Dr Tillotson Analysis
1. The argument that Dr. Tillotson’s wrote in his writings says that “a weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger.” Tillotson’s main idea is how can we believe the Christian religion if it is all eyewitnesses. He believes that there is no evidence behind the religion and that all the writings just come from eyewitness apostles. He goes on and says how the real presence was never clearly revealed in scripture, therefore how can we believe anything that is said. Tillotson says that it is not evidence but sense that we are carrying all of this information. Tillotson has a point on his argument but if you think about it, he does not have the evidence to support that there is no evidence with the Christian religion.
2. The main sign that Hume …show more content…
In my opinion if someone that you really trust tells you something than I would believe them but you also have to believe in miracles for yourself. You cannot just believe in what they say, you have to come up with your own opinions. Hume talks about how we confide in the trustworthy person because we are comfortable with them. We want to believe them so we tell ourselves that they are being honest with us. Hume uses an Indian prince as an example, he talks about how the water freezes in the cold. You know it is going to happen so you will trust someone when they say the water has frozen. The only problem is when you get them in a different climate, then they do not know what happens so they cannot trust just anyone.
4. Hume states that miracles are a violation to the law of nature and how the proof of a miracle can be just like how any argument from any experience can be imaginably. Hume believes that nothing is a miracle if it has happened in the common course of nature but it would be a miracle if someone came back to life because it has never happened in our age or any country. Hume also talks about rejecting the greater miracle because that just means the falsehood is even greater. I personally disagree with Hume in everything he is saying, because I have seen miracles with my own eyes and I will never forget
2. The main sign that Hume …show more content…
In my opinion if someone that you really trust tells you something than I would believe them but you also have to believe in miracles for yourself. You cannot just believe in what they say, you have to come up with your own opinions. Hume talks about how we confide in the trustworthy person because we are comfortable with them. We want to believe them so we tell ourselves that they are being honest with us. Hume uses an Indian prince as an example, he talks about how the water freezes in the cold. You know it is going to happen so you will trust someone when they say the water has frozen. The only problem is when you get them in a different climate, then they do not know what happens so they cannot trust just anyone.
4. Hume states that miracles are a violation to the law of nature and how the proof of a miracle can be just like how any argument from any experience can be imaginably. Hume believes that nothing is a miracle if it has happened in the common course of nature but it would be a miracle if someone came back to life because it has never happened in our age or any country. Hume also talks about rejecting the greater miracle because that just means the falsehood is even greater. I personally disagree with Hume in everything he is saying, because I have seen miracles with my own eyes and I will never forget