Abstract

A detailed point by point response is given to the objection of Dr. Evan Fales concerning a chapter written on David Hume and Antony Flew’s arguments against miracles in the book ’In Defense of Miracles’. The response includes the objections of (1) wrongly portraying Hume’s ’a priori’ argument, (2) misinterpreting Hume, (3) wrong assertions about Hume, (4) claiming Hume’s argument proves too much and (5) claiming that Flew’s naturalism is unfalsifiable. The conclusion is that Fales fails to support his claims, conflates Hume’s arguments, misunderstands certain uses of terms, and does not properly understand the exposition of Hume and Flew’s arguments