I reallllllly don't think he's going to like my answer this week, but it's ok since I really didn't like his lecture stating that only theists are open minded. So your turn (same rules, no scripture, theistic textbook definition, trolls only make asses of themselves so don't bother, etc etc, this is NOT my actual homework for the idjit who keeps whining every week)
Hume's argument against miracles (real miracles, where something violates natural law and must be of divine origin, not the common idea of a sick baby recovering must be a miracle) - there is so much evidence in favor of natural laws being true, to believe something happens for non-natural reasons from a divine source requires more evidence than can be provided (I'm paraphrasing, obviously).
So with that in mind - if we can't prove it's a miracle, can it be a miracle? If it can be one without proof, can we still CALL it one?
Answer by KristiS11384 at 10:54 AM on Oct. 30, 2009
Answer by MamaK88 at 11:16 PM on Oct. 29, 2009
Answer by shay1130 at 11:18 PM on Oct. 29, 2009
Answer by missbreezy214 at 11:25 PM on Oct. 29, 2009
Answer by NotPanicking at 11:27 PM on Oct. 29, 2009
Answer by NotPanicking at 11:29 PM on Oct. 29, 2009
Answer by Cinnamon-mom at 11:53 PM on Oct. 29, 2009
*Scurries in. Grabs cookie and runs limps back out again.*
Answer by beeky at 12:04 AM on Oct. 30, 2009
Answer by caitxrawks at 12:48 AM on Oct. 30, 2009
Answer by NotPanicking at 1:20 AM on Oct. 30, 2009