Are miracles possible? Can their possibility be reasonably entertained?

>>1486401
>>>/x/

>>1486406
I take it you're affirming Hume?

>>1486401
>Are miracles possible?

Define "miracle".

>>1486469
An event that defies the laws of physics or other natural laws.

>>1486480
By that definition, no.

>>1486485
*tips fedora*

>>1486510

Lol, are you wearing a fedora at your computer?

>>1486534
I suppose you wear a baseball cap?

>>1486568

>wearing hats indoors

Top plebian.

>>1486577
>plebian

If they were possible, they wouldn't really be miracles.

>>1486579

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plebeian

>>1486595

This. The laws of nature are never violated, although we can certainly be mistaken into thinking they have been.

>>1486598
>using the plebeian spelling

File: hume1.jpg (7KB, 148x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 148x200px

>>1486401
>>1486595
>>1486601
Jesus Christ you tickets are dense. Hume never said miracles are impossible, he said you'd need a ton of independent, disinterested observations confirming the same thing to believe it. Fuck you all with your "laws of nature" nonsense. seriously, fuck you. Read some goddamn Hume.

>>1486618
*you fuckers
>drunk and autocorrect goddamn

>>1486618

Who gives a shit what some nerd said? I don't need to bore myself with his waffling when the answer is obvious to any thinking human.

>>1486622
You need to rethink your epistemology, broseph. Your faith in the rationality of induction is showing.

>>1486643
>HURR

>>1486645
You silly billy.

>>1486660

There is no way past the problem of induction, and yet you engage in discussion as tho there were. Why is this? Because if you don't ignore the problem, you can;t say ANYTHING. This by itself should prove to anyone that philosophy alone is not enough to find truth, you have to build your foundation on facts or you get nowhere.

>>1486601
>The laws of nature are never violated
This, it's proven that the laws of nature are utterly impossible to violate.

>>1486618
Hume heavily references "laws of nature" in his work on miracles, and says that the laws of nature are so sturdy and concrete that they are always more to be believed than any human testimony, you're the one who needs to read Hume.

>>1486618
>>1486677
" It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but substract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one side or the other, with that assurance which arises from the remainder. But according to the principle here explained, this substraction, with regard to all popular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion."

>Are miracles possible?

To answer this, you'd need to define what a miracle is, what your parameters are for them being possible and what your parameters are for them being impossible

>>1486696
miracle is an extraordinary event

What a stupid fucking question

>>1487487
Then yes

Why would any omnipotent and omniscient being(The kind that would create miracles) even require direct intervention in a universe that it supposedly designed and created?
Wouldn't those properties allow for the being to create a universe that would turn out exactly as it intended?

>>1487568
t. diest

>>1486696
>>1486480