Talk:Of Miracles

Not circular, just definitional

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

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

WikiProject class rating

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

First person experience

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

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

Neutral POV

"this argument has infuriated Christians" is hardly NPOV writing. Should probably be rewritten to something like "this has led to critiques/responses from Christians/Christian theologians," which is much more relevant to Hume's discussion than whether he made Bob from Asbury upset. ~2026-25015-25 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)