- Epistemic Reliability
- Epistemic Reliability - Quizzes
- Epistemic Reliability: The Problem of Miracles
Epistemic Reliability: The Problem of Miracles
| Description: Epistemic Reliability: The Problem of Miracles | |
| Number of Questions: 14 | |
| Created by: Aliensbrain Bot | |
| Tags: epistemology epistemic reliability miracles |
What is the central problem of miracles in epistemology?
-
The problem of the existence of miracles.
-
The problem of the epistemic reliability of miracles.
-
The problem of the logical possibility of miracles.
-
The problem of the moral implications of miracles.
The central problem of miracles in epistemology is not whether miracles exist, but whether we can reliably know that they do.
What is the main argument against the epistemic reliability of miracles?
-
Miracles are logically impossible.
-
Miracles are contrary to the laws of nature.
-
Miracles are too rare to be reliably observed.
-
Miracles are often reported by unreliable witnesses.
The main argument against the epistemic reliability of miracles is that they are too rare to be reliably observed. This means that we cannot be sure that any particular report of a miracle is accurate.
What is the problem of Hume's Fork?
-
The problem of distinguishing between miracles and natural events.
-
The problem of distinguishing between true and false miracles.
-
The problem of distinguishing between religious and secular miracles.
-
The problem of distinguishing between ordinary and extraordinary miracles.
The problem of Hume's Fork is the problem of distinguishing between miracles and natural events. Hume argued that it is impossible to know for sure whether an event is a miracle or a natural event, because both types of events can be explained by natural causes.
What is the evidential argument from miracles?
-
The argument that miracles provide evidence for the existence of God.
-
The argument that miracles provide evidence for the truth of a particular religion.
-
The argument that miracles provide evidence for the moral goodness of the world.
-
The argument that miracles provide evidence for the existence of an afterlife.
The evidential argument from miracles is the argument that miracles provide evidence for the existence of God. This argument is based on the idea that miracles are events that cannot be explained by natural causes, and therefore must be caused by a supernatural being.
What is the problem of the uniformity of nature?
-
The problem of explaining why the laws of nature are uniform.
-
The problem of explaining why the laws of nature are not uniform.
-
The problem of explaining why the laws of nature are sometimes violated.
-
The problem of explaining why the laws of nature are always violated.
The problem of the uniformity of nature is the problem of explaining why the laws of nature are sometimes violated. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because miracles are events that violate the laws of nature.
What is the problem of the hidden cause?
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are often hidden from view.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are sometimes revealed to view.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are sometimes caused by natural events.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are sometimes caused by supernatural events.
The problem of the hidden cause is the problem of explaining why miracles are often hidden from view. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot always be sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has.
What is the problem of the testimony of witnesses?
-
The problem of explaining why witnesses to miracles are often unreliable.
-
The problem of explaining why witnesses to miracles are often reliable.
-
The problem of explaining why witnesses to miracles are sometimes reliable and sometimes unreliable.
-
The problem of explaining why witnesses to miracles are always reliable.
The problem of the testimony of witnesses is the problem of explaining why witnesses to miracles are often unreliable. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot always be sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has been reported by multiple witnesses.
What is the problem of the logical coherence of miracles?
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are logically impossible.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are logically possible.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are sometimes logically possible and sometimes logically impossible.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are always logically impossible.
The problem of the logical coherence of miracles is the problem of explaining why miracles are logically impossible. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot know for sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has been reported by multiple witnesses and seems to be supported by evidence.
What is the problem of the moral implications of miracles?
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are always morally good.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are always morally bad.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are sometimes morally good and sometimes morally bad.
-
The problem of explaining why miracles are never morally good or morally bad.
The problem of the moral implications of miracles is the problem of explaining why miracles are sometimes morally good and sometimes morally bad. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot know for sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has been reported by multiple witnesses and seems to be supported by evidence, unless we also know that it is morally good.
What is the problem of the cumulative case for miracles?
-
The problem of explaining why the cumulative case for miracles is always strong.
-
The problem of explaining why the cumulative case for miracles is always weak.
-
The problem of explaining why the cumulative case for miracles is sometimes strong and sometimes weak.
-
The problem of explaining why the cumulative case for miracles is never strong or weak.
The problem of the cumulative case for miracles is the problem of explaining why the cumulative case for miracles is sometimes strong and sometimes weak. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot know for sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has been reported by multiple witnesses and seems to be supported by evidence, unless we also know that it is part of a strong cumulative case for miracles.
What is the problem of the Bayesian approach to miracles?
-
The problem of explaining why the Bayesian approach to miracles is always successful.
-
The problem of explaining why the Bayesian approach to miracles is always unsuccessful.
-
The problem of explaining why the Bayesian approach to miracles is sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful.
-
The problem of explaining why the Bayesian approach to miracles is never successful or unsuccessful.
The problem of the Bayesian approach to miracles is the problem of explaining why the Bayesian approach to miracles is sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot know for sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has been reported by multiple witnesses and seems to be supported by evidence, unless we also know that it is supported by a strong Bayesian argument.
What is the problem of the Reformed epistemology approach to miracles?
-
The problem of explaining why the Reformed epistemology approach to miracles is always successful.
-
The problem of explaining why the Reformed epistemology approach to miracles is always unsuccessful.
-
The problem of explaining why the Reformed epistemology approach to miracles is sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful.
-
The problem of explaining why the Reformed epistemology approach to miracles is never successful or unsuccessful.
The problem of the Reformed epistemology approach to miracles is the problem of explaining why the Reformed epistemology approach to miracles is sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot know for sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has been reported by multiple witnesses and seems to be supported by evidence, unless we also know that it is supported by a strong Reformed epistemology argument.
What is the problem of the evidential argument from miracles?
-
The problem of explaining why the evidential argument from miracles is always successful.
-
The problem of explaining why the evidential argument from miracles is always unsuccessful.
-
The problem of explaining why the evidential argument from miracles is sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful.
-
The problem of explaining why the evidential argument from miracles is never successful or unsuccessful.
The problem of the evidential argument from miracles is the problem of explaining why the evidential argument from miracles is sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot know for sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has been reported by multiple witnesses and seems to be supported by evidence, unless we also know that it is supported by a strong evidential argument.
What is the problem of the transcendental argument from miracles?
-
The problem of explaining why the transcendental argument from miracles is always successful.
-
The problem of explaining why the transcendental argument from miracles is always unsuccessful.
-
The problem of explaining why the transcendental argument from miracles is sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful.
-
The problem of explaining why the transcendental argument from miracles is never successful or unsuccessful.
The problem of the transcendental argument from miracles is the problem of explaining why the transcendental argument from miracles is sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful. This problem is relevant to the epistemic reliability of miracles, because it means that we cannot know for sure that a miracle has occurred, even if it has been reported by multiple witnesses and seems to be supported by evidence, unless we also know that it is supported by a strong transcendental argument.