David Hume's Miracle To Violate The Laws Of Nature

165 Words1 Pages
Though I see why Hume argues a miracle to violate the laws of nature, I believe his explanation does not explain how this does so. Last semester I took a course in Logic, and I think Hume’s argument is technically a fallacy (meaning his argument is unsound). When he states the laws of nature are based upon “a firm and unalterable experience,” is he claiming that the laws of nature are never violated? If he is, then his argument begs the question. (he 's assuming the conclusion of the argument... its circular reasoning). He is basically assuming exactly what needs to be proved. The proof basically looks like this from what I understand: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature Experience tells us the laws of nature are never violated