The circular argument of God and miracles

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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.

 

[Albion]

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?

I don't find Bob's response to be a neutral one--not based on the words written here. You want us to consider it to be that, but it doesn't come across to me that way.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't find Bob's response to be a neutral one--not based on the words written here--although you have said that's what you want us to believe.

Bob's position is the null position because he makes no claim about the cause. He does not say "It is Cause A" or "It is Cause B". He simply says, "I don't know the cause."

 

[Job8]

Anyone have a response to this?

Yeah. Ask that guy "How do you know you exist?"

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yeah. Ask that guy "How do you know you exist?"

That would be a red herring.

 

[Job8]

That would be a red herring.

So is this: "But, first we must establish that God exists".

 

[Resha Caner]

Anyone have a response to this?

I would suggest talking to the guy who is walking on water.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

So is this: "But, first we must establish that God exists".

No, because a cause can only be causative if the cause actually exists.

It can't be confirmed that God caused something until it is confirmed that God exists.


Analogy: you're in the woods and find a paw print and someone says that a bear caused the paw print. There is a common assumption that bears exist; if bears don't exist, then how could a bear cause a paw print?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I would suggest talking to the guy who is walking on water.

Lol.

Let's change the example to get at the heart of my question instead of introducing these other possibilities.

Maybe Bob and Alice both have a friend who has terminal cancer and then suddenly recovers. Bob responds by saying, "Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy what we know about medicine. I wonder how he recovered?"

Alice responds, "God is causing him to recover by healing him."

Etc.


Any additional response?

 

[Resha Caner]

Let's change the example to get at the heart of my question instead of introducing these other possibilities.

Maybe Bob and Alice both have a friend who has terminal cancer and then suddenly recovers. Bob responds by saying, "Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy what we know about medicine. I wonder how he recovered?"

Alice responds, "God is causing him to recover by healing him."

Though maybe drolly worded, my reply was serious. In this case I would just say, "Talk to the guy who was healed." Miracle is one of those highly confused topics. God's purpose in a miracle is to draw your attention to something, not to wonder about how he did it.

 

[Albion]

Bob's position is the null position because he makes no claim about the cause. He does not say "It is Cause A" or "It is Cause B". He simply says, "I don't know the cause."

I guess you see it that way, but I am going by the words he used. They tell a different story.

First, Bob wonders what natural phenomena explain the apparent walking on water. IOW, he is automatically sure that this will explain it. No other possibility has any place in his thinking.

Then, after Alice speaks, Bob immediately challenges her to prove that there is a God.

Most people would focus on deciding whether a miracle or something else might possibly account for the event...but not Bob, who takes the opportunity instantly to confront anyone who says aloud that miracles might actually happen.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Though maybe drolly worded, my reply was serious. In this case I would just say, "Talk to the guy who was healed." Miracle is one of those highly confused topics. God's purpose in a miracle is to draw your attention to something, not to wonder about how he did it.

Okaaay, so I go talk to the guy and he says he was healed by a Hindu guru with healing spiritual powers given by the Atharva veda. This is still not the point of my OP.

My point put in another form:

Before you claim a bear made a paw print, you need to show that bears exist. You can't point to the paw print and use that as evidence for the bear's existence.



Evidence for God is often provided using miraculous healings or testimonies.

Hence circular.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evidence for God is often provided using miraculous healings or testimonies.

As I said, people are very confused about miracles.

Before you claim a bear made a paw print, you need to show that bears exist. You can't point to the paw print and use that as evidence for the bear's existence.

If you talk to the guy walking on water or the guy healed from cancer, God got what he wanted from the miracle whether you believe in his existence or not.

 

[Albion]

Evidence for God is often provided using miraculous healings or testimonies.

Hence circular.

That might be considered circular, but I am not convinced that it is. IF there is no known explanation for something that's way out of the ordinary, there really is a possibility that the reason is something supernatural. But that aside, the fact is that this kind of reasoning is far from being the most common "proof" used by theists anyway.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

As I said, people are very confused about miracles.

Perhaps because miracles are just events for which we don't yet know the cause or will never know the cause?

People attributing causes leads to confusion.

If you talk to the guy walking on water or the guy healed from cancer, God got what he wanted from the miracle whether you believe in his existence or not.

Let's assume for a moment that God exists. Even if God exists, why consider him as the cause for this specific event rather than the other myriad possibilities:

1) Maybe the guy recovered from cancer because an as-yet-to-be-discovered gene caused an immune response
2) Maybe the guy walking on water had achieved an enlightened state which allowed him to manipulate the properties of water
3) Maybe scientists have developed a possible cure for cancer and he was an unknown trial recipient
4) Maybe the lake is actually a salt flat
5) ...

Why jump to the conclusion that God caused this "miracle" when, in reality, you don't know?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why jump to the conclusion that God caused this "miracle" when, in reality, you don't know?

You're right. I don't know the cause. As I said, knowing the cause isn't the point.

I understand the doctors want to know the cause so they can repeat it. But in the context of this conversation, it's not the point. Why do you want to know the cause?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

That might be considered circular, but I am not convinced that it is. IF there is no known explanation for something that's way out of the ordinary, there really is a possibility that the reason is something supernatural.

Yes, there is a possibility that the reason is "supernatural". But it is more intellectually honest to say "I don't know what caused it, maybe this, maybe that. It's a mystery at this point."

This way of viewing has the additional bonus of inspiring curiosity. If you claim to know the cause, then there is no desire to go study the phenomenon. For example, perhaps Bob goes into physics to understand how someone could walk on water and discovers some radical new theory for manipulating the density of atoms while Alice 'thinks' she knows the cause and so doesn't endeavour to better understand the event.

But that aside, the fact is that this kind of reasoning is far from being the most common "proof" used by theists anyway.

It usually appears in most lists of arguments or "proofs", such as this one. By the way, that link is probably one of the best you'll find if you're looking for a compilation of "proofs" written by a Christian philosopher.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You're right. I don't know the cause. As I said, knowing the cause isn't the point.

I understand the doctors want to know the cause so they can repeat it. But in the context of this conversation, it's not the point.

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.

Why do you want to know the cause?

Because it is interesting to know and leads to a growing body of knowledge. I'm curious.

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

Perhaps. Or perhaps God isn't doing what people claim he is doing. There are lots of claims that saints performed miracles as well, yet for some reason that doesn't seem to be the crucial detail of their historical existence.

Because it is interesting to know and leads to a growing body of knowledge. I'm curious.

And that curiosity would cause you to ... ?

 

[Albion]

Yes, there is a possibility that the reason is "supernatural". But it is more intellectually honest to say "I don't know what caused it, maybe this, maybe that. It's a mystery at this point."

I can appreciate that. But it isn't what "Bob" said, is it?