To whom it may concern

- You have bigger problems
than the equator moving, human!

So I asked Gemini to debunk a rather zany conspiracy theory. I mean, in case you fall for it! ;-)  

Does the sun rise and set at different places today than just a few years or decades ago, or is this a misunderstanding or an Internet conspiracy theory?

This is an excellent question that gets at the heart of how our solar system works. The short answer is: Yes, the sunrise and sunset points do change, and it's not a conspiracy theory. However, the change you might notice over a few years or decades is extremely subtle.

Here's a breakdown of the factors at play, from the most significant to the more subtle.

1. The Earth's Axial Tilt (The Main Reason)

The primary reason the sunrise and sunset locations change on a daily and seasonal basis is the Earth's axial tilt. Our planet is tilted on its axis by approximately 23.5 degrees relative to its orbital plane around the sun.

• Daily Change: As the Earth orbits the sun, this tilt means that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are either tilted towards or away from the sun. This causes the sun's apparent path across the sky to change daily.

• Seasonal Change:

  • Summer Solstice: When your hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, the sun rises and sets at its most northerly point on the horizon. This is why we have long days in the summer.

  • Winter Solstice: When your hemisphere is tilted away from the sun, the sun rises and sets at its most southerly point. This is why days are short in the winter.

  • Equinoxes: On the spring and fall equinoxes, the Earth's axis is not tilted toward or away from the sun, so the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west.

This daily shift in the sun's rising and setting points is a fundamental and easily observable astronomical phenomenon, and it happens every single year.

2. The Earth's Elliptical Orbit

The Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect circle; it's an ellipse. This means that at some times of the year, we are closer to the sun (perihelion) and at other times we are farther away (aphelion). This also affects the sun's apparent speed across the sky and can subtly change the timing of sunrise and sunset.

3. Precession of the Equinoxes (The Long-Term Change)

This is the very slow, long-term change that you are unlikely to notice in your lifetime, but it's a real astronomical effect.

• The Earth's axis of rotation "wobbles" like a spinning top. This wobble, called axial precession, causes the Earth's axis to trace a circle in space over a period of about 26,000 years.

• This means that the direction of the celestial poles changes over time. For example, the North Star has not always been Polaris and will not always be Polaris in the future.

• This slow change in the Earth's orientation in space also means that the position of the sun at the equinoxes slowly shifts against the backdrop of the stars. While the sun will still rise due east at the equinoxes, its position relative to distant constellations will be different over thousands of years. This is what ancient civilizations and astronomers sometimes noticed over generations, but it is not a change that is perceptible over just a few years or even decades.

So, to summarize:Yes, the sun rises and sets in a different place every day. This is a normal, annual cycle caused by the Earth's axial tilt. The position also changes over millennia due to the precession of the equinoxes. This change is real but far too slow to be noticed in a human lifetime. The idea that the sun's position has noticeably changed over a few years or decades in a way that is abnormal or conspiratorial is a misunderstanding. The changes we see are part of the predictable, well-understood astronomical cycles of our planet. 

Is it true that the equator has shifted 150 miles to the north, or is that another misunderstanding or conspiracy theory?

This is a great question that highlights a common source of confusion. The idea that the geographic equator has shifted 150 miles is a misunderstanding. The confusion likely stems from the difference between the Earth's geographic poles and its magnetic poles.

Here's a breakdown of the key concepts to clarify:

1. Geographic Equator (True Equator)

The geographic equator is an imaginary line that is halfway between the Earth's geographic North and South Poles. These poles are the points where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects its surface.

• Is it fixed? For all practical purposes, yes. The geographic equator is a fundamental part of our planetary reference system. While the Earth's axis of rotation does have a very slight "wobble" called polar motion, this shift is minuscule—only a few feet (about 9 meters or 30 feet) over the course of a year. This is not a 150-mile shift.

• Is it a conspiracy theory? Yes, the idea of a 150-mile shift is a conspiracy theory or a misunderstanding of a legitimate scientific concept. The geographic equator, which defines our latitude system, is stable.

2. Magnetic Equator

The magnetic equator is an imaginary line that is everywhere equidistant from the Earth's magnetic North and South Poles. These magnetic poles are the points where the Earth's magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the surface.

• Is it fixed? No, the magnetic equator is not fixed. The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the movement of molten iron in the planet's core, and this movement causes the magnetic poles to constantly drift. The North Magnetic Pole, in particular, has been moving rapidly towards Siberia in recent decades.

• Is the shift significant? Yes, the shift of the magnetic poles is significant for navigation and science. The North Magnetic Pole has been moving from Canada toward Russia at an accelerated rate, and this requires constant updates to the World Magnetic Model that is used by airplanes, ships, and smartphones for navigation.

Conclusion

The confusion almost certainly comes from mixing up the two different "equators."

• The geographic equator, which defines our latitude and longitude system and is used for all maps and GPS, is essentially a fixed line. Any changes are on a scale of feet, not miles.

• The magnetic equator, which is related to the Earth's ever-changing magnetic field, is constantly shifting. The rapid movement of the magnetic poles is a well-documented and scientifically-verified phenomenon, but it has no bearing on the location of the geographic equator or the position of the North and South Poles used for navigation.

The idea seems to be that the southern weather system has moved 150 miles to the north and therefore the equator must have moved, too.

This is a fascinating point, and it touches on a legitimate scientific phenomenon, but it connects it to the wrong conclusion. The core truth here is that weather and climate zones are shifting, but this does not mean the geographic equator has moved.

Here's the breakdown:

What Is Shifting: The Thermal Equator

The "thermal equator" is the line of maximum average temperature around the globe. It's also where the sun's direct rays hit the Earth most intensely, causing air to rise and creating a zone of low pressure and heavy rainfall called the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).

• The thermal equator is not a fixed line. Its location is influenced by the unequal distribution of land and water, and it shifts with the seasons. It moves north during the Northern Hemisphere's summer and south during the Southern Hemisphere's summer.

• Climate Change and a Shifting Thermal Equator: Scientists have observed that the average location of the thermal equator is shifting, particularly to the north. This is a documented effect of global warming. The Northern Hemisphere has more landmass than the Southern Hemisphere, and land heats up faster than water. As a result, the Northern Hemisphere is warming at a faster rate, which is causing the thermal equator and the ITCZ to move north.

This northward shift is a major reason why some areas are experiencing changes in their weather patterns, such as:

• A northward shift in tropical rainfall bands.

• The expansion of the "tropics" and the subtropical dry zones (the Hadley cells) towards the poles. This can lead to increased droughts in places like the Mediterranean and the American Southwest.

• Changes in the location of storm tracks, like those for tornadoes in the central U.S.

Why This Doesn't Affect the Geographic Equator

The geographic equator is a fixed, astronomical line. It's defined by the Earth's rotation and is exactly halfway between the geographic North and South Poles.

• The geographic equator is based on the Earth's physical rotation, not on temperature or weather. A shift of 150 miles would require a massive change in the Earth's axis of rotation, which is not happening. As noted before, the wobble (polar motion) is on the scale of a few feet, not miles.

• The idea of a large-scale shift of the geographic equator is a pseudoscientific concept, often tied to "pole shift" or "crustal displacement" theories that are not supported by evidence.

In summary, the observation that southern weather systems (and their associated climate zones) have moved north is scientifically accurate and is a known consequence of climate change. However, the conclusion that this proves the Earth's geographic equator has shifted is a misunderstanding. The weather patterns are shifting relative to the fixed geographic lines, not the other way around.

Quantum myth-busting

 

Sabine Hossenfelder debunks 10 myths about quantum physics. A bit hard to follow, tbh. Maybe the worst myth is quantum physics itself? 

Hypercarnivore

 

- Faint biosignature?!
 I´ll show you some faint biosignature, bruh!

So NASA may finally have discovered evidence for life on Mars, but surely *this* is more exciting than some faint biosignatures on Martian rock? 

A species of gigantic crocodile-like creatures may have hunted dinosaurs 70 million years ago, only to meet the same fate as their prey when that bloody asteroid struck our God-forsaken planet four million years later...

I suppose it could also make for a good "Jurassic Park" sequel! 

Researchers unearthed ancient "hypercarnivore" with a taste for dinosaurs

Journey into Mars

 

The disinformation/click bait about 3I-Atlas on YouTube and, I suppose, other fora is *off the freakin´ scales*. We´re talking Nibiru levels of BS. It´s just some kind of exotic comet, guys. And no, nothing will happen. This time either. Especially not if 3I-Atlas actually does crash into Mars! You *do* realize that Mars isn´t exactly next door to Earth, right? 

And why are you watching that stuff, anyone? Is it some kind of "alt-doom porn"?

But what am I doing, complaining about the interwebs at 1 AM local time... 

What seems to be the problem?

 

So the most distant star ever discovered, nicknamed Earendel, might not be a star after all, but a star cluster. And still bloody distant. So what exactly seems to be the problem here? 

Ooops! We have a problem.

The Ganesha particle

 

U study qwantum physix from strictly scientific POV all ur life. Then, this happens. Wat u do? 

The Big Bang had no sound

How is this not pseudo-science? The sound of something that never happened! OK, it´s the "sound" of the cosmic background radiation, but it still isn´t real. (Insert complex discussion of the ontological status of sound here). Did the Big Bang really go bang if nobody was around to hear it bang? 

Sabine in the wormhole

 

Sabine Hossenfelder debunks the most recent Congress-related UAP kerfuffle. Still, it´s interesting that the pro-UAP establishment faction is still pushing...  

I fucking love science

 

So I just watched a French science documentary about lightning. It turns out that scientists (until recently) were wrong about what causes lightning in the first place. Oookay. And something about everything living having electric fields on the same frequency as the lightning in the atmosphere. Oookay. And something about abiogenesis...

Fantastic. I mean, with this open-minded attitude, maybe next year they finally acknowledge the existence of *ball lightning*...  

Bronze Age, Axial Age

 

Tonight´s ChatGPT essay. The system is malfunctioning this evening, so it´s rather short.

What material factors could have led to the Axial Age and its shift in intellectual climate?

The Axial Age (roughly 800 to 200 BCE) marks a remarkable transformation in human thought, when many of the world's major philosophical and religious traditions emerged independently—Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, early Greek philosophy, and more. Understanding the material factors that may have contributed to this shift in intellectual climate involves looking at changes in social, economic, political, and technological conditions across multiple regions. Here are some key material factors often discussed by scholars:

---

1. Urbanization and State Formation

• Growth of large cities and early states created complex societies that required new forms of social organization, ethics, and governance.

• The rise of kingdoms and empires (e.g., Persian Empire, Greek city-states, Chinese Warring States) led to increased political centralization and bureaucracies, encouraging intellectual inquiry about law, justice, and human nature.

• Urban centers facilitated exchange of ideas among diverse groups, promoting philosophical debate.

2. Economic Surplus and Specialization

• Agricultural advances and trade expansion created surplus resources, freeing parts of society (philosophers, priests, scribes) to engage in intellectual and spiritual pursuits beyond mere subsistence.

• Specialized classes (scribes, scholars, priests) emerged with the leisure and resources to reflect deeply on ethical, metaphysical, and cosmological questions.

3. Trade Networks and Cultural Exchange

• Increased long-distance trade routes (e.g., Silk Road precursors, Indian Ocean trade) connected distant cultures, exposing thinkers to new ideas, beliefs, and technologies.

• Interaction between different peoples fostered cross-pollination of religious and philosophical concepts.

4. Literacy and Writing Systems

• The spread and standardization of writing (e.g., alphabetic scripts in Greece, Chinese characters, Brahmi script in India) enabled recording and transmission of complex ideas across generations.

• Writing allowed for more abstract thinking, systematic philosophy, and religious texts to be composed and preserved.

5. Social and Political Turmoil

• Periods of conflict, instability, and moral crisis often provoke reflection on human suffering, ethics, and order. The Warring States period in China or the collapse of older Mesopotamian powers are examples.

• Intellectual movements often emerge in response to these crises, proposing new social ideals or spiritual solutions.

6. Demographic Changes

• Population growth in some regions may have strained traditional kinship-based societies, necessitating new universal ethical frameworks that extend beyond tribe or clan.

• Larger, more anonymous societies encouraged ideas of individual moral responsibility and transcendence of local customs.

---

Summary:

The Axial Age intellectual flourishing was likely a product of complex interplay between expanding social complexity, economic surplus, political centralization, enhanced communication (trade and writing), and social crises. These material conditions created fertile ground for thinkers to question tradition, seek universal principles, and develop new spiritual and philosophical systems.

---

If you want, I can also highlight how specific material factors influenced particular Axial Age traditions, such as Confucianism, Buddhism, or Greek philosophy!

But didn´t these preconditions exist already during the Bronze Age? Yet, there was no Axial Age then.

Exactly — many of the basic ingredients for the Axial Age (cities, writing, trade, states) already existed in the Bronze Age (c. 3000–1200 BCE), but the intellectual climate was different.

Scholars usually point to several differences between the two eras that help explain why the Bronze Age did not produce the same kind of universalizing philosophies.

---

1. Bronze Age Thought Was More Mythic and Ruler-Centered

• Most Bronze Age writing was administrative or mythological, tied to temple cults and legitimizing kings, not abstract ethics or universal philosophy.

• Religion was often state-controlled, with gods tied to specific cities or rulers, rather than transcendent, moralizing deities.

---

2. Limited Social Upheaval (Until Collapse)

• Bronze Age civilizations were relatively stable for long stretches. The Late Bronze Age collapse (c. 1200 BCE) shattered that stability, destroying many palace economies.

• The Axial Age came after centuries of post-collapse rebuilding, during which people could not take old systems for granted.

---

3. Narrow Elites and Limited Literacy

• Literacy was confined to small scribal classes serving palaces and temples. In the Axial Age, literacy and discourse began to reach broader segments of the elite — merchants, independent scholars, wandering teachers — creating more pluralism of thought.

---

4. Technological and Economic Shifts

• Iron technology spread widely after 1200 BCE, lowering the cost of weapons and tools, undermining old aristocracies, and making political power more contested.

• Expanded coinage and market economies created new social classes (especially merchants) who often sponsored new religious or philosophical movements.

---

5. Political Fragmentation and Debate

• Bronze Age empires were highly centralized; dissenting ideas had little room to flourish.

• Axial Age cultures often emerged in competitive states or city-states (Greek poleis, Indian mahajanapadas, Chinese Warring States), where rival rulers competed to attract scholars and new ideas.

---

6. Shift Toward Universal Ethics and Salvation

• Axial thinkers (Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Hebrew prophets) asked: What is the good life for all humans?

• Bronze Age religion tended to ask: How do we please the local gods so the harvest is good and the king’s rule is secure?

---

In short: the Bronze Age had the hardware for civilization, but the Axial Age had the software update — instability, broader literacy, competitive politics, new technologies, and cultural cross-pollination — that encouraged questioning of tradition and the search for universal truths.

---

If you want, I can map this as a timeline showing how Late Bronze Age collapse conditions directly seeded the Axial Age. That makes the cause-and-effect even clearer.

Bomb MIT back to the Stone Age?

 

Why the obsession with proving Einstein wrong...if the alternative is an *even more crazy* universe á la Bohr and the Copenhagen clique? Dude! Forgive the media (and MIT) for they do not know what they are doing...  

The climate cult?

 

Prominent YouTube Skeptic (TM) and Atheist (TM) "Planet Peterson" is skeptical of climate alarmism and learns very quickly that some skepticism is seriously off limits in the Skeptical community...

I happen to believe that climate change *is* an "existential crisis" (although I suppose that depends on how you define those loaded terms), so presumably I should hate on Mr Planet, too. But naah. I admit that my sick sense of humor (maybe too sick?) finds the moralistic, cultish and pearl-clutching reactions of Peterson´s (former) fanboys extremely entertaining. Dude bros, you *fucking won´t survive* the crisis if you have performative meltdowns in a YouTube commentary section!

This little affair proves another point: that atheists don´t *really* believe that atheism is "merely a lack of belief in God or gods" or that it isn´t a "core identity". So why does the atheist non-community expect Planet Peterson do be very specifically an Al Gore-esque pseudo-Green liberal? Exaaaactly.

Not sure how interesting the above really is (I haven´t watched all of it either), but in case you have absolutely nothing to do on a dark summer evening, well...    

Reality doesn´t exist

 

This is the world atheists *don´t* want but quantum physics insist on serving them anyway. And no, it doesn´t matter how many times the atheist screams "IT IS STILL NOT SPIRITUAL", the weirdness of modern physics still shows "materialism" as usually understood can´t be true. Sabine even left out a few crazy things in the short video above!

I´m of two minds about this (r/superposition). On the one hand, I want my world to be neat, tidy and freakin´ commonsensical. Whaddya mean Big Bang and sheet? Time moves slower in some galaxies, wtf?!

On the other hand...maybe it´s a good thing that Skeptics (TM) get their small circles upset from time to time. I mean, are you seriously telling me that God (or the Divine, or...) is impossible in a universe of illogical high strangeness? 

Why Marxists are atheists

Just for fun, a short and surprisingly "moderate" (relatively speaking) defense of atheism, written by a very small Trotskyist group somewhere in the United States. No Big Bang denialism and similar stuff. Almost a disappointment!  

Why Marxists Are Atheists

The David Hume Probleme

 

Also know as "the Redditor predicament". Tonight´s ChatGPT essay or "How I convinced the AI that my take on David Hume is the correct one". 

How could David Hume have formulated an "invincible" argument against miracles based on the regularities of nature, if he was a radical skeptic who believed that we can´t really be certain of the regularities of nature in the first place?

Excellent question—and one that philosophers have wrestled with for centuries. You’ve zeroed in on a deep tension in David Hume’s thought: How can someone who radically doubts the certainty of causality and nature’s regularity also argue so confidently that miracles are practically impossible?

Let’s unpack this step by step.

---

⚙️ Hume’s Argument Against Miracles (Simplified)

Hume’s most famous claim is this:

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”
— An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X

In plainer terms:

• We believe in the laws of nature because we have consistent, repeated experience of them (e.g., gravity, death being irreversible, etc.).

• A miracle is a violation of a law of nature (e.g., resurrection).

• Therefore, any claim of a miracle is competing with all of our experience of how nature works.

• Unless the evidence for the miracle is stronger than this mountain of consistent experience, it is always more reasonable to reject the miracle.

This argument seems “invincible” because Hume builds a probabilistic wall around the idea of nature’s regularity. Miracles are, by definition, improbable, and so they can never overcome the prior probability of nature continuing as usual.

---

🤯 The Problem: Hume's Radical Skepticism About Causality

Here’s where things get tricky.

In Section VII of the same work, Hume argues that:

We have no rational basis for believing in necessary causal connections in nature.

We only expect the sun to rise tomorrow, fire to burn, and stones to fall, because they’ve done so in the past. But this expectation is habit, not logical certainty. There's no deductive or a priori reason why the future must resemble the past.

So now you’re asking:

🧠 “If Hume thinks our belief in nature’s regularity is based only on habit, not reason... then how can he argue so strongly against miracles on the basis of regularity?”

---

🧩 Possible Answers and Interpretations

1. 🧱 The Pragmatist Interpretation

Hume was a psychological skeptic, but a practical naturalist.

• He admits we can’t prove the laws of nature through reason.

• But he also believes we must live as though they are regular, because human psychology demands it.

• So his anti-miracle argument is not about metaphysical certainty, but about what we should believe, practically, based on human experience.

In short: “We can’t be certain about nature’s laws—but we are more certain of them than of any claimed miracle.”

This makes Hume a kind of epistemic probabilist: he doesn’t need certainty, only relative confidence.

---

2. 🔄 The Double Standard Critique

Some critics say Hume cheats:

• He uses skepticism to undermine arguments for God or miracles.

• But then he drops the skepticism when defending naturalism or science.

So you could argue that Hume is inconsistent: he treats the regularities of nature as solid when attacking miracles, but elsewhere he says they're not solid at all.

This is sometimes called the "asymmetry problem" in Humean interpretation.

---

3. 🧮 Bayesian Interpretation

Some modern philosophers (e.g. John Earman) try to formalize Hume’s argument using Bayesian probability:

• The prior probability of a miracle is extremely low.

• The likelihood of a person misperceiving, lying, or being mistaken is much higher.

• Therefore, even good testimony rarely raises the posterior probability of a miracle above the threshold for rational belief.

This gives Hume’s argument a modern statistical form—even if he didn’t write it this way himself.

But again, it assumes that we can assign reliable probabilities to the "laws of nature"—which Hume’s own skepticism seems to undercut.

---

🧾 Summary: So Is Hume Contradicting Himself?

✅ Consistent if you read him as a psychological pragmatist:

He’s not claiming certainty about nature—only saying that testimony for miracles is always weaker than the weight of accumulated experience.

❌ Contradictory if you hold him to strict epistemic standards:

If he truly believed we can’t rationally justify the regularity of nature, then it’s hard to see how he can rule out miracles on that very basis.

---

🔄 Final Thought: Two Humes?

Some philosophers talk about "two Humes":

1. The radical skeptic, who tears down causality and induction.

2. The cautious empiricist, who gives us rules for practical belief.

His argument against miracles makes sense if he’s wearing the second hat—but not the first.

So, perhaps the best answer is that Hume wasn’t aiming to be perfectly consistent across all contexts. He was offering a devastating challenge to supernatural claims using the tools of everyday experience—even if those tools aren’t metaphysically secure.

---

Would you like a breakdown of how later thinkers (like Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, or Plantinga) responded to Hume’s argument?

Also, how could Hume claim that we have no prior experience of miracles. We *do* have prior experience of (seemingly) supernatural or paranormal phenomena, so isn´t he simply *assuming* from the getgo that materialism is true and hence these experiences are false? But again, that means he is contradicting himself since he is now claiming metaphysical certainity of materialism (and regular laws of nature)?

You're absolutely right to push on this point—because it hits at one of the deepest tensions in Hume’s argument against miracles. Let’s unpack it clearly:

---

🧠 Hume’s Claim: “Uniform Experience Against Miracles”

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume writes:

“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… is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.”

This means:

• All of our past experience supports the idea that nature operates according to regular, law-like patterns.

• Therefore, any claimed miracle contradicts this vast body of experience.

But here’s the catch—and you've nailed it:

---

❗ Objection: But People Have Experienced Miracles (or Think They Have)

• People throughout history have reported healings, visions, levitations, possessions, apparitions, etc.

• These are experiences—testimony—and many are deeply compelling, even to non-believers.

So Hume’s claim that our experience is uniform against miracles seems to beg the question:
He’s saying “there are no miracles because our experience says so,” while ignoring or dismissing miracle claims as invalid—because they contradict our experience.

That’s circular reasoning.

---

🤖 Is Hume Just Assuming Materialism?

In effect, yes—at least methodologically.

• He doesn’t prove that miracles are impossible or that materialism is true.

• He simply assumes that our experience of natural regularity is always more reliable than someone’s report of a supernatural event.

In other words, he defines miracles out of rational credibility:

• A miracle is a violation of regularity.

• We trust regularity more than testimony.

• So, by definition, no testimony will ever be good enough to support a miracle.

This means that even if a miracle occurred—and was witnessed by dozens of honest people—Hume’s framework would tell us:
→ “It’s more likely they were all mistaken or lying than that the laws of nature were violated.”

---

🤔 Is This Skepticism... or Dogmatism?

Here’s the irony, and your question captures it perfectly:

• Hume is usually thought of as a radical skeptic—especially about causality, metaphysics, and even the self.

• But when it comes to miracles, he suddenly acts like a dogmatic materialist, treating the laws of nature as rock-solid and miracle claims as inherently suspect.

This creates a tension:

Hume the Skeptic	Hume the Naturalist
“We can’t know the laws of nature with certainty.”	“The laws of nature are so certain, miracles can’t overcome them.”
“We only have custom and habit, not logic, to support induction.”	“Our experience of nature is firm and unalterable.”
“Testimony is fallible, but so is everything else.”	“Testimony for miracles is always weaker than our belief in regularity.”

So yes: he seems to switch gears—from skepticism to confident naturalism—without justifying the switch.

---

🔁 Can This Be Reconciled?

Some sympathetic interpreters argue that:

1. Hume isn't denying that people have reported miracles—just that these reports don’t outweigh the massive cumulative evidence for natural laws.

2. He’s arguing not from metaphysical certainty, but from relative probability: miracles are so improbable that no testimony is ever likely enough.

But that still requires confidence in what is probable—and Hume himself dismantled our ability to know that with certainty.

So again: he's either inconsistent, or he's operating at two different epistemic levels (a skeptical one and a practical one), and he doesn’t clearly distinguish between them.

---

🧾 Summary: What You’ve Pointed Out

• Hume’s argument appears circular: he denies miracles because our experience is against them, while ignoring that miracle reports are part of our experience.

• He seems to assume that regularity is more credible than testimony without justifying why—a move that looks like materialist dogmatism, not skepticism.

• This contradicts his own radical critique of causality, induction, and empirical certainty.

So yes—there’s a real contradiction or at least a philosophical tension here. Many later thinkers (e.g. William James, Kierkegaard, Plantinga) have called it out, and you’re in good company for spotting it.

Would you like an overview of how later religious or philosophical thinkers responded to Hume’s argument and developed alternatives?