The circular argument of God and miracles

[Albion]

No that would be a derail because there is a general knowledge and definition of what God is.

Then you're going to have to decide what scenario you want. Initially, we have Bob jumping on Alice for mentioning God rather than pursuing the matter of what explains the walking on water incident. Then you said it would be the same as if Bob had said "What's a bear?"

The precise and exact parallel to "What's a bear?" would be "What's a God?"

So now you don't want to go with the version you just laid before me.

Fine. Then carry on and see what you get for replies. Mine was that I'd be willing to engage, but I can't do that with a scenario that's slanted at the onset. No offense, but that was how I saw what you asked us to consider.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I think you missed my point. Not every interaction God has with people must be miraculous. Jesus ate, slept, walked, and talked.

If that's all Jesus did, then one might say that he is unremarkable and not to be worshipped.

Everyone eats, sleeps, walks and talks. If Jesus never did anything to distinguish himself from anyone else (aka never did anything supernatural), then he would be just like anyone else. That's a tautology.

At best, he would be considered a great moral teacher.

Per capita, Biblical miracles are actually pretty rare.

So? What does frequency have to do with it?

Nor would I restrict those who experience miracles to Christian believers, as that is often a human judgement (Exodus 7:11).

Fair enough.

It wouldn't be far off to say it's the only miracle that matters.

Okay, so lets return to Bob and Alice.

Bob and Alice both see Jesus resurrected after 3 days, walking and talking. Bob says, "I don't know how this is happening! What could cause this?"

Alice responds, "God causes it."

Bob says, "But how do you know God exists?"

Alice responds, "By all his miracles and wonders!"


Circular.

Right. So God got your attention even though you don't believe.

This makes the assumption that God exists and is causing the miracle....

But how do you know God exists....?

Can you point to any thing which is not miraculous in itself (since that is a circular argument) which suggests God exists?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Then you're going to have to decide what scenario you want. Initially, we have Bob jumping on Alice for mentioning God rather than pursuing the matter of what explains the walking on water incident. Then you said it would be the same as if Bob had said "What's a bear?"

The precise and exact parallel to "What's a bear?" would be "What's a God?"

So now you don't want to go with the version you just laid before me.

Fine. Then carry on and see what you get for replies. Mine was that I'd be willing to engage, but I can't do that with a scenario that's slanted at the onset. No offense, but that was how I saw what you asked us to consider.

Consider the case of the three-year old daughter and mother in the woods. It is perfectly reasonable for the daughter to know what a bear is but not believe they are real. It is not slanted for the daughter to ask "How do you know bears exist?" because the daughter thought they were fake.


The only reason you think it is "slanted" is because God is an emotionally charged idea whereas a bear is not.


Here is the scenario:

Bob and Alice both know what God (a bear) is but Bob always thought God (a bear) is an imaginary thing.

Bob and Alice both witness someone surviving from a terminal diagnosis of cancer (paw print).

Bob says, "Wow, I wonder what caused the cancer to go away (what caused the paw print)?"

Alice responds, "God (a bear) caused it."

Bob responds, "How do you know God (a bear) exists?"

Alice responds, "Look at all the miracles (paw prints)!"


--> Circular.


There is no slant to Bob's question. It is an innocent and honest question. Just like a three-year old asking if bears exist. The three-year old and the bear is a cute little story whereas Bob and God is a "slanted" question.

 

[Isaacsname]

Perhaps there is no resolution to be had until somebody who can actually do miracles shows up

I hear it's " soon "

 

[Resha Caner]

At best, he would be considered a great moral teacher.

Shrug. With the miracles many people have the attitude, "Cool! A magician who can make my life easy!" Without the resurrection the rest is meaningless.

So? What does frequency have to do with it?

Many assume a miracle means you are one of the elect. Therefore, when the miracle doesn't happen, they begin to despair and lose faith. If God created the universe, then everyday life is the "miracle". (That last sentence is a semantic game, but hopefully you get the point.)

Bob and Alice both see Jesus resurrected after 3 days, walking and talking. Bob says, "I don't know how this is happening! What could cause this?"

Alice responds, "God causes it."
Bob says, "But how do you know God exists?"
Alice responds, "By all his miracles and wonders!"

Circular.

Yes, I'm not disputing that. But again, not the point.

Regardless of whether or not Bob believes in gods, does he believe in resurrection since he has seen Jesus?

 

[Albion]

Consider the case of the three-year old daughter and mother in the woods. It is perfectly reasonable for the daughter to know what a bear is but not believe they are real. It is not slanted for the daughter to ask "How do you know bears exist?" because the daughter thought they were fake.


The only reason you think it is "slanted" is because God is an emotionally charged idea whereas a bear is not.

Do you really have to attribute motives like that to me in order to make you own point? Is your point about "circular" reasoning that fragile?

Here is the scenario:

Bob and Alice both know what God (a bear) is but Bob always thought God (a bear) is an imaginary thing.

Really? Bob thinks that an animal which every other person on Earth knows to be real may be only a myth? Is that the scenario we are to use in order to discuss the idea of this thread?

Bob and Alice both witness someone surviving from a terminal diagnosis of cancer (paw print).

Bob says, "Wow, I wonder what caused the cancer to go away (what caused the paw print)?"

Alice responds, "God (a bear) caused it."

Bob responds, "How do you know God (a bear) exists?"

Alice responds, "Look at all the miracles (paw prints)!"


--> Circular.

There is no slant to Bob's question.

If you say so. But then you're left with a scenario that applies to relatively few Christians IMO.

So if you hammer poor Alice here on account of her credulousness, what have you proven when it comes to Christians in general (or, for that matter, the Christian religion)?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Do you really have to attribute motives like that to me in order to make you own point? Is your point about "circular" reasoning that fragile?

I'm not attributing motives. God's existence tends to be a more emotionally charged topic than bears' existence. As evidence, see this forum...primarily the apologetics section (btw, both atheists and theists make this emotionally charged).

Really? Bob thinks that an animal which every other person on Earth knows to be real may be only a myth? Is that the scenario we are to use in order to discuss the idea of this thread?

No it is an analogy to highlight the point since the logical principles are the same. If you replace "God" with "bears" and "miracles" with "pawprints", then you can see why it is circular to point to miracles as evidence of God's existence.

And, as I already pointed out, this is not so far-fetched. Pretend you are a child who doesn't know anything about God or bears. In this case, the analogy holds almost perfectly. A scenario similar to this happened where the daughter of my wife's friend thought bears were not real. If the daughter's mother had tried to use pawprints to prove the bear's existence, it would have been a poor explanation invoking circular reasoning.

The same logical principle can be applied to God.

If you say so. But then you're left with a scenario that applies to relatively few Christians IMO.

So if you hammer poor Alice here on account of her credulousness, what have you proven when it comes to Christians in general (or, for that matter, the Christian religion)?

I've shown that using miracles as evidence for God's existence is logically flawed.

 

[Albion]

I'm not attributing motives.

So this wasn't a reference to me?

The only reason you think it is "slanted" is because God is an emotionally charged idea whereas a bear is not.

I've shown that using miracles as evidence for God's existence is logically flawed.

OK. I don't find anything particularly revealing in such a statement, but OK if you want us to know that.

Now answer the rest of my question. Leaving your strawman "Alice" aside for the moment, what have you proved as regards Christians in general or Christianity?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are many cases where cancers are so well-developed and metastasized that there is no known explanation for how someone could recover from them, yet they do. It is often called spontaneous remission. In these cases, they have been diagnosed with "terminal" cancer because it seems impossible that they could survive (as in there is no known natural mechanism or treatment that the doctors know of which could stop them from dying). Doctors cannot see the future, but their diagnoses of "terminal cancer" are based on current knowledge.
...
Since there is no known natural cause or mechanism for these cases, they are often touted as "miraculous".

Yes, I know about these rare occurrences. Nevertheless, a diagnosis of terminal cancer no more makes the cancer necessarily terminal than a diagnosis of clinical death necessarily makes the patient dead. They are opinions, not certainties. The confusion between, or conflation of, the two is the problem.

Similarly, calling something miraculous because it is extremely rare, or unexpected, or unexplained, doesn't make it a miracle (unless that's how you define 'miracle').

Incidentally, I agree that Alice's explanation for her knowledge of bears is circular - in practice, she'd presumably have sufficient knowledge of bears (if not the shape of their paw prints) to be reasonably sure it is a bear print - and she should be able to describe enough of that information to Bob that he can understand her identification (although he might not necessarily be convinced by it).

Now, suppose Alice identified it as a Bigfoot print - that would be a little more interesting...

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Shrug. With the miracles many people have the attitude, "Cool! A magician who can make my life easy!" Without the resurrection the rest is meaningless.

Yup. And if "miracles" are really just "things we haven't figured out yet", then the resurrection should be placed in that category.

Why claim to know something that you (and no one else) really knows?

(Also, keep in mind that I'm actively avoiding going down the rabbit hole of biblical historicity).

If God created the universe, then everyday life is the "miracle". (That last sentence is a semantic game, but hopefully you get the point.)

Not only is that a semantic game which makes the definition of miracle moot, but it is also a mighty, mighty big conditional.

That conditional actually feeds into my other argument: before you can attribute A as the cause of B, you need to establish if A even exists. God creating the universe depends on God actually existing.

We take it for granted that bears exist. But at some point in our early childhood, we had to establish that bears exist before we could say that a bear caused a particular paw print.

Yes, I'm not disputing that. But again, not the point.

That is the point of this thread: miracles can not be used as evidence for God's existence.

Regardless of whether or not Bob believes in gods, does he believe in resurrection since he has seen Jesus?

Not necessarily. There are still all sorts of options to be ruled out. Perhaps Jesus was not actually dead. Bob would need to study it and examine it to understand it and, at the end of the day he may simply say, "I don't know how this happened" and leave it at that. Full stop.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

OK. I don't find anything particularly revealing in such a statement, but OK if you want us to know that.

Thanks.

Now answer the rest of my question. Leaving your strawman "Alice" aside for the moment, what have you proved as regards Christians in general or Christianity?

Perhaps someone is attributing motives again...

Listen, I don't have anything to "prove" here beyond what I just proved.

Go forth and don't use miracles as evidence for God. My work here is done.


Thanks for the conversation.

 

[KWCrazy]

First of all, it's only circular reasoning if you don't have a relationship with God. If you do, then you know God is as real as your next door neighbor.

The laws of nature are either laws or they are not. Since the laws of nature preclude someone walking on unfrozen water, to see someone doing so shows that something has superseded natural law. If the cause was natural, the the assumption of natural law is incorrect. For example, a flat foot splashed against water creates a force. Could that force support the weight of the individual as it would a duck partially in flight? If not, then there has to be another explanation. A miracle from God is an explanation. Is it the best explanation? Got a better one?

Bear tracks indicate the presence of a something with bear-like feet and the same approximate weight. The best explanation is that it's a bear. Could it be a person with funny shoes playing a prank? Which is the most likely?

Man has a 6,000 year history with his Creator. Nearly every civilization records the existence of a god or gods. If you didn't know better and saw a host of angels they might seem to be gods to you. The personal experiences of people interacting with the supernatural is voluminous. The supernatural, however, cannot be proved or disproved by natural methods. For that reason we look to the best possible explanation. If there is no opportunity for a clear walkway and we know the person is walking on open water, we can be confident that natural law has been violated. God by definition can supersede natural law, and has done so repeatedly. There are 333 of these violations recorded in Scripture. We have a record to sustain that God's actions could explain the miracle. Given that, it isn't circular reasoning at all because there is other evidence as well.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes, I know about these rare occurrences. Nevertheless, a diagnosis of terminal cancer no more makes the cancer necessarily terminal than a diagnosis of clinical death necessarily makes the patient dead. They are opinions, not certainties. The confusion between, or conflation of, the two is the problem.

"Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma."

If someone survives a terminal diagnosis, it is because something happened which cannot be explained by our current medical understanding.

Semantically, the illness was not "actually" terminal in retrospect, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a terminal illness, by definition. Hindsight is 20/20.

Similarly, calling something miraculous because it is extremely rare, or unexpected, or unexplained, doesn't make it a miracle (unless that's how you define 'miracle').

Miracle: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

I am at a loss for how else someone would define miracle. If something is common, expected, and explainable, then how is it, in any way, "miraculous". Me eating Cheerios for breakfast is not miraculous.

Incidentally, I agree that Alice's explanation for her knowledge of bears is circular - in practice, she'd presumably have sufficient knowledge of bears (if not the shape of their paw prints) to be reasonably sure it is a bear print - and she should be able to describe enough of that information to Bob that he can understand her identification (although he might not necessarily be convinced by it).

Now, suppose Alice identified it as a Bigfoot print - that would be a little more interesting...

Yes, and it would be perfectly expected and admissible for Bob to ask what bigfoot is and whether bigfoot exists.

 

[Resha Caner]

That is the point of this thread: miracles can not be used as evidence for God's existence.

Sure, I understand that. I thought my tangent might interest you, but if it doesn't I'll drop out. I don't want to frustrate your attempts at a discussion, but I often suspect something beneath the surface. In this case it seems this might become your reason to dismiss miracles, so I was trying to get you to think about them differently.

Not necessarily. There are still all sorts of options to be ruled out. Perhaps Jesus was not actually dead. Bob would need to study it and examine it to understand it and, at the end of the day he may simply say, "I don't know how this happened" and leave it at that. Full stop.

Let me back up, then. He survived crucifixion. The soldiers impaled him with a spear, and concluded he was dead. Those who took him off the cross and buried him thought he was dead. He was taken down, bleeding from wounds to the head (crown), back (flogging), hands & feet (crucifixion), and abdomen (spear). His body had had only a very restricted oxygen supply for multiple hours (crucifixion again). Then he laid in a vermin infested hole in the ground for 3 days without medical treatment. And here he is walking around like he's ready for a game of soccer.

Do you really think Bob is just going to shrug and walk away? Bob is pretty jaded. Too bad.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

First of all, it's only circular reasoning if you don't have a relationship with God. If you do, then you know God is as real as your next door neighbor.

I encourage you to read this article from Christianity Today.

Furthermore, I would argue that "real" things are only those things which can be verified. For example, let's say you're walking in the woods with a friend and your friend says, "Look there's a bear on the path!". You look and see no bear. Is the bear real because your friend claims he sees a bear?

Your friend may be convinced he saw a bear, because personal experience is incredibly convincing. But that personal conviction does not mean the bear is real.

The laws of nature are either laws or they are not. Since the laws of nature preclude someone walking on unfrozen water, to see someone doing so shows that something has superseded natural law. If the cause was natural, the the assumption of natural law is incorrect. For example, a flat foot splashed against water creates a force. Could that force support the weight of the individual as it would a duck partially in flight? If not, then there has to be another explanation.

Yes, I agree there should be an explanation. It would be nice if we could find out how it was happening.

A miracle from God is an explanation.

Yes. It is an explanation.

There are hundreds or thousands of explanations that could be thought up.

Is it the best explanation?

What is your standard?

I would argue that it is not a very good explanation since it hasn't really been established that God exists. Before A can cause B, it needs to be established that A exists.

Got a better one?

Nope, and, since I don't know how it was happening (and neither do you!), I'm not going to propose fanciful explanations.

Bear tracks indicate the presence of a something with bear-like feet and the same approximate weight. The best explanation is that it's a bear. Could it be a person with funny shoes playing a prank? Which is the most likely?

You're missing the point of the analogy. Pretend you're a kid who doesn't know anything about bears. You are hiking in the woods and you and your dad come across a paw print. Your dad says, "A bear caused that footprint." You respond, "What's a bear?" and your dad explains some of the attributes of a bear. Then you, being somewhat precocious and incredulous (as kids sometimes are!) say, "Dad, you're being silly! Do bears even exist? Or are you just pulling my leg the same way you did about dragons?"

The kid won't believe the paw print came from a bear until the kid is convinced that bears exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma."

If someone survives a terminal diagnosis, it is because something happened which cannot be explained by our current medical understanding.

Semantically, the illness was not "actually" terminal in retrospect, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a terminal illness, by definition. Hindsight is 20/20.

I don't dispute the medical definition or diagnosis, I'm just saying the illness is not actually terminal (i.e. fatal) unless the patient dies.

Miracle: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

OK; in my experience, there are (at least) two common uses of 'miracle' - one is colloquial and is simply an (often emotional) expression of the unexpectedness or inexplicability of an event, the other is an explicit invocation of divine intervention as the explanation for such an event. I had assumed we were talking about the latter. I apologise for misunderstanding that. The former isn't an appeal to divine intervention, so... meh. The latter is just an unsubstantiated claim.

So...?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Sure, I understand that. I thought my tangent might interest you, but if it doesn't I'll drop out. I don't want to frustrate your attempts at a discussion, but I often suspect something beneath the surface. In this case it seems this might become your reason to dismiss miracles, so I was trying to get you to think about them differently.

No, my primary reason to dismiss miracles is that, in every instance, it seems like a lack of knowledge which is leading people to attribute the miracle to God.

Attribution of causes should be done through an increase in knowledge.

Essentially, all miracles I've heard of end up being arguments from ignorance or god-of-the-gaps.

Let me back up, then. He survived crucifixion. The soldiers impaled him with a spear, and concluded he was dead. Those who took him off the cross and buried him thought he was dead. He was taken down, bleeding from wounds to the head (crown), back (flogging), hands & feet (crucifixion), and abdomen (spear). His body had had only a very restricted oxygen supply for multiple hours (crucifixion again). Then he laid in a vermin infested hole in the ground for 3 days without medical treatment. And here he is walking around like he's ready for a game of soccer.

Do you really think Bob is just going to shrug and walk away? Bob is pretty jaded. Too bad.

If all that happened*, Bob would (or should) devote the rest of his life to figuring out how it happened because it is so exceedingly unlikely and defies all our notions and understandings of biological processes. He should also ensure that it was not a delusion of some sort and would need to confirm that his mind was not tricking him in some way or that someone was not playing some elaborate prank. If, at the end of his life, Bob has never been able to figure out how it happened he should say, "I don't know how this happened." Full stop.

Why? Because it's the truth. He never figured it out.





(*Notice the big if. That is if it all happened and Bob witnessed it himself. If Bob heard it from someone else, he should probably approach the claim with extreme skepticism. Why? Because the reliability of the witness is questionable especially seeing as the mind can easily deceive itself into seeing something that wasn't, or the fact that the mind is quite bad at reconstructing memories, or the fact that stories tend to get exaggerated over time. So perhaps the witness actually just "felt this presence" of the dead person near them and then, because of emotional distress and the intense desire to have the person back, exaggerated the memory (knowingly or unknowingly) into a physical person. We have seen that the mind has almost no limit of self-deception and we have also seen and studied the flaws of memory. We have seen and studied the effects of people being so certain of a falsehood. We have never seen someone be resurrected. So which is more likely?

Now if Bob had heard it from someone else via a 2000 year old book written even 5 - 10 years after the event....err. I don't know...I just...can't...get there. There's so many more likely explanations which don't involve re-thinking out entire understanding of biological processes.)

 

[KWCrazy]

Furthermore, I would argue that "real" things are only those things which can be verified. For example, let's say you're walking in the woods with a friend and your friend says, "Look there's a bear on the path!". You look and see no bear. Is the bear real because your friend claims he sees a bear?

Is it any less real because the bear moves before you see it?
This is the same mentality that states there were never any WMD in Iraq because we never discovered what Hussein did with them.
If your friend is staring at a bear and you don't see it, one of you probably needs an eye exam. But then, a bear is physical.
Suppose your friends sees an angel and you do not. Is reality so fragile as to need public consensus to exist? Is your lack of ability to detect something the arbitror between real and imagined?

If I can see a planet with a telescope and you, lacking a telescope, see nothing, does that affect the existence of the planet? Reality is the sum total of all existence; detectable and undetectable; physical and non physical.

Yes, I agree there should be an explanation. It would be nice if we could find out how it was happening.

If the explanation conforms to natural law, it's natural. If not it's supernatural.

There are hundreds or thousands of explanations that could be thought up.

Name three.

I would argue that it is not a very good explanation since it hasn't really been established that God exists. Before A can cause B, it needs to be established that A exists.

It has not been established that God does not exist.
Your grandmother said he exists.
It has not been established that your grandmother is a liar.
Your grandfather says that Jesus changed his heart.
It has not been established that your grandfather is a liar.
It has not been established that the supernatural does not exist. There are many, many claims that it does; many personal experiences that don't fit the definition of hallucination.
To demonstrate that the supernatural exists we have millions of personal experiences with it. To refute its existence we have your incredulity.
It has not been established that you exist.

Pretend you're a kid who doesn't know anything about bears. You are hiking in the woods and you and your dad come across a paw print. Your dad says, "A bear caused that footprint." You respond, "What's a bear?" and your dad explains some of the attributes of a bear. Then you, being somewhat precocious and incredulous (as kids sometimes are!) say, "Dad, you're being silly! Do bears even exist? Or are you just pulling my leg the same way you did about dragons?"

So the kid in question doesn't know a story from an explanation of something real, and his father is a liar. I get it.
Does the kid have any reason to disbelieve? Does he know of any other animal that could make the print?
Other than doubting his father, by what standard does he reject the logical answer?

Sorry, your incredulity doesn't equate to disproof.

 

[Resha Caner]

If all that happened*, Bob would (or should) devote the rest of his life to figuring out how it happened ...

Why? Can Bob's curiosity only be satisified when Bob knows everything?

FYI, I love studies where everyone thinks they're above average, everyone thinks they know the depths of science, etc. yet the indication is most really don't understand that well.

Now if Bob had heard it from someone else via a 2000 year old book written even 5 - 10 years after the event....err. I don't know...I just...can't...get there. There's so many more likely explanations which don't involve re-thinking out entire understanding of biological processes.)

I don't think 2000 years makes much of a difference. Our society has a "we now know" bias that is unfounded. For instance, there is the "Why don't miracles happen today?" charge from unbelievers. One exhaustive study showed that miracle claims are just as common now as they ever have been. I'm not saying that verifies miracles, but rather that in general people believe in the miraculous as much as they ever did. That takes both a positive and negative form. 1) IMO science fiction literature is just an acceptable way for a post-modern society to channel its fascination with the miraculous. 2) Being skeptical is nothing new. There is a tendency to say people of the past were more prone to believing in miracles, but I'm not aware of anything that substantiates that. The Bible is full of skeptics. In general people then had just as much difficulty accepting a resurrection as do people now.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

ToddNotTodd says that they are only unexplained natural phenomena. For some reason, he knows that the supernatural doesn't exist.

I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read what I actually wrote.