Logical Analysis of David Hume's “Of Miracles”

A.)
Violations of Nature do not exist.
All miracles are violations of nature.
Therefore, miracles do not exist.

B.) This is valid deductive argument given by Hume. However, the argument is unsound because it is has a false premise and a false conclusion. Either of the premises have to be false, both cannot be true at the same time, and the conclusion is false.

C.) Hume in his argument for identifying miracles is an example of Begging the Question. This can be found two paragraphs before Part 2 in “Of Miracles”. This is when Hume is talking about uniform experience. (Last 2 sentences) Hume. If we take what Hume says that uniform experience is against miracles is to basically say that the miracles, …show more content…
In the first beginning steps of learning philosophy and forming an argument, we learn to define terms. Hume’s very own definition of identifying miracles cause the biggest harm to his argument. If Hume wanted to avoid committing this fallacy he would have to use a more relaxed term, like general, other than uniform. However, if Hume does this he then loses the validity of his argument. That is because, it is no longer incompatible that general experience be that miracles do not occur.
E.)
PART 1
Ad Hominem Abusive. You can find this fallacy in the second paragraph of Part 2 of Hume’s argument in “Of Miracles” This is the first sentence of the paragraph. It commits the fallacy by saying that all people who claim to see miracles are people who are uneducated, with no integrity, and no good-sense.
PART 2
Appeal to Ignorance. You can find this fallacy two paragraphs above Part 2 of Hume’s argument in “ Of Miracles” This is in probably Hume’s most notable paragraph and is located in the third sentence. The fallacy is committed by saying that nothing is esteemed a miracle, thus saying that no one has claimed to see miracles.
F.)
PART 1- Ad Hominem