David Hume the philosopher said that as nature never does certain things such as let the dead come back to life, we should assume for the sake of argument if nothing else, that a report that say Jesus rose, is not believable.  He didn't call it false.  He just said at best we should admit we don't know or just believe it is false.  Belief is not certainty.  He told us that commonsense shows a person saying they seen him is more likely to be mistaken or lying about such a thing.

Christians tell loads of lies to discredit him. They deliberately interpret him badly.

If you can argue that he failed to show that we should believe it didn't happen, you still have to show that we should believe in it enough to merit worshipping Jesus night and day and founding religions to die for in his honour.  Nobody in the Church gives a damn about this. 


Hume called a miracle a violation of nature and that is alleged to say that he was just ruling miracles out.  He was supposedly saying nature doesn't have violations so miracles are fake.  Not so. Violating the law of the land does not mean violations are impossible.

Hume can be read as saying that generally speaking we should take nature as uninterrupted. But surely general allows exceptions? Yes.  Not always.
Does the exception uphold the rule? This is an error. The exception breaks the rule. Period. Having to ignore a rule for a bigger one matters is not making an exception. It is making way for the rule that should matter.
Also people use "the exception maintains the rule and supports it" line when it suits them. Miracles are a convenient exception.

If you have to be in bed by 10pm but not at Christmas then this is not an exception to the rule. The rule is, "Bed at 10pm but not at Christmas." It is not really an exception. It is the rule.

If you have to be in bed by 10pm and you are allowed to stay up at Christmas this is breaking the rule and is not creating an exception. The rule is be in bed at 10 pm but no exception is mentioned.

An exception can never prove the rule. Prove is too strong of a word. The best you can do is, "I think it shows the rule is good." What is really happening is that you are seeing the rule is no good or too strict and you are not saying so. You become a fake. The exception at best strains and tests the rule.

How many exceptions prove the rule?

People may say one.  That would mean only one miracle has happened in history or that we should think there has only been one. They don't accept such a suggestion. A Jesus who rose but whose other miracles are frauds or lies is not somebody we can be confident in so much that we think he did rise.

If somebody rises every day what about that? 

If the exceptions are too few, we might be forgiven for being suspicious.

It is easy to lie about something that is not repeated.
The big bang can be seen as an absolute uniformity. It is a once-off event that nobody has seen and will not be repeated. Some say that if miracles cannot happen for things are uniform, then that could not have happened either.

How does that fit Hume's complaint that a miracle should not be believed when it cannot be repeated for checking? We can say we are just here and say that we will not consider the miracle explanation of the origin of all. Buddha said we are just here and we don't know why so why ask? Or if we ask why think any more about it?  A miracle is a non-explanation. We don't really know what it means to say something is magic or miracle.

Also, if the creation is the biggest miracle, it is the only sign that should be needed so what do we need rising saviours for?


We observe in the universe that there is a law of cause and effect. A cause is what counts for something's existence. For example there is no flu without viruses.

Believers in an interventionist God never argue that miracles abolish natural law or soften it, or that it is unknown and perhaps undiscoverable natural laws at work for we don't know all the laws.

They just guess that miracles fit nature.  They should be giving us an option.  They do not.

That alone gives another reason for why testimonies to miracles are unconvincing.  Hume was right for more reasons than he ever realised.

Whatever a miracle is, it is not evidence.  You cannot find a bloody knife in the killer's bedroom and then say he is guilty when you are only assuming he put it there.  If somebody else is a suspect who could have planted it then you are only assuming.


No Copyright