Evidence record

Could a miracle ever be evidence?

Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.

Last checked 23 September 2026.

A judgement, not a fact: 19
Source checked: 24
Presented as open: 1

If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.

What the question takes for granted

A philosophical question about what testimony can establish, asked of religious texts that offer events as grounds for belief. It is not the question whether any miracle happened, and the page keeps the two apart.

A miracle can be defined well enough to argue about
Contested
Hume defines it as a violation of the laws of nature; others as what exceeds the productive power of nature; and what a law of nature is remains disputed. The page’s “upstream” passage turns on exactly this.
The Gospels’ signs and Hume’s miracles are the same kind of thing
Contested
The concept of a miracle is centuries older than any modern concept of a law of nature. John’s signs are events offered for belief; Hume’s miracle is defined against natural law. The page sets them side by side without claiming they are the same.
Testimony is what a miracle claim rests on
Contested
Most arguments for miracle claims centre on testimony, but some also cite commemorations, the behaviour of the witnesses and the growth of the church. The page now says a unique event leaves testimony and the traces around it.
Evidence of a miracle would be evidence for a religion
Contested
Hume’s own limit is on proving a miracle as the foundation of a religion; the Catholic Church teaches that miracles are signs of revelation; some philosophers dispute that a miracle, even granted, would point to God. The page does not argue this step.

How the question is labelled

Claim: Signs and testimony

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Miracles

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The question

Claim: Hume said no, in a sentence that has been argued with for nearly three centuries and has not been removed.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The “no” is Hume’s answer to whether testimony can establish a miracle as grounds for a religion. “Not been removed” means it has been neither retracted nor settled.

Context · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part II, §99
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: I beg the limitations here made may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history.
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: A curious feature of recent discussions is that Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense.
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyBibliography
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Hume, David, 1748 et seq., An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
The entry cites the Enquiry from 1748.

What this does not establish

Hume’s maxim has an exception in it (“unless the testimony be of such a kind...”), and he allowed that a miracle founding no religion might be proved. The page sets both out below.

Claim 1 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The texts present signs as evidence meant to persuade.

Kind: Describes a Bible passage. What a biblical passage says, in this page’s words. A fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · WEB
John 20, World English BibleJohn 20:30-31
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
Supports · WEB
Mark 2, World English BibleMark 2:10-11
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” ... “I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house.”

What this does not establish

The same texts qualify it: John 20:29 blesses those who believe without seeing, and Mark 8:12 refuses a sign.

Claim 2 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The standard philosophical objection is not that miracles do not happen but that testimony could never be good enough to establish one.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The principal argument against the rational credibility of miracle claims derives from Hume.
Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: A non-theological version of this argument, sometimes mistakenly attributed to Hume, is actually due to Voltaire
The impossibility argument is Voltaire’s, not Hume’s.
Qualifies
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: There is, however, considerable recent disagreement as to whether Hume intended Part 1 of his essay as an argument.

What this does not establish

Whether Hume himself meant “never” in principle is disputed among his interpreters.

Claim 3 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hume aimed it at religion, but the argument is about the structure of evidence.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Part I argues from experience and testimony in general; Part II draws the conclusion for religion.

Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part II, §98
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion.
Context · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, §90
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The standard philosophical objection is not that miracles do not happen but that testimony could never be good enough to establish one, and the argument is about the structure of evidence rather than about religion.” “Rather than about religion” contradicts Hume, who states his conclusion as a maxim about religion: no testimony can prove a miracle “and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion” (§98), and asks that the limitation be remarked (§99).

Claim 4 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The question looks like one about whether anything unusual has ever occurred. It is not.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the Hume passage: the maxim is about what testimony can establish, not about whether events occurred.

Claim 5 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is about what could count, and it applies equally to a resurrection and to a claim that somebody once bent a spoon.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The structure of the argument is the same whatever the claim.

Qualifies · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part II, §93
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority.

What this does not establish

Hume himself did not weigh them equally: he held testimony to religious miracles weaker still, because religion joins itself to the love of wonder.

Claim 6 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Both sides of it are stated plainly enough to compare, which is rarer than it sounds.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

What is claimed, and what is objected

Claim: What is claimed, and what is objected

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The Gospels present signs as evidence, and say so

Claim: The Gospels present signs as evidence, and say so

Kind: Describes a Bible passage. What a biblical passage says, in this page’s words. A fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · WEB
John 20, World English BibleJohn 20:30-31
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
Supports · WEB
Mark 2, World English BibleMark 2:10-11
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” ... “I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house.”
A healing given “that you may know”.

What this does not establish

John says so in so many words. In Mark it is Jesus’ own words at one healing, not the evangelist’s statement of purpose.

Claim 9 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Near its close, John states its purpose outright: "Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ."

Kind: Quotes the Bible. The words of a biblical text, in the translation named. That the text says it is a fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · WEB
John 20, World English BibleJohn 20:30-31
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

What this does not establish

The quotation stops mid-verse: 20:31 goes on, “the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name”. A further chapter follows these verses.

Other readings

Two verses earlier John has Jesus say “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (20:29), which qualifies signs as the ground of belief.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “John ends by stating its purpose outright:” The statement is John 20:30-31. John does not end there: chapter 21 follows.

Claim 10 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is a document telling the reader it is making a case, using events as the argument. Whatever else is going on, the text is not shy about what it is for.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from John 20:31, “these are written that you may believe”.

Qualifies · WEB
John 20, World English BibleJohn 20:29
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

Other readings

The same chapter blesses those who believe without seeing (20:29), so John also presents belief without signs as the better case.

Claim 11 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The same collection has him refuse to give one

Claim: The same collection has him refuse to give one

Kind: Describes a Bible passage. What a biblical passage says, in this page’s words. A fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · WEB
Mark 8, World English BibleMark 8:11-12
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The Pharisees came out and began to question him, seeking from him a sign from heaven and testing him. He sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Most certainly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

Claim 12 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In Mark, asked for a sign from heaven, Jesus "sighed deeply in his spirit" and said no sign would be given to this generation.

Kind: Quotes the Bible. The words of a biblical text, in the translation named. That the text says it is a fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · WEB
Mark 8, World English BibleMark 8:11-12
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The Pharisees came out and began to question him, seeking from him a sign from heaven and testing him. He sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Most certainly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

What this does not establish

In the same chapter Mark narrates the feeding of the four thousand and a healing. The refusal is of a sign on demand, not of miracles.

Claim 13 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The request is treated as the wrong kind of request.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Mark frames the request as “testing him”.

Context · WEB
Mark 8, World English BibleMark 8:11
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The Pharisees came out and began to question him, seeking from him a sign from heaven and testing him.

Claim 14 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: So the canon contains both a book offering signs as grounds for belief and an episode in which demanding one is the error. Any account of what these texts think a miracle is for has to carry both.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the John 20 and Mark 8 claims above.

Claim 15 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Hume states the objection in one maxim

Claim: Hume states the objection in one maxim

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Hume himself calls it “a general maxim worthy of our attention”.

Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, §91
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.'

Claim 16 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In an essay first published in 1748, Hume argued that "a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined".

Kind: Quotes a source. The words of a named text, checked against the source.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, §90
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.
Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyBibliography
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Hume, David, 1748 et seq., An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Dates the Enquiry from 1748.

What this does not establish

The words are those of the 1777 edition, which is what was read. The SEP quotes the same words from Beauchamp’s critical edition; the 1748 text itself was not read.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “In 1748 Hume argued that” The quoted wording is from the 1777 posthumous edition, the one the page cites. The old wording dated these exact words to 1748, which was not checked; the argument’s first publication in 1748 is what the sources carry.

Claim 17 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: From which: "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish."

Kind: Quotes a source. The words of a named text, checked against the source.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, §91
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.'

What this does not establish

The maxim continues: even when the testimony is that strong, “there is a mutual destruction of arguments”, and only what remains gives assurance.

Claim 18 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The claim is not that miracles are impossible.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: A non-theological version of this argument, sometimes mistakenly attributed to Hume, is actually due to Voltaire
Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part II, §99
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: I beg the limitations here made may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history.

Claim 19 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is that testimony is itself only experience, and has to outweigh the uniform experience a miracle would overturn.

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

A summary of Part I of Hume’s essay.

Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, §88
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: our assurance in any argument of this kind is derived from no other principle than our observation of the veracity of human testimony, and of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of witnesses.
Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, §90
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “It is that testimony is always weaker evidence than the uniform experience it would have to overturn, so the rational verdict goes the same way every time regardless of the witnesses.” The old sentence stated one reading of Hume as what Hume said. His maxim itself names the case in which testimony would prevail, and in Part II (§99) he allows that a violation of nature might be proved by testimony, limiting his conclusion to miracles offered as the foundation of a religion. The SEP records that his contemporaries read him as the old sentence did, and that the reading is now disputed.

Claim 20 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: His contemporaries read that as meaning it never could, however good the witnesses.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The traditional interpretation has been that it is an argument from the nature of the case, the conclusion being that a miracle story could not be believed on testimony even under the most favorable circumstances. As far as we can tell, all of Hume’s contemporaries
Qualifies
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: There is, however, considerable recent disagreement as to whether Hume intended Part 1 of his essay as an argument.

What this does not establish

The SEP qualifies this “as far as we can tell”, and recent interpreters disagree about whether Part I is meant as a free-standing argument at all.

Claim 21 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hume drew his own line more narrowly: no testimony could prove a miracle "so as to be the foundation of a system of religion", and he allowed that one founding no religion might be proved.

Kind: Quotes a source. The words of a named text, checked against the source.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part II, §99
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: I beg the limitations here made may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history.

What this does not establish

Hume adds that perhaps no such case can be found “in all the records of history”; his example is a hypothetical eight days of darkness over the whole earth.

Other readings

How §99 bears on the argument of Part I is itself argued over by Hume’s interpreters.

Claim 22 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Where the argument really is

Claim: Where the argument really is

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: One book offers signs as grounds for belief. In another, asking for one is the mistake.

Kind: Describes a Bible passage. What a biblical passage says, in this page’s words. A fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · WEB
John 20, World English BibleJohn 20:30-31
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
Supports · WEB
Mark 8, World English BibleMark 8:11-12
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The Pharisees came out and began to question him, seeking from him a sign from heaven and testing him. He sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Most certainly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

What this does not establish

“The mistake” is the page’s reading of Mark’s framing of the request as a test.

Claim 24 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Whether the maxim proves too much

Claim: Whether the maxim proves too much

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: One standing objection is that the argument, applied consistently, would have blocked belief in genuinely novel phenomena that turned out to be real, because uniform experience was against those too until it was not.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2, on Hájek (2008)
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: 6 is deeply problematic, since lack of analogy is at best an obscure reason for concluding that an event is maximally improbable. For if strength of analogy is a critical determinant in a rational agent’s probability function, then he should be comparably skeptical regarding all spectacular scientific discoveries
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The 19th century saw a proliferation of satires in which Humean scruples about accepting testimony for extraordinary tales were applied to the events of secular history
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: retorts against the claim in premise 1 that “a miracle is more properly an event different from experience than contrary to it.”
A different objection: a miracle is outside experience rather than against it.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The standing objection is that” The cited entry sets out several objections (Price on “different from” against “contrary to” experience, the nineteenth-century satires, Hájek on scientific discovery) and does not rank this one first.

Claim 26 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hume anticipated it in the essay itself.

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, §89
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The Indian prince, who refused to believe the first relations concerning the effects of frost, reasoned justly; and it naturally required very strong testimony to engage his assent to facts, that arose from a state of nature, with which he was unacquainted, and which bore so little analogy to those events, of which he had had constant and uniform experience. Though they were not contrary to his experience, they were not conformable to it.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The standing reply is that scientific anomalies are repeatable and examinable, and a one-off event reported by witnesses is not, so the cases are not parallel.” The cited entry does not set out the repeatability reply as the standing one, and no source was cited for it. Hume’s own reply to this objection is in the essay the page cites, so the page now gives that.

Claim 27 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The Indian prince who refused to believe the first reports of frost "reasoned justly", he says, because ice was "not contrary to his experience", only unlike it.

Kind: Quotes a source. The words of a named text, checked against the source.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

“Only unlike it” renders Hume’s “they were not conformable to it”.

Supports · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, §89
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The Indian prince, who refused to believe the first relations concerning the effects of frost, reasoned justly; and it naturally required very strong testimony to engage his assent to facts, that arose from a state of nature, with which he was unacquainted, and which bore so little analogy to those events, of which he had had constant and uniform experience. Though they were not contrary to his experience, they were not conformable to it.

Claim 28 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A novelty is not a violation, so the cases are not parallel.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Hume’s distinction between the extraordinary and the miraculous.

Context · English (1777 edition)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesSection X, Part I, footnote to §89
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Such an event, therefore, may be denominated extraordinary, and requires a pretty strong testimony, to render it credible to people in a warm climate: But still it is not miraculous, nor contrary to uniform experience of the course of nature in cases where all the circumstances are the same.
Qualifies
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2, on Hájek (2008)
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: then he should be comparably skeptical regarding all spectacular scientific discoveries

What this does not establish

Whether the distinction holds is exactly what the objection disputes: Hájek argues that the reasoning, applied consistently, would make one sceptical of every spectacular discovery.

Claim 29 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: This has been going for nearly three centuries and neither side is obviously making a mistake, which is usually the sign of a disagreement about something upstream.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Earman (2000), who argues that Part 1 is an “abject failure,” Fogelin (2003), who aims to rehabilitate Hume against the critiques of Johnson and Earman in particular
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: A curious feature of recent discussions is that Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense.

What this does not establish

The participants do not agree that neither side is mistaken: Earman calls Part I an “abject failure”, and Fogelin and Millican defend Hume against him. “Not obviously” is the page’s judgement.

Claim 30 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the argument is upstream about

Claim: What the argument is upstream about

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: If the laws of nature are exceptionless descriptions of what happens, a violation is a contradiction and the question is closed by definition. If they are descriptions of how things go when nothing intervenes, then whether anything ever intervenes is exactly what is at issue and cannot be settled by the definition.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The two views are the regularity view and Mackie’s “left to itself” view, both set out in the SEP entry.

Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: On Hume’s own “regularity” view of natural laws, it is difficult to see what it would mean for a natural law to be violated.
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§1.2, quoting Mackie (1982)
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: works when left to itself, when not interfered with. A miracle occurs when the world is not left to itself, when something distinct from the natural order as a whole intrudes into it.
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.1, quoting Voltaire
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: By the very exposition itself, a miracle is a contradiction in terms: a law cannot at the same time be immutable and violated.
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Third, there are deep philosophical disagreements regarding the nature and even the existence of natural laws.

What this does not establish

There are more than two views of natural law, including the view that there are none; the page takes the two that bear most directly on the question.

Claim 32 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Much of the heat in this argument comes from the two sides having already answered that, usually without saying so.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s own reading of the debate, filed as open.

Qualifies
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The maxim itself is open to interpretive disputes.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “Most of the heat in this argument” “Most” is a measurement no source makes. The cited entry shows much of the dispute is also about how to read Hume’s maxim, how to weigh testimony and the particular arguments of Part II.

Claim 33 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What could settle it

Claim: What could settle it

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

What would settle it

Claim: What would settle it

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Nothing available.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

The page’s verdict on the question, in the section filed as unknown.

Claim 36 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A repeatable miracle would be a natural phenomenon and would be studied as one.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Richard Swinburne (1970) has suggested that a miracle might be defined as a non-repeatable counter-instance to a law of nature.
Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: On Hume’s own “regularity” view of natural laws, it is difficult to see what it would mean for a natural law to be violated.

What this does not establish

This holds on definitions of a miracle as a violation of natural law. On definitions that turn on a supernatural cause, repeatability alone would not make an event natural.

Claim 37 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A unique one leaves testimony and the traces around it, and how much those can carry is the thing under dispute.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: But other factors are also cited in favor of miracle claims: the existence of commemorative ceremonies from earliest times, for example, or the transformation of the eyewitnesses from fearful cowards into defiant proclaimers of the resurrection

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “A unique one leaves only testimony, which is the thing under dispute.” The cited entry records that arguments for miracle claims also cite commemorative practices, the change in the witnesses and the growth of the early church, not testimony alone.

Claim 38 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is not a stalemate produced by anybody being unreasonable. It is the shape of the question, and it means a person’s verdict here is largely determined by what they thought before they arrived.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Context
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§4.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: In the final analysis, the relevance of background beliefs looms large. To say this is not to endorse a lazy and unprincipled relativism

What this does not establish

“Largely determined” is the page’s judgement, not a measured finding. The SEP stresses that the weight of background beliefs is not relativism.

Claim 39 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the argument does not decide

Claim: What the argument does not decide

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “How it is actually decided” The section says it has no source for how people actually decide this, so its title cannot claim to report it.

What the traditions actually claim

Claim: What the traditions actually claim

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “What the tradition actually claims” The passage now reports that Christian traditions differ, which one “tradition” does not describe.

Claim: Christians do not agree on how often miracles happen.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of PentecostalsOverview
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: large majorities of all Christians, renewalists and nonrenewalists alike, believe that miracles still occur today as in ancient times. But this belief tends to be even more intense among pentecostals
Supports
Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of PentecostalsOverview
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: In seven of the 10 countries surveyed, for instance, at least half of pentecostals say that the church services they attend frequently include people practicing the gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, prophesying or praying for miraculous healing.
Supports
Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of PentecostalsOverview
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: By contrast, in most of the countries surveyed, only small numbers of non-renewalist Christians report attending religious services where these sorts of religious experiences occur.

What this does not establish

The survey covers ten countries in 2006, not all Christians.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “Christianity does not generally hold that miracles are common, or that they are the ordinary way God acts. Most traditions treat them as rare, and several are notably cautious about claims, with formal processes for refusing most of them.” Flattened Christianity and cited nothing. In Pew’s ten-country survey large majorities of Christians said miracles still occur, and most Pentecostals in every country reported witnessing divine healing, which is not a tradition that treats miracles as rare. The “formal processes” are Catholic; the 2024 norms were read, and they stop short of declaring phenomena supernatural rather than “refusing most”.

Claim 42 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In a 2006 survey of ten countries, large majorities of Christians said miracles still occur today, and in every country most Pentecostals said they had experienced or witnessed a divine healing.

Kind: Present-day figure. A count, survey or report finding, as the named source gives it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of PentecostalsOverview
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: large majorities of all Christians, renewalists and nonrenewalists alike, believe that miracles still occur today as in ancient times. But this belief tends to be even more intense among pentecostals
Supports
Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of PentecostalsOverview
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: In all 10 countries surveyed, large majorities of pentecostals (ranging from 56% in South Korea to 87% in Kenya) say that they have personally experienced or witnessed the divine healing of an illness or injury.

What this does not establish

Ten countries chosen for their Pentecostal populations, surveyed in 2006; the figures are what respondents said, not a count of healings.

Claim 43 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The Catholic Church examines reported apparitions and similar phenomena under formal norms which, since 2024, as a rule stop short of declaring any of them supernatural.

Kind: A church’s teaching. What the named tradition teaches, from its own documents. Evidence of what is taught, not proof that it is true, and not what every Christian holds.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Held by: Catholic

Supports
Norms for proceeding in the Discernment of alleged Supernatural PhenomenaPart I, §23
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: it is reaffirmed that, as a rule, neither the Diocesan Bishop, nor the Episcopal Conferences, nor the Dicastery will declare that these phenomena are of supernatural origin, even if a Nihil obstat is granted
Context
Norms for proceeding in the Discernment of alleged Supernatural PhenomenaPresentation
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: In fact, since 1950, no more than six cases have been officially resolved

What this does not establish

The norms govern apparitions, visions and similar phenomena. The procedures for miracles in causes for canonisation are separate and were not read.

Claim 44 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Nor do they all keep miracles out of the argument.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

A transition to the Catholic teaching that follows, which it summarises.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “” The passage presented the tradition as not offering miracles as proof. The Catholic Church teaches that miracles are signs of revelation that make faith reasonable, and in the same Catechism that they are not given to satisfy curiosity. Both halves belong on the page.

Claim 45 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Catholic teaching calls the miracles of Christ and the saints "motives of credibility", which show that faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind", and says of Jesus' own that they "are not intended to satisfy people's curiosity or desire for magic".

Kind: A church’s teaching. What the named tradition teaches, from its own documents. Evidence of what is taught, not proof that it is true, and not what every Christian holds.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Held by: Catholic

Supports
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 153 to 165: the characteristics of faithCCC 156
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, ... "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".
Supports
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 512 to 570: the mysteries of Christ’s lifeCCC 548
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The signs worked by Jesus attest that the Father has sent him. They invite belief in him. ... But his miracles can also be occasions for "offence"; ... they are not intended to satisfy people's curiosity or desire for magic

What this does not establish

The Catechism quotes the First Vatican Council for these phrases. Other churches were not read on this point.

Claim 46 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The central claim is one event, the resurrection,

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Paul makes the faith stand or fall with it.

Supports · WEB
1 Corinthians 15, World English Bible1 Corinthians 15:14
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith also is in vain.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “The central claim is one event, which is presented not as a demonstration to persuade sceptics but as the thing the whole account is about.” Named the event, and qualified “not as a demonstration”: Paul presents the resurrection with a list of those it appeared to (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), which is testimony offered as grounds, and Catholic teaching counts miracles among the motives of credibility.

Claim 47 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and Paul does list its witnesses.

Kind: Describes a Bible passage. What a biblical passage says, in this page’s words. A fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · WEB
1 Corinthians 15, World English Bible1 Corinthians 15:3-8
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.

What this does not establish

That Paul lists them is a fact about the letter. What the witnesses saw is the historical question the page does not take up.

Claim 48 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: But he also writes that "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith also is in vain".

Kind: Quotes the Bible. The words of a biblical text, in the translation named. That the text says it is a fact about the text, separate from whether an event happened.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports · WEB
1 Corinthians 15, World English Bible1 Corinthians 15:14
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith also is in vain.

What this does not establish

That Paul writes this is a fact about the letter. It says what the resurrection means to his readers’ faith, not whether it happened.

Other readings

Christian apologetics from the eighteenth century on (the SEP names Paley and Leslie) has argued that the resurrection can be shown from testimony; Catholic teaching counts miracles among the “motives of credibility”. The page no longer says how far any tradition presents it as proof.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “But it is presented less as a demonstration to persuade sceptics than as the thing the whole account is about.” Owner’s rule: only what a credible source verifies is shown. Whether the resurrection is presented “less as a demonstration than” as the substance of the faith, across traditions, is a theological judgement no source read settles. Narrowed to what Paul himself writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14.

Claim 49 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is a different sort of claim from a wonder offered as proof, and the difference is one way to read why Mark can have Jesus decline to provide one.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Context · WEB
Mark 8, World English BibleMark 8:11-12
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026
The source reads: The Pharisees came out and began to question him, seeking from him a sign from heaven and testing him. He sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Most certainly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

What this does not establish

Mark gives no reason for the refusal beyond the question “Why does this generation seek a sign?”.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “That is a different sort of claim from a wonder offered as proof, and the difference is the reason Mark can have Jesus decline to provide one.” A claim about why Mark wrote what he did, which Mark does not state and no source cited carries. Stated as a reading.

Claim 50 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Why the argument has not closed it

Claim: Why the argument has not closed it

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: A curious feature of recent discussions is that Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “Why people mostly do not decide this by argument” A claim about how most people decide, which nothing cited measures; the earlier review removed the same claim from the body and left it in the heading.

Claim 51 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hume’s argument has been in print since 1748 and the Stanford Encyclopedia’s survey of the literature is a catalogue of live positions rather than a verdict: what a law of nature is, what counts as violating one, and how to weigh testimony are all still being argued.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyBibliography
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Hume, David, 1748 et seq., An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Third, there are deep philosophical disagreements regarding the nature and even the existence of natural laws. ... Speaking of miracles as violations of the laws of nature also raises questions about the nature of violation.
Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.1.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish ... The maxim itself is open to interpretive disputes.
Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: A curious feature of recent discussions is that Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense.

What this does not establish

The entry is one author’s survey, and its author has published on the side of the argument from miracles.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “and the encyclopedia’s survey of the literature” The prose had not named the encyclopedia anywhere; “the encyclopedia” pointed at nothing a reader had seen.

Claim 52 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Which does not tell you who is right.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: It does mean the argument, sharp as it is, has not settled the question even among the philosophers who know it best.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: Earman (2000), who argues that Part 1 is an “abject failure,” Fogelin (2003), who aims to rehabilitate Hume against the critiques of Johnson and Earman in particular
Supports
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy§3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 23 September 2026
The source reads: A curious feature of recent discussions is that Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense.

Corrected

23 September 2026. Previously: “It does mean the philosophical argument, as sharp as it is, has not been what settles the question for anyone, and an account of why people believe this that treats it as the mechanism is describing something other than what happens. What does the work instead is not something this page has a source for.” “For anyone” and the claim about what actually happens when people come to believe are claims about populations that nothing cited measures. What the entry does show is that the specialists have not converged.

Claim 54 · checked 23 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Whether it is what settles it for anyone else, and what does the work if not, are not things this page has a source for.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

What was read

John 20, World English BibleeBible.org, public domain · World English Bible, eBible.orgThe cited passage was read, 23 September 2026 · Public domain
Mark 8, World English BibleeBible.org, public domain · World English Bible, eBible.orgThe cited passage was read, 23 September 2026 · Public domain
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of MiraclesDavid Hume, Project Gutenberg, public domain · Project Gutenberg eBook 9662: the Selby-Bigge edition (second edition, 1902), reprinted from the posthumous edition of 1777. Section X, Parts I and II, read in full.The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026 · Public domainThe Gutenberg text marks italics with underscores; excerpts drop them. The 1748 first edition was not read.
Mark 2, World English BibleeBible.org, public domain · World English Bible, eBible.orgThe cited passage was read, 23 September 2026 · Public domain
1 Corinthians 15, World English BibleeBible.org, public domain · World English Bible, eBible.orgThe cited passage was read, 23 September 2026 · Public domain
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 153 to 165: the characteristics of faithThe Holy See · Catechism of the Catholic Church, English text, vatican.va, paragraphs 153 to 165The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026 · Copyright Libreria Editrice Vaticana; quoted briefly
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 512 to 570: the mysteries of Christ’s lifeThe Holy See · Catechism of the Catholic Church, English text, vatican.va, paragraphs 512 to 570 (547 to 550 read closely)The cited passage was read, 23 September 2026 · Copyright Libreria Editrice Vaticana; quoted briefly
Norms for proceeding in the Discernment of alleged Supernatural PhenomenaDicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Holy See · Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Norms for proceeding in the Discernment of alleged Supernatural Phenomena, 17 May 2024, English text, vatican.vaRead in full, 23 September 2026 · Copyright Libreria Editrice Vaticana; quoted briefly
Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of PentecostalsPew Research Center · Pew Research Center, “Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals”, 5 October 2006, overview pageThe cited passage was read, 23 September 2026 · Copyright Pew Research Center; quoted brieflyThe overview was read; the country tables and topline were not.
Miracles, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyTimothy McGrew, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Miracles”, by Timothy McGrew; first published 11 October 2010, substantive revision 7 May 2024Read in full, 23 September 2026 · Copyright Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; quoted brieflyThe author has also published an argument from miracles (McGrew and McGrew 2009, listed in the entry’s bibliography), and the entry’s assessments of Hume are often critical.