/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15484456]

Is it possible to believe in Jesus's miracles and just that alone? Im pretty convinced by Hume's against miracles argument but I still believe Jesus is God in some way.

[Anonymous No.15484467]

why would you listen to some fat faggot over the sacred tradition? are you gay?

[Anonymous No.15484492]

>>15484467
you seem to be fhuming

[Anonymous No.15484597]

>>15484456
Just repeat "problem of induction" to yourself three times and you'll have your justification, Hume-approved.
>>15484492
I kek'd hard at this.

[Anonymous No.15484601]

>>15484492
based and missingshadeofbluepilled

[Anonymous No.15484608]

>>15484492
spbp

[Anonymous No.15484641]

>>15484456
Hume's entire argument against miracles rests on an a priori assumption that there is no god. But the entire point of a miracle is that it is completely outside both physics and normal human experience, and can only be caused by a power outside the normal material realm. If you even grudgingly accept the possibility of a supreme being who intervenes in the material world, then Hume's argument is like Charlie Brown, kicking a football that's not there, because it falls apart the moment you introduce god to the equation. So, yes, it is not only possible, but any coherent Christian belief system requires that you only believe in Jesus' (and the various OT) miracles.

[Anonymous No.15484985]

>>15484492
Incredible.

[Anonymous No.15484997]

>>15484641
>Hume's entire argument against miracles rests on an a priori assumption that there is no god.
A priori in what sense? Because Hume is pretty much against a priori arguments in his work, and his assumptions are based in experience.

[Anonymous No.15485286]

>>15484641
>Hume's entire argument against miracles rests on an a priori assumption that there is no god.
this is so unbelievably stupid
literally any single POSSIBLE argument, i.e. ALL ARGUMENTS assume that propositions which contradict them are false, or at least not yet known to be true.

OF COURSE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST MIRACLES DOESN'T ASSUME GOD. ANY ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANY X MAKES NO SENSE IF IT ASSUMES THAT Y IS TRUE, IF X FOLLOWS FROM Y. MIRACLES FOLLOW FROM GOD.

HURR DURR LETS QUESTION BEGGING
i apologize for my autism. i am very stupid.

[Anonymous No.15485521]

>>15484641
God doesn't exist anon

[Anonymous No.15485666]

>>15484456
I think Kierkegaard makes the point in Practice in Christianity that, due to the infinite, qualitative distinction between God and man, no work or miracle could ever possibly show that man was God. It is a chasm that can never be crossed. It seems like a very convincing argument, but I also wonder whether the whole idea of this infinite, qualitative distinction is really biblical; it doesn't seem to jive with Genesis 3:22 at all.

I also think Jesus himself implies that miracles themselves aren't sufficient grounds for belief in John 14:9-12. Belief based on miracles is just tagged on the end of his rant, almost flippantly. It reads almost like a concession to me. Then verse 12 directly contradicts this belief based on miracles since the works/miracles that Jesus performs are not exclusive to him. Of course the resurrection stands in stark contrast to this interpretation, but, again, that is something the Bible teaches is not exclusive to Jesus lol.

[Anonymous No.15485706]

Read Kant's take on miracles in his Lectures on Metaphysics (from the 1770s in the Cosmology section) it's much better than Hume's.

[Anonymous No.15485742]

>>15484492
BTFO

[Anonymous No.15485791]

>>15484641
Miracles are by definition the least likely occurrence. You have to grant that. If you get a report of any event X, that event will be most probably be explained by natural phenomena.
Now, in the case of religion, we only have reports of these miracles written in books thousands of years before our time. Applying the same principle, it is by definition more likely that the events reported are explained by natural phenomena rather than genuine miracle. As Hume once quipped: “What is more likely, that a virgin should conceive or that a Jewish girl should tell a lie?”
Therefore, there is no grounds for believing in the miracles reported in these holy texts from a historical/rational/empirical point of view. If we do believe in them, it is only a matter of faith.

[Anonymous No.15486824]

Even antichrists are capable of doing miracles. Miracles are only useful in getting attention. What's important is the message of Christ.

[Anonymous No.15486856]

>>15484492
kek

[Anonymous No.15486865]

>>15484456
Not without being a deluded coward.

[Anonymous No.15486985]

>>15484492
Nice

[Anonymous No.15487249]

>>15484456
i'm so sick of seeing that fat fuck's face

[Anonymous No.15487386]

>>15484456
>I still believe Jesus is God in some way.
You’re just brainwashed and coping hard. The zombie rabbi is not God

[Anonymous No.15487852]

>>15484492
based

[Anonymous No.15487878]

>>15484456
Yes.

People at the time believed he was possessed by a demon.

In the old testament, resurrecting the dead, healing, and many other miracles were all done multiple times by prophets and demonic magic is banned, implying that it's real.

[Anonymous No.15487888]

Read the Gospel of Thomas. No miracles, yet clearly divine.

[Anonymous No.15488135]

>>15484641
this

this is also why philosophy is mostly a waste of time. it all depends on what you assume and no set of assumptions can ever be proven right, you can only persuade people to one philosophy or another. you can't prove or disprove the christian God. we've known this for a long time now. same thing with Jesus's miracles, at least not from our modern perspective so far removed from the life of Jesus and devoid of any evidence of his miracles.

[Anonymous No.15488252]

>>15484456
Jesus affirmed the truth of the Old Testament, so you'd have to accept the miracles therein. If you accept the testimony of the Old Testament, you'd have to reject Hume's argument.
Though there are some Christians who believe that the age of spiritual gifts has come to an end...you might be able to reconcile some aspect of Hume's argument with cessationism, but I think that would be an uncomfortable bit of eclecticism.

[Anonymous No.15489609]

>>15488135
le shestov face

[Anonymous No.15489746]

In Hume's philosophy, you can't. Since you need to live as a Skeptic.
So the only way that you can believe in God is by experiencing him. In others words, you need to see Jesus Christ in person to believe in him according to Hume.

[Anonymous No.15489769]

>miracles