Thomas Paley cross-examines David Hume on Miracles: and a short summary

Paley: I appreciate the input these distinguished gentlemen have already put forward. I can't add much more to it. I stand on the shoulders of giants. So, I may sound like I'm repeating myself, and so I ask Hume for patience.

Hume: Sure.

Paley: If God exists, miracles are possible, right?

Hume: If God exists. But we have no good reason to think He does.

Paley: But let's suppose He does. Miracles are now possible.

Hume: Sure, supposing He does.

Paley: Not only that: miracles are probable.

Hume: How?

Paley: Well, suppose the Christian God exists. This God wants to show Himself to people. Suppose this God exists, and He wants to show Himself - it seems probable that miracles are going to happen, or did happen.

Hume: Yes, but only supposing the Christian God to exist.

Paley: We agree, then. Good. And I agree with your other cross-examiners that testimony can say something that your experience of Nature might go against.

Hume: Well, that's something I need to think about more. The ice analogy through me for a loop.

Paley: So, take the disciples' testimony. We can't say they went against the witness of Nature unless we were there at the time.

Hume: Which makes sense, because if we were there at the time, then our witness of Nature would go against a testimony that Jesus rose from the dead, if Nature did in fact go against it.

Paley: Well put. So when you say miracles go against 'universal' experience, you beg the question.

Hume: How again?

Paley: Because you're assuming the miracle didn't in fact happen. Your 'universal' comment only works after you already prove the miracle didn't occur. You skip this step, and jump right to the notion that universal experience go against the miracle.

Hume: I do, don't I? Hmmm.

Paley: That's it, Matt.

Matt: Thanks Paley for keeping it short. So, for my sake, let's sum all this up. Clarke! Why are miracles possible? Sum it up in one sentence.

Clarke: Because God is all-powerful.

Matt: Thanks. Houtteville?

Houtteville: Because God conserves every part and event in the universe - miracles included.

Matt: Less?

Less: Because God is free to act how He wants to act.

Matt: And what's wrong with Newton's view of the laws of nature? Clarke?

Clarke: Nature course isn't necessary: it's just the regular way God's will makes it to be.

Matt: Vernet?

Vernet: Nature's course can change whenever God wants it to: He is free to do this.

Houtteville, Less, Paley: We agree here.

Matt: Sherlocke?

Sherlocke: Nature's course might just include miracles.

Houtteville: I agree there.

Matt: So, what can we say to Spinoza again? Remember he thought the laws were necessary. But we've seen that they don't have to be. Vernet?

Vernet: Same thing I said before. It's not the case that the laws are necessary because God is necessary. God wills miracles freely, so the laws can be suspended, and so they aren't necessary.

Matt: Houtteville?

Houtteville: The miracles could be included in the course of nature.

Matt: What about Spinoza's other reasons: miracles don't prove God. Clarke?

Clarke: They prove the Christian God.

Paley: Agreed.

Matt: How do the prove the Christian God?

Paley, Clarke: Look at the context.

Paley: The religious context.

Spinoza: What about an unknown law of nature? Could miracles be caused by that?

Matt: Le Clerc?

Le Clerc: Why were there miracles only during that time? Why don't they happen all the time? And why did they happen right when Jesus said what He said?

Matt: Sherlocke?

Sherlocke: God might have used the unknown laws to act in the course of Nature. It's possible.

Houtteville: Agreed.

Matt: What about Hume? Less?

Less: If God exists, miracles are just as possible as other events.

Matt: Paley?

Paley: It's probable too. The probability that God would so act outweighs the alleged improbability of miracles.

Matt: Sherlocke?

Sherlocke: And you can 'sense' miracles: I can see them. Human testimony can support something you see.

Matt: Less?

Less: And a miracle doesn't go against all experience if the testimony is valid.

Paley: Agreed. Also, if miracles are improbable back then, then we have to say that it's probable they should happen now. I don't see Hume liking this very much.

Sherlocke: And Hume's logic wouldn't let us believe natural stuff, like ice, if we only experienced a tropical climate.

Paley: One more thing. Hume's logic wouldn't let us believe a bunch of stuff we should believe based on human testimony. For example, Copernicus' testimony about the earth not being the center of the universe.

Matt: That's all for now. Next, we'll see how Newton was wrong, and how quantum physics plays into all of this.