His entire idea is that we should reject testimony of miracles specifically because we don't see them and they go against what we know about the world, if we do see them and our knowledge of the world changes that principle falls away.
He's wrong about that too. We do see them. He just rejected even the ones he was aware of on the basis of no examination just dismissivenss.
@@TestifyApologetics Where do we see them?
I got a video already uploaded on it, see the live tab. or just wait for them in a video in this series.
@@TestifyApologetics Ok, lets talk about Van Natta. You seem to be aware of one potential criticism in your live video on 5 miracles where he is the first, that criticism being 'how can we know his intestine actually grew?' You make sure to mention that multiple radiologists confirm the length of his intestine post-growth.
What established the length of his intestine pre-growth though?
The surgeries and what the doctors said. You don't think they knew how much they cut away or at least a good idea of it? We have his medical records
Hume should quit yapping and fast instead