Reasons You Do/Don't Believe the Bible

[Paul.]

I am not here to simple be asked endless questions while you go down some checklist toward some clever little end-game I am not privy to. Just get to the point. Make your case in one post and provide the evidence.

I believe this is a misrepresentation of what has been occurring, since I started with what you stated and considered it carefully. Simply lobbing options at those on the other side of the net (to use a tennis analogy) is to not take the time to reason through what is being discussed in my opinion. I think through conversations step by step and only my thoughts dictate where the conversation goes as there is no external checklist. The end game is to understand and determine if the reasoning process on the journey is accurate. As I have stated to someone (possibly yourself,) the process is what determines whether the destination is the right or wrong one. If the reasoning is incorrect then the destination will be the wrong one.

Just make your point. I am not an apologetic punching bag where you practice your socratic checklist.

The start of this conversation has been with your statement. I deliberately take things more slowly than other people do as the more information you provide in posts the more people skip over points. My perfectionistic disposition is to see each point to its conclusion.

Make a claim and defend it with evidence. Why is that so hard?

I did make a claim and am quite happy to defend it. I claimed that there are only three logical positions that a person can take on any issue. These are the positive, negative or neutral position. Since it diverts from the subject of miracles I will mention it in the next post instead.

Anyway … onward and upward with defining miracles. Miracles break natural laws. Events that occur regularly are not miracles even when they break know natural laws. This is simply unknown phenomena. An example of this is the flight of the Bumble Bee before vortexes were understood. The fact that the event occurred regularly rules the event out as a miracle. Rare events on their own are not simply miracles either. The occurrence of a natural phenomenon may appear providential but that does not make it a miracle as it is naturally occurring. Psychosomatic events are not miraculous, such as psychosomatic healing of illnesses. To believe a healing is miraculous rather than psychosomatic when it could be, is simply presumptive in my understanding. Since miracles break natural laws they are events which show a powerful agent being the cause. If the event can truly be duplicated by people then it is not miraculous. This also rules out magic tricks and other feats by people that are simply extraordinary. Miracles point to the divine as the cause by their very nature. Therefore, miracles can be defined as:

An unusual and unique event caused by God that overrides the laws of nature and can only be explained by divine intervention.

To call something an actual miracle is to classify it. The possibility of being able classify any event as a miracle primarily stands or falls on the existence of God because without God, the possibility of a miracle occurring is zero. This being the case, the only reason needed for not accepting miracles as possible is not accepting God as existing (unless of course you would want to argue miracles can occur without God but his would require a different definition of the term miracle.) The interesting thing I found when asking you why you did not believe miracles were possible, was that you did not site not accepting God's existence as the reason. I found the fact rather interesting. I assume you would accept the idea that if God existed then miracles could occur. Correct me if I am wrong.

With all that being said the evidence for the existence of miracles starts with the evidence for the existence of God. If that is fair enough then I will be happy to present evidence and defend it while allowing you to object or question every step along the way. Or you may prefer to run down a checklist of questions as a tactic since you appear to believe it is possible to trap someone with that approach. How would you like to proceed?

 

[Paul.]

I think you simply have a preference for your own language and style of describing logical positions.

The reason I bring this up is not as a descriptive difference but a fundamental quantitative difference. It is the logical reasoning that is in question and this is an important question. It does not make any difference to the evidence for or against the object being examined which in this case is, miracles.

Both the positive and negative position is accepted by both parties as a possible logical position. This leaves my claim that the only remaining position is the neutral position which allows for both the positive or negative position to be correct, has no burden of proof to defend and takes no stand on the matter.

You have stated that apart from the aforementioned positive and negative position, there are two other positions, the possible positive and possible negative position.

2. Miracles happen (agnostic)
3. I don't think miracles happen (agnostic)

Since you have also stated in the post that the possible negative position does not exclude the claims of the possible positive position and since the possible positive cannot rule out the possible negative, I am claiming that they are in fact the same position as they both allow for the positive or negative position to be true and neither excludes either the positive or negative positions as being true.

You have expressed a desire to see me make a claim and defend it with evidence. This claim is separate to the miraculous discussion and I believe it is an important one because of its logic implications.

 

[Caliban]

The reason I bring this up is not as a descriptive difference but a fundamental quantitative difference. It is the logical reasoning that is in question and this is an important question. It does not make any difference to the evidence for or against the object being examined which in this case is, miracles.

Both the positive and negative position is accepted by both parties as a possible logical position. This leaves my claim that the only remaining position is the neutral position which allows for both the positive or negative position to be correct, has no burden of proof to defend and takes no stand on the matter.

You have stated that apart from the aforementioned positive and negative position, there are two other positions, the possible positive and possible negative position.

Since you have also stated in the post that the possible negative position does not exclude the claims of the possible positive position and since the possible positive cannot rule out the possible negative, I am claiming that they are in fact the same position as they both allow for the positive or negative position to be true and neither excludes either the positive or negative positions as being true.

You have expressed a desire to see me make a claim and defend it with evidence. This claim is separate to the miraculous discussion and I believe it is an important one because of its logic implications.

Since there is no reason to believe in the miraculous without evidence, why are you confident miracles are real?

 

[Caliban]

I did make a claim and am quite happy to defend it. I claimed that there are only three logical positions that a person can take on any issue. These are the positive, negative or neutral position. Since it diverts from the subject of miracles I will mention it in the next post instead.

Logic cannot be evidence for a miracle. Provide the evidence--not the sophistry.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Logic cannot be evidence for a miracle. Provide the evidence--not the sophistry.

Which kind of logic? You can't just show up and refer to some 'thing' called Logic as if it's some ONE ALMIGHTY concept, existing in serene solitude for all time, and have everyone sign on the dotted line for it ............................................ why? Because to do so wouldn't be....logical.

Of course, if you'd like, I can just throw my one or two dozen books I have on Logic and Critical Thinking into the nearest public dumpster ...

With that said, I think I do agree with you that Logic itself cannot be (or typically won't be) evidence for a miracle. So, there's a penny for your sidewalk hat.

 

[Caliban]

Which kind of logic? You can't just show up and refer to some 'thing' called Logic as if it's some ONE ALMIGHTY concept, existing in serene solitude for all time, and have everyone sign on the dotted line for it ............................................ why? Because to do so wouldn't be....logical.

Of course, if you'd like, I can just throw my one or two dozen books I have on Logic and Critical Thinking into the nearest public dumpster ...

With that said, I think I do agree with you that Logic itself cannot be (or typically won't be) evidence for a miracle. So, there's a penny for your sidewalk hat.

If you agree, why the first paragraph? Logic cannot produce evidence of a miracle--period.

 

[Paul.]

Since there is no reason to believe in the miraculous without evidence, why are you confident miracles are real?

The evidence for the existence of God is beyond a reasonable doubt therefore the possibility of miracles is beyond reasonable doubt. That is why I am confident in what I believe to be true.

But what does that have to do with the quoted post which looks at an issue of logic and reason rather than miracles? Did you quote the wrong post?

 

[Paul.]

Logic cannot be evidence for a miracle.

Logic and reason cannot be divorced from evidence. If good evidence is examined by faulty logic and reason, the conclusion may be that the evidence is not good. In such a situation, the problem is faulty logic and reason, not the lack of good evidence.

Provide the evidence

I will provide accumulative evidence for God's existence using inductive reasoning to reason from the known to the unknown. I will start by looking at the known.

All of the known physical (or material) existence, exists within the space time continuum (or universe.)

Do you have any issues with this premise?

 

[Caliban]

The evidence for the existence of God is beyond a reasonable doubt therefore the possibility of miracles is beyond reasonable doubt. That is why I am confident in what I believe to be true.

I know you believe this--I don't. You could supply evidence for this claim and we could discuss the evidence.

 

[Caliban]

Logic and reason cannot be divorced from evidence. If good evidence is examined by faulty logic and reason, the conclusion may be that the evidence is not good. In such a situation, the problem is faulty logic and reason, not the lack of good evidence.


I will provide accumulative evidence for God's existence using inductive reasoning to reason from the known to the unknown. I will start by looking at the known.

All of the known physical (or material) existence, exists within the space time continuum (or universe.)

Do you have any issues with this premise?

The premise is not known. There could be plausible exceptions. The idea of zero energy causing things to pop into existence is controversial but possible.

 

[Paul.]

I know you believe this--I don't. You could supply evidence for this claim and we could discuss the evidence.

That is what we are already doing in our other chain of posts in this thread.

This post is part of a chain of posts about correct logic and reason, mentioned again in the part of the post you left out of the quote. Feel free to reply to the matter under discussion as presented earlier in post #162.

 

[HitchSlap]

I will provide accumulative evidence for God's existence using inductive reasoning to reason from the known to the unknown. I will start by looking at the known.

All of the known physical (or material) existence, exists within the space time continuum (or universe.)

Do you have any issues with this premise?

Carry on.

 

[Paul.]

The premise is not known. There could be plausible exceptions. The idea of zero energy causing things to pop into existence is controversial but possible.

You appear to have misunderstood the premise. The premise does not state that the universe we live in is the only place physical matter exists. It is the only place that mankind can confirm physical matter exists. It has been speculated that there are other universes but this premise does not confirm or deny the existence of other universes or places outside of our universe that contain physical existence. Mankind’s knowledge of physical existence extends to our universe only. Our universe contains the entire physical realm that humans have discovered so far. If you have evidence that know physical realms exist outside of the universe then you will need to provide it. The opening statement was simple about the universe in which we live. I also could have started with a definition of the universe such as “The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy” but I preferred my own wording for a premise. Do you still have issues with any implication of the premise?

 

[Caliban]

You appear to have misunderstood the premise. The premise does not state that the universe we live in is the only place physical matter exists. It is the only place that mankind can confirm physical matter exists. It has been speculated that there are other universes but this premise does not confirm or deny the existence of other universes or places outside of our universe that contain physical existence. Mankind’s knowledge of physical existence extends to our universe only. Our universe contains the entire physical realm that humans have discovered so far. If you have evidence that know physical realms exist outside of the universe then you will need to provide it. The opening statement was simple about the universe in which we live. I also could have started with a definition of the universe such as “The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy” but I preferred my own wording for a premise. Do you still have issues with any implication of the premise?

I'm good with the premise--what's premise two?

 

[Paul.]

I'm good with the premise--what's premise two?

The space time continuum is expanding. It used to be very small in the past (smaller than a basketball) and has now expanded to the point where it is about 93 billion light years in diameter.

I don't expect the premise that the universe is expanding to be controversial but it could be. Do you accept that as a correctly understood fact?

 

[Caliban]

The space time continuum is expanding. It used to be very small in the past (smaller than a basketball) and has now expanded to the point where it is about 93 billion light years in diameter.

I don't expect the premise that the universe is expanding to be controversial but it could be. Do you accept that as a correctly understood fact?

Yes.

 

[HitchSlap]

The space time continuum is expanding. It used to be very small in the past (smaller than a basketball) and has now expanded to the point where it is about 93 billion light years in diameter.

I don't expect the premise that the universe is expanding to be controversial but it could be. Do you accept that as a correctly understood fact?

We’re on the edge of our seat already... premise 3
...goddidit?

Amiright??!

 

[Paul.]

Yes.

These characteristics tell us the universe is finite in size. The space time continuum is not infinite otherwise it could not have been smaller than a basketball. The universe is therefore expanding through something that is not space, not time and not material.

What about the multiverse speculation you may ask. If the universe is pressing against other universes in a multiverse there has to be a barrier between them that is not space, not time and not material. Like lots of soap bubbles that contain air, the air is not the barrier between each bubble. It requires the soap film to separate the air in one bubble from the air in another. Remove the soap film and you just have air with no separation. Since our space time is separate from any other space time as evidenced by the size change, something that is not space, not time and not material exists, even if only as a barrier.

The only thing that this shows us so far is that the physical universe is not all that exists. Do you see any reasoning errors?

 

[Jok]

Which kind of logic? You can't just show up and refer to some 'thing' called Logic as if it's some ONE ALMIGHTY concept, existing in serene solitude for all time, and have everyone sign on the dotted line for it ............................................ why? Because to do so wouldn't be....logical.

Of course, if you'd like, I can just throw my one or two dozen books I have on Logic and Critical Thinking into the nearest public dumpster ...

With that said, I think I do agree with you that Logic itself cannot be (or typically won't be) evidence for a miracle. So, there's a penny for your sidewalk hat.

It’s Scientism heaven in here! Anything that falls outside of the scientific method is immediately deemed as completely void of evidence and mere assertion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It’s Scientism heaven in here! Anything that falls outside of the scientific method is immediately deemed as completely void of evidence and mere assertion.

... Yeah. Which is kind of funny, and kind of odd too, since some skeptics here seem to claim that they adhere to Methodological Naturalism in their understanding of science but then turn around and start talking like they're Philosophical Naturalists. And I'm all like............ what's up with that? They do realize, don't they, that those atheists like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne work within the assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism, not Methodological Naturalism?