The circular argument of God and miracles

[Resha Caner]

Again in this miracle healing wouldn't it be a good idea to talk to the doctors? The doctors say there is only a 1% chance of recovery and when a patient with those odds recovers his family, not unjustly, thinks of it as a miracle. Yet it may turn out that over a 5 year period the doctors are spot on and 99 out of 100 in that situation die.

If the survival rate is only 1%, I doubt the doctors have any clue why the 1% survives.

 

[keith99]

...
Much like UFO's - if you believe aliens visit earth then UFO's are proof, if you don't they are either explained or unexplained natural phenomena.

Much like UFOs there are those who desperately want to not only believe but who want to prove they are right in believing in God. They see what they want to see and often stop a line of thought as soon as it looks good for what they already 'know'. (Note not all or even anything close to a majority of Christians are like this in my experience, but a lot of those who speak the loudest are).

A few years ago I saw 2 documentaries about a UFO sighting in Arizona. As you should be able to guess one was showing they were real flying saucers and the other had a more mundane explanation.

The one I saw first was the UFOs are real piece. It acknowledged the official explanation that they were military flares and then disputed it. They ran spectral analysis on the home video they and it did not match the flares. Duh, they are using the tape and what shows is the colors recorded, not the spectral lines from the live thing. They claimed the flares all suddenly disappeared while the official explanation was they dropped behind a local mountain range. In their video I could see a couple of the flairs disappear slowly, e.g. the bottom first as if something were eclipsing the flare.

The anti piece bothered to find out where the home video was shot. They then went to that point, shot the mountains and used that for a mask. Surprise, surprise it worked out perfectly that the flares disappeared at the points where they would drop behind the mask.

And so it usually is with miracles. (But here I am forced to give Catholic officialdom credit, they do seem to investigate honestly and thoroughly. At the least orders of magnitude more carefully than most who believe in whatever, be it God, UFOs or Bigfoot)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If the survival rate is only 1%, I doubt the doctors have any clue why the 1% survives.

Unless you find an honest one, trained in the way he should go. (Trusting God, allowing healing instead of forbidding it(the 'system' forbids healing mostly)).

 

[Albion]

And so it usually is with miracles. (But here I am forced to give Catholic officialdom credit, they do seem to investigate honestly and thoroughly. At the least orders of magnitude more carefully than most who believe in whatever, be it God, UFOs or Bigfoot)

I don't disagree with the basics of what you're saying here, but as with some earlier posts, I find myself saying "so what?"

Yes, there are a lot of hoaxes. Yes, there usually is a natural explanation for mysterious goings-on. But if we go back to the OP, we find a story that says a man is seen walking on the water and because the skeptical onlooker immediately lights into the theist for saying it's a miracle, we are supposed to believe that this is the way it always goes--the natural explanation must always be the answer, and if we just don't know how that could be, we put it off to us not yet having the data. Thats it. No other explanation is possible!

But does that logically follow? Uh, no. It does not. The story may prove that the fictitious person "Alice" is too credulous, but it doesn't prove that there is no supernatural or even that most people who believe in it are automatically going to ascribe every unexplained phenomenon to a miracle as "Alice" is supposed to have done.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Strange that I don't hear them myself, since I'm not favorite of punk reasoning, even if it comes from someone who basically agrees with me.

Yes, but all of that just sidesteps what I had said.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

It's a non sequitur to go from "This isn't explained" to "This could have a supernatural cause". It doesn't follow unless you can first show that supernatural events are even possible.

It's also true that for any given event, if it's possible to say that the event could only have one cause, then it's not circular to use the event itself as evidence of the cause. That statement was a reaction to the idea that those types of statements are always circular. Showing that something can only have one cause is another matter.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

It's a non sequitur to go from "This isn't explained" to "This could have a supernatural cause". It doesn't follow unless you can first show that supernatural events are even possible.

Of course they are possible. They may not turn out to be the actual explanation, but that's also the case with guessing that the man was walking on water because of some new water wings built into his shoes.

To dismiss the possibility of a supernatural explanation out of hand is to arrange to win the argument by the easiest route--by saying that no other ideas will be allowed to be considered.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Of course they are possible. They may not turn out to be the actual explanation, but that's also the case with guessing that the man was walking on water because of some new water wings built into his shoes.

To dismiss the possibility of a supernatural explanation out of hand is to arrange to win the argument by the easiest route--by saying that no other ideas will be allowed to be considered.

Once again, I'm not saying that the supernatural is impossible. I'm saying that you can't assert the possibility without evidence that it IS possible. And that saying that unexplained things points to the supernatural is a non sequitur.

So, do you have any evidence that the supernatural is even possible without introducing logical fallacies? Just saying "of course it's possible" isn't an actual answer...

 

[Anguspure]

Not to derail, but can you elaborate on the circular argument which is at the foundation of atheism?

It is the problem that Thomas Nagel elaborates on in his book Mind and Cosmos and other authors such as Frank Turek have also recently discussed. But I like this from C.S. Lewis. In his book Miracles he shows the self-refuting character of the main premise of materialism:

"no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have proved that no argument was sound- a proof that there are no such things as proofs-which is nonsense."

" no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the results of irrational causes."

But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of going on to its own accord. And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that.


"The Naturalist will have to admit that thoughts produced by lunacy or alcohol or by the mere wish to disbelieve in Naturalism are just as valid as his own thoughts. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Naturalist cannot condemn other people’s thoughts because they have irrational causes and continue to believe his own which have (if Naturalism is true) equally irrational causes."



"Thus the Freudian proves that all thoughts are merely due to complexes-except the thoughts which constitute this proof itself. The Marxist proves that all thoughts result from class conditioning-except the thought he is thinking while he says this."


"If all thoughts have irrational causes, then that thought itself has an irrational cause. So why should we believe it? If all thoughts are irrational chemical secretions or electrical charges, then why should the thought of materialism be viewed as rational and reasonable?"

Quite simply if we live in a materialist natural world, and wish to attribute thought to irrational causes such as chemical determinism, behavioral conditioning or class consciousness, that our thought processes are evolved for survival of the fittest, there is no reason to suppose that anything that anybody thinks reflects truth or reality. Thus the very reasoning and rationality that the atheist materialist bases his world view upon is undermined.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, that's not a question to be taken seriously. Not only is it possible, but we do have some evidence of things beyond the physical.

I never heard this before...what evidence are you referring to?

 

[Anguspure]

I never heard this before...what evidence are you referring to?

Just a little off the top of my head:

• The beginning of the universe;
  
• The Planck length;
• Primitive semi-radius tachyons;
  
• Reason for the existence of the Universe;
• Cosmic Fine Tuning;
• Biological information;
  
• Objective Morality.

 

[Kylie]

Let's say that Bob and Alice go to the beach and see someone walking on water. Bob comments, "Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy all laws of physics. I wonder how he is doing it?"

Alice answers, "God is causing him to be able to walk on water."

Bob says, "But, first we must establish that God exists. How do you know God exists?"

Alice answer, "Just look at all the miraculous events in our world."



Anyone have a response to this?

Bob's position seems more intellectually honest: admission of ignorance to the cause of his observation. He honestly doesn't know how it is happening and he readily admits as such.

Alice is assuming a two way connection. A is evidence of B, and B causes A. In the example you used, even if there is a God, it may not be what is causing the other person to be walking on water. There could be any number of explanations.

 

[Albion]

I never heard this before...what evidence are you referring to?

Surely you know of the many unexplained paranormal events that are unexplained despite much investigation--hauntings, clairvoyance, out of body experiences, and much more.

 

[Albion]

Evolution says that things evolve after its existence, correct and it seems a good theory for the multitude of life on the planet. It is not a theory of how life started, that's outside of its remit.

And I never said that the unknown origin of things means that there CANNOT BE a supernatural explanation, I just said I don't believe there is a supernatural explanation. I believe there is an undiscovered natural explanation...

OK, several other people on CF have taken the position that I referred to, and if I misunderstood you to hold the same view, I'm glad you corrected the record.

 

[Near]

Let's say that Bob and Alice go to the beach and see someone walking on water. Bob comments, "Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy all laws of physics. I wonder how he is doing it?"

Alice answers, "God is causing him to be able to walk on water."

Bob says, "But, first we must establish that God exists. How do you know God exists?"

Alice answer, "Just look at all the miraculous events in our world."

Anyone have a response to this?

Bob's position seems more intellectually honest: admission of ignorance to the cause of his observation. He honestly doesn't know how it is happening and he readily admits as such.

Alice seems to have knowledge about God from prior learning. The typical theist first comes to believe in God, and later attributes observable miracles to God. Whether or not something is proven is not the issue. It's about belief.
Now, I don't think Alice should jump to conclusions, even if God exists; how do we know it's God who is causing the man to walk on water, and not dolphins raising him up making him appear to be walking on water?
So, even if God is proven to exist, the question I raised needs an answer.
Another thing, Bob is asserting that someone is actually walking on water. He needs to prove that he isn't experiencing a delusion, or that it's not a magic trick.
As for miraculous events, that's just in the eye of the beholder. Either those events are all lies, or illusions of some sort, or they're real.

If God isn't the cause for this one, and he isn't the cause for that other miraculous event, and that other one, and that one and that one and ... all of them, then perhaps God doesn't exist or doesn't interact with our world in any meaningful way.

That has implications for our understanding of the Judaeo-Christian God and the Biblical narrative.

The issue here is that you seem to think we're coming up with our own idea of God from our observable world in which apparent miracles happen, and then we're saying, "that means God exists, now look at what he has done in the bible."

Rather we say, God as described in the bible is real. As for these other miracles in the word, they don't lead me to believe in God, and if one miracle were debunked my original faith in God would remain.

Secondly, if God is not responsible for one supposed miracle, that doesn't mean an another independent miracle isn't caused by God. If we said otherwise, we could say, if God is responsible for one miracle, maybe he's responsible for that one, and another one, and so on! However, that's all speculation, and neither train of thought leads to certainty in denying God's existence, or affirming it.

Additionally, it's one thing to know something, and it's another to believe that something is the case. Alice may believe something, but she may not be knowing it.

 

[miknik5]

Let's say that Bob and Alice go to the beach and see someone walking on water. Bob comments, "Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy all laws of physics. I wonder how he is doing it?"

Alice answers, "God is causing him to be able to walk on water."

Bob says, "But, first we must establish that God exists. How do you know God exists?"

Alice answer, "Just look at all the miraculous events in our world."



Anyone have a response to this?

Bob's position seems more intellectually honest: admission of ignorance to the cause of his observation. He honestly doesn't know how it is happening and he readily admits as such.

How does Bob's comment seem more "intellectual" or "honest"?

Here he is seeing firsthand a man walking on water, a person telling him t is because if God and he still can't make a right judgment?

It's exactly what happened during Christ's physical ministry! And it's exactly why Christ said to the people: what did you go out to see?

This fictitious Bob didn't purposely go out to see anything but he sure got an eyeful and he still can't make a right judgement?

And he is the one who is "honest" and "intellectual"

I just don't see it

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Now, I don't think Alice should jump to conclusions, even if God exists; how do we know it's God who is causing the man to walk on water, and not dolphins raising him up making him appear to be walking on water?

This is precisely the problem though. There could be many different explanations for this unknown phenomenon. How could it be shown that God was doing it?

It could be shown that it was dolphins if they went over and observed dolphins.
It could be shown that it was a sandbar if they went over and observed a sandbar.
It could be shown that it was a salt lake if they went over and observed a salt lake.
It could be shown to be a paddle board if they went over and observed a paddle board.

If they went over to the man and observed that he wasn't standing on anything this would still be perplexing, but it still wouldn't be shown that it was God. It would just be an unexplained phenomena. A mystery which perhaps physicists or psychologists would attempt to better understand.

As for miraculous events, that's just in the eye of the beholder. Either those events are all lies, or illusions of some sort, or they're real.

As far as I know, history plays out in one way only. So either a miracle happens or it doesn't.

It cannot both be an illusion and real at the same time.

The issue here is that you seem to think we're coming up with our own idea of God from our observable world in which apparent miracles happen, and then we're saying, "that means God exists, now look at what he has done in the bible."

Rather we say, God as described in the bible is real. As for these other miracles in the word, they don't lead me to believe in God, and if one miracle were debunked my original faith in God would remain.

"God as described in the bible is real" is an empty assertion. It raises the question why you would think the Bible is a trustworthy and authoritative source.

If you answer, "Because it is the holy word of God" (or some variant) then you have just walked into another circular argument.

Additionally, it's one thing to know something, and it's another to believe that something is the case. Alice may believe something, but she may not be knowing it.

Precisely the epistemological issue. Believing something to exist is essentially useless if that belief cannot be verified in some way by others. If you believe something exists, and I can't verify it, then it is up to you to show that it actually exists. Until then, it should be assumed to not exist.

For example, if I am walking in the wood with you and you exclaim, "Look there's a bear on the path!" and I look and see no bear, then one of us is mistaken. I would say, "Where?" and you would need to point to it, describe it, describe it's location, describe what it looks like. If your replied by saying, "Oh I don't know that a bear is on the path, I only believe there is a bear on the path" then my response would be, "Oh, so you haven't seen it then. Or you're imagining something in your mind which cannot be verified by others."

 

[miknik5]

This is precisely the problem though. There could be many different explanations for this unknown phenomenon. How could it be shown that God was doing it?

It could be shown that it was dolphins if they went over and observed dolphins.
It could be shown that it was a sandbar if they went over and observed a sandbar.
It could be shown that it was a salt lake if they went over and observed a salt lake.
It could be shown to be a paddle board if they went over and observed a paddle board.

If they went over to the man and observed that he wasn't standing on anything this would still be perplexing, but it still wouldn't be shown that it was God. It would just be an unexplained phenomena. A mystery which perhaps physicists or psychologists would attempt to better understand.



As far as I know, history plays out in one way only. So either a miracle happens or it doesn't.

It cannot both be an illusion and real at the same time.



"God as described in the bible is real" is an empty assertion. It raises the question why you would think the Bible is a trustworthy and authoritative source.

If you answer, "Because it is the holy word of God" (or some variant) then you have just walked into another circular argument.




Precisely the epistemological issue. Believing something to exist is essentially useless if that belief cannot be verified in some way by others. If you believe something exists, and I can't verify it, then it is up to you to show that it actually exists. Until then, it should be assumed to not exist.

For example, if I am walking in the wood with you and you exclaim, "Look there's a bear on the path!" and I look and see no bear, then one of us is mistaken. I would say, "Where?" and you would need to point to it, describe it, describe it's location, describe what it looks like. If your replied by saying, "Oh I don't know that a bear is on the path, I only believe there is a bear on the path" then my response would be, "Oh, so you haven't seen it then. Or you're imagining something in your mind which cannot be verified by others."

It could also be that it was nothing tangible or visual to explain it

Then what?

 

[Albion]

For example, if I am walking in the wood with you and you exclaim, "Look there's a bear on the path!" and I look and see no bear, then one of us is mistaken. I would say, "Where?" and you would need to point to it, describe it, describe it's location, describe what it looks like. If your replied by saying, "Oh I don't know that a bear is on the path, I only believe there is a bear on the path" then my response would be, "Oh, so you haven't seen it then. Or you're imagining something in your mind which cannot be verified by others."

FWIW, this sounds reasonable. Except that it is NOT the situation you described in the OP and not analogous to that original scenario.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It could also be that it was nothing tangible or visual to explain it

Then what?

Then it remains unknown. Full stop.

Saying that, 'Therefore X is the cause" is the clearest argument from ignorance I've ever seen.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Quite simply if we live in a materialist natural world, and wish to attribute thought to irrational causes such as chemical determinism, behavioral conditioning or class consciousness, that our thought processes are evolved for survival of the fittest, there is no reason to suppose that anything that anybody thinks reflects truth or reality. Thus the very reasoning and rationality that the atheist materialist bases his world view upon is undermined.

A couple of things:

1. There's no reason to assume determinism. It doesn't naturally follow from materialism.
2. Barring solipsism or perhaps universal delusion, my thoughts reflect reality when corroborated, to the extent which anyone needs it to.
3. No one bases their worldview on the idea that they're 100% correct in their views.

So I see this as a non-issue. An argument based on word play that doesn't signify anything.