Abby McVay Richard Swinburne Miracles and Historical Evidence Summary: "We have four kinds of evidence about what happened at some past instant-our own apparent memories of our past experiences, the testimony of others about their past experiences, physical traces, and our contemporary understanding of what things are physically impossible," Richard Swinburne mentioned in the second paragraph (page 455). Swinburne ponders what evidence would be needed to support miracles and then challenges arguments put forward by philosophers, like Hume, and the laws of nature. Swinburne's evidence for supporting miracles consists of four main arguments mentioned in the quote. Once the guidelines to support evidence are identified, Swinburne argues that …show more content…
Based on laws of nature and his arguments, he would argue yes because even though it goes against the laws of nature, the testimonies have equal weight and justification. According to the three subsidiary principles, how can one rule out any of the testimonies? For instance, how can Swinburne say that fifty individual testimonies, that are fairly consistent, of this experience or event be called reliable? Swinburne cannot logically state that all fifty people were right if they had the same account of the apple incident if the laws of nature are in place. There are things like delusion and exaggeration to some degree. He also goes on to think that the testimonies have the same justification as the laws themselves. If this were the case, wouldn't we have our own biases towards our own testimonies? How would we then perceive universal laws, if there are any with this way of thinking? For example, if the apple incident had occurred, those fifty people would believe that they have more justification in their testimonies than the laws of nature. If their testimonies were correct and had justification, then the laws of nature would be broken, which cannot happen. It cannot happen because we see the laws of nature in practice all the time, like electric lights and gravity, but how can one throw out a testimony that someone found true if they see it happening, like the laws of nature? Let's provide the apple example again; but instead of fifty people witnessing it, there was only one. Should we ought to shut this person down for believing that this event happened even if nobody else saw the event and it violates the laws of