David Hume's Argument For The Existence Of God

Better Essays
Arguments for and against the existence of God have been around for thousands of years. Philosophers have been using arguments as an attempt to validate their beliefs. To do this, philosophers string together a series of statements to form different types of arguments, including deductive, inductive, a priori, and a posteriori arguments. Furthermore, a few philosophers use evidential approaches to establish the existence of God. Often, these approaches include pragmatics or direct perception, such as appeals to religious experience. Generally, religious experience refers to mystical experiences or miracles. David Hume presents an argument as to why we are almost never justified in believing that a miracle has occurred. Following will be a …show more content…
All testimony of miracles occurring is based off of experience, but that experience opposes this testimony due to what we know about the laws of nature. Hume says that God may be all-powerful and could have the ability to contradict the laws of nature, but we cannot attribute him with those qualities unless our experiences were to tell us that we should. Hume concludes by stating that religion is based in faith, not in reason. There is no rationality behind trusting or believing miracles, and all miracles that are in the Bible, in his opinion, are more likely to be fabrications than true facts.

P1: One ought to proportion one's belief to the evidence.
P2: Experience is generally better evidence than testimony (if for no other reason than that valid testimony is based on another’s sense experience).
P3: Therefore, when there is a conflict between sense experience and testimony, one ought to believe according to sense perception.
P4: Miracles are contrary to experience. That is, experience testifies strongly to the fact that miracles never occur, laws of nature are never
…show more content…
We are obligated to acknowledge and agree only with aspects in which we have exceptional reasons and evidence for (Plantinga, 2000). In other words, we misuse our “faculties” when we form a belief about something of importance without possessing sufficient evidence in favor of that belief. We can also misuse our skills and abilities when we believe something “with a degree of firmness that is not proportioned to the strength of our evidence” (Chignell, 2016). Locke also says that by doing this, we contradict the will of our “Maker.” According to Jeff Jordan, there is a significant moral duty to proportion one’s belief to the evidence; being a morally responsible person requires that one has good reasons for each of one’s beliefs. When one believes an unsupported proposition, one violates this important moral duty (2014). By taking into account Hume’s statement that one must proportion one’s belief to the evidence, we are maximizing the amount of our true beliefs and minimizing the amount of our false ones. There seems to be very little debate about this statement made by David Hume, meaning that it is widely agreed upon and should be accepted by

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    That one needs evidence to prove that something exists and a lack of evidence against God not existing doesn’t prove that God does exist. According to this view God doesn’t exist and Dawkins proves it with logic. In sum then, the issue is whether his argument is valid or not valid. My own view is that Dawkins’ arguments that God doesn’t exist are strong, they have direct premises that back up his conclusion. Although some might object that God does exist based on their own beliefs through religion, I would reply that Dawkins provides a strong argument against God existence through his examples.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cognitivism Analysis

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Numerous would along these lines contend, that from our assessment, it is important to thusly move far from cognitivism and its attention on ethical quality as a basically certain certainty. Because of the way that G.E.Moore 's reaction to naturalism comes up short by its own particular guidelines, does this not propose that moral dialect is non-psychological and hostile to realist? Firstly, we have to consider the domain of emotivism and fundamentally A.J. Ayer– the methodology that most concurs with good explanations only being a declaration of sentiment. Comprehensively talking, the expression "expressivism" alludes to a group of perspectives in the rationality of dialect as indicated by which the implications of cases in a specific range…

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Arguments for and against the existence of God have been around for thousands of years. Philosophers have been using arguments as an attempt to prove their beliefs. To do this, philosophers string together a series of statements to form different types of arguments, including deductive, inductive, a priori, and a posteriori arguments. Furthermore, some philosophers use evidential approaches to establish the existence of God. Often, these approaches include pragmatics or direct perception, such as appeals to religious experience.…

    • 419 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If theory-laden perception is true, then one is justified to any wacky, heterodox, and wrong belief just in case one started with that wacky mistaken belief. Such a result is utterly undesirable, both with non-moral beliefs and moral beliefs. It’s not that I desire justification to be factive, that is for truth to be necessary for justification. I agree with the conventional wisdom in the literature that justification is non-factive, that justification is fallible. Rather, my point is that whatever process someone proposes as the process of justification should attempt or try to track truth.…

    • 1550 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    David Hume's argument on miracles is flawed both in what he defines as a miracle and his arguments about the assessment on the evidence of miracles. There are many weaknesses in his theory which will be outlined and one of his strengths will be refuted. Hume defines a miracle as a break in the laws of nature as in his book he states "a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature". He also tells us it is not rational to believe in miracles as it is more logical to believe that the natural laws have remained in place and the witness is either mistaken or purposely deceiving you. Hume looks at the reliability of the witnesses and tells us that a normal person would expect a witness to be intelligent and unbiased if we were take their claims seriously.…

    • 1387 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This embodies the ideas that presented later that discuss the relationship between fundamentalist views and religious views to God and faith. In the fundamentalists view, modern science has an obligation of providing empirical proof that backs up the hypothesized statement on any issue that is under scrutiny, this lacks from many scientists studies. They state that there is no existence of a God or the explanation of faith with no adequate back up to their claims. This is the same with Christians who have a strict devotion to their faith when in fact they are not familiar with what they keep their faith…

    • 1012 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this exegesis I will show that Nagel’s argument is centered around the relationship between moral luck and the condition of control, where he highlights the inherent conflict between them. In Nagel’s paper, titled Moral Luck, he defines moral luck as when one’s actions lead them to be treated as an object of moral judgement, despite significant factors which strip them of the condition of control (Nagel, 26). The condition of control states that there is an agreeable array of factors that can take away one’s ability to have control over a situation, which in turn takes away their responsibility for the situation. Nagel introduces the conflict by first explicitly defining moral luck and its consequences, and then explaining control as a contradictory…

    • 785 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    As Swinburne stated that there could be no simpler explanation than the one which postulates only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism. The Criteria that needs to be met according to him, to prove or disprove the existence of God is meant by only the personal explanation which gives us the ultimate explanation for the existence of the World. However, while this may convince many individual that Theism is indeed correct, I would disagree because our interpretations depend on how much we are prepared to trust a posteriori knowledge. “For those who believe, no proof is necessary.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Debunking Ethical Realism

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages

    And because it is possible that evolution did give us the mechanisms for our moral beliefs to track moral facts, simply stating that independent moral truths do not explain our moral beliefs is begging the question. The debunking argument makes such a statement, so it assumes that realism is false in order to prove that realism is false (20). It might just as easily be true that some moral beliefs are explained by moral facts, some by evolution, and some by a combination of both in which we have good reasons and evolutionary cause to believe something (23). At best, the debunking arguments reveal a challenge to realism, not a defeat of it. The proposed challenge would be to explain how we evolved to have the rational capacities that allow us to grasp moral facts and, as FitzPatrick also suggests, how we evolved the emotional capacities to grasp such facts (30-31).…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Objectivism states that some moral claims are objectively true. One big difference between objectivism and nihilism is that objectivism depends on process of elimination rather than actual merits. It says that nihilism, objectivism, or relativism has to be true before eliminating nihilism and relativism as being false. This leaves only objectivism standing, so proponents say it must be true. While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays