Mackie’s objection to miracles:
Suppose the following formula be a law: if P & - I, then G. Now we observe P&-G. The theist may think that what we observe is a miracle. But what is rational for us to believe is that the given formula is not a law. So anytime there is claimed to be a miracle, the rational thing to believe is that there is no miracle and the law that’s supposedly broken is not actually a law.
Objection to Mackie: P&-G is not evidence against the identity of the given formula as a law, because P&-G is not contradictory against the given formula. Furthermore, P&I&-G is not contradictory against the given formula either. (As a matter of fact, it confirms it if we take the conditional in issue to allow for contraposition and exportation.) To sum up this objection, when P&-G occurs, the rational thing to believe is not that the given formula is not a law. So Mackie is wrong about this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment