George Schlesinger has recently presented a reply to Hume's argument concerning miracles. Schlesinger argues that probability theory and some simple assumptions about miracles show that testimony for a miracle increases the probability of God existing; furthermore this testimony can raise the probability of God existing enough that it is rational to believe that God exists. I argue that one of the assumptions that Schlesinger makes is false, and that the justification Schlesinger gives for it does not succeed. Thus I claim Schlesinger's reply to Hume fails.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richard Otte (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: