The circular argument of God and miracles

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

What evidence do you have that the supernatural is even possible?

 

[Chriliman]

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.

The problem with these hypotheticals is that you can't actually gain the true answer unless the hypothetical actually happens. If you actually saw someone walking on water, I'd hope you'd ask them directly how they're doing that, instead of getting into a side discussion with Alice.

It seems you're only coming up with this hypothetical in order to discredit people's claims that God does miraculous things, which implies that if the hypothetical were to actually happen and you ask them how they were doing it, and they responded "by the power of God", you'd actually reject that answer because it doesn't fit your world view where there must be a natural explanation for everything and God cannot be the explanation, just can't! This always comes accross as denial to an objective outsider who is actually open to the possibility of God.

So I'd just politely ask that you consider how you're arguments against God come accross to others who value objectively considering all possibilities(including an eternal God who created this universe for a specific purpose).

You see, if one tends to reject a certain possibly and that certain possibly that they reject is God, then they tend to be viewed as being open to all possibilities except God, which raises flags as to why they're so against the possibility of God. Why do they think God is such an impossible concept?

They will not be able to logically convey why an eternal God is an impossibility, which means an eternal God is a possibility that we should all rationally and honesty consider.

 

[Albion]

What evidence do you have that the supernatural is even possible?

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. That doesn't mean that this proves God, but it sure means that contemplating it and examining the possibility is not a waste of time. If you say, "what evidence do you have that the supernatural is even possible?" it's like asking, "How do I know for sure that anyone besides myself even exists? Everything that my sense receptors are telling me could be an illusion."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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. That doesn't mean that this proves God, but it sure means that contemplating it and examining the possibility is not a waste of time. If you say, "what evidence do you have that the supernatural is even possible?" it's like asking, "How do I know for sure that anyone besides myself even exists? Everything that my sense receptors are telling me could be an illusion."

I noticed that your answer wasn't actually an answer.

Do you have any evidence that the supernatural is possible?

 

[Albion]

There are all sorts of unexplained mysteries. They even make TV shows out of them. If there are no known natural explanations, the possibility of there being a supernatural explanation is present.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There are all sorts of unexplained mysteries. They even make TV shows out of them. If there are no known natural explanations, the possibility of there being a supernatural explanation is present.

No, unexplained things do not mean that supernatural things are possible. It only means they're unexplained. Jumping to the conclusion that supernatural things are possible is a non sequitur.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Perhaps. Or perhaps God isn't doing what people claim he is doing.

Which would also land us in the position of seriously re-thinking what we mean by 'God' and perhaps tossing out a lot of the Bible while we are at it. If hands-off deism is what God is, then much of Christianity is false or misguided.

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.

Yes many Hindu and Christian saints have been said to perform miracles. Most of the claims can't be substantiated, so they are downplayed in importance.

However, for some believers, the miracles are of prime importance and would be considered by some as the most important detail of their historical existence. For example, I think that the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus is a somewhat important historical component of the Christian faith...

And that curiosity would cause you to ... ?

Ask about it. Inquire. Do some digging. As an example, there was this recent story about a miraculous man who was missing 90% of his brain but still functioned normally. It is causing a flurry of activity in trying to better understand consciousness. The original study can be found here, and a recent follow up study can be found here.

In many cases, it is difficult to study the "miracle" after the fact. For example, in some of the cases of "miraculous" healing from cancer, it is difficult for someone to study the person's biological system after it has returned to normal. However, researchers have done so such as this study found here.

As another example, the Shroud of Turin has undergone a plethora of different tests showing mixed results with regards to age, composition, etc.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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

"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?"


See OP.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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."

I would cut off the dialogue here.

Bob is honest. He doesn't know what's going on.

Alice is leaping to a very specific conclusion without any evidence. This is very much a god-of-the-gaps argument-from-ignorance fallacy, way before we look at any circularity in the connection between gods and miracles.

 

[Albion]

"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?"


See OP.

Since I've both explained the import of "Bob's" words and quoted them back to you in order to show exactly what I mean, only to see no recognition of any of that in your replies, I don't know what more can be said.

 

[Resha Caner]

Which would also land us in the position of seriously re-thinking what we mean by 'God' and perhaps tossing out a lot of the Bible while we are at it. If hands-off deism is what God is, then much of Christianity is false or misguided.

I think you missed my point. Not every interaction God has with people must be miraculous. Jesus ate, slept, walked, and talked. Not too miraculous. Per capita, Biblical miracles are actually pretty rare.

Yes many Hindu and Christian saints have been said to perform miracles. Most of the claims can't be substantiated, so they are downplayed in importance.

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

I think that the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus is a somewhat important historical component of the Christian faith...

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

Ask about it. Inquire. Do some digging.

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

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe Bob and Alice both have a friend who has terminal cancer and then suddenly recovers.

No 'maybe' about it, they don't; if the friend recovers, the cancer was not terminal.

The problems with your hypotheticals seem to be in the assumptions made in them.

 

[Albion]

I would cut off the dialogue here.

Bob is honest. He doesn't know what's going on.

Alice is leaping to a very specific conclusion without any evidence.

Basically, this is correct. However, Bob is clearly not a neutral party asking the obvious question. He immediately questions her belief in God rather than addressing the possible range of explanations for the event...and that's what the average person would most likely do.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Someone walking on the water would be "supernatural" - full stop - unless there was some "natural" explanation.

We all know, from experience, that men don't walk on water, unless there's some sleight of hand going on. Some time ago there was a magic show on TV, and some well known magician seemed to be walking on the River Thames. I noticed though that he seemed to be very careful where he was putting his feet, and the alleged cop boat that "rescued" him didn't make too many waves getting to the pick up point. Also the sides of his shoes seemed to be slightly submerged.

I'm pretty sure he had a perspex platform anchored just below the surface of the water, and he didn't want to fall off the (hard to see, even from his position) sides, nor did he want the boat ploughing into his (probably expensive) trick.

But Christ walking on the water in a storm would have been of a completely different order, and if we'd been there, the first thing we'd know to the core of our being is that something supernatural was going on, in the full sense of the word.

Also these "hypotheticals" are so dry and wan - if someone came walking across the water to us in the middle of a storm, the last thing we'd be playing around with would be dry intellectual questions. We'd probably be afraid - what (to quote CS Lewis) to Professor Otto would have been an example of the "numinous" breaking through.

When the sun danced at Fatima in 1917, the atheists there didn't sit down and blandly ask "I wonder what the natural explanation is for all this?"

No. The record states they were terrified.

First, the record of a couple of eye witnesses (and note they could look at the sun without eye damage for ten minutes, another miracle. Ten seconds is normally enough to cause permanent eye damage) - and note the "numinous" - "It was a terrible moment."

We looked easily at the sun, which for some reason did not blind us. It seemed to flicker on and off, first one way, then another. It cast its rays in many directions and painted everything in different colors--- the trees, the people, the air and the ground. But what was most extraordinary, I thought, was that the sun did not hurt our eyes. Everything was still and quiet, and everyone was looking up. Then at a certain moment, the sun appeared to stop spinning. It then began to move and to dance in the sky until it seemed to detach itself from its place and fall upon us. It was a terrible moment.

Ti Marto (father of Jacinta and Francisco)

It was a remarkable fact that one could fix one's eyes on this brazier of heat and light without any pain in the eyes or blinding of the retina. The phenomenon, except for two interruptions when the sun seemed to send out rays of refulgent heat which obliged us to look away, must have lasted about ten minutes.

Dr. Almeida Garrett, PhD (Coimbra University)

Now the terrified reaction of at least one atheist -

Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking at the simpletons who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterwards he trembled from head to foot and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to our Lady.

Fr. Ignacio Lorenco (Alburitel, 11 miles away)

These dry hypotheticals don't take into account the invasion of the "numinous" in these situations. When the disciples saw Christ walking on the water, in the middle of a storm, there's no record they had a dry, intellectual discussion about it. The record states they were terrified.

Rest assured, if an atheist really does see someone truly walking on water, he or she will be drawn far more into the mystery than mere intellectual conjecture.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Since I've both explained the import of "Bob's" words and quoted them back to you in order to show exactly what I mean, only to see no recognition of any of that in your replies, I don't know what more can be said.

Let's say Bill and Amy are walking in the woods and they come upon two paw prints. Bill says, "Wow, I've never seen anything like this before, I wonder what caused those?"

Amy responds, "A bear caused those footprints"

Bill has never seen a bear or heard of a bear. He doesn't know anything about bears or their attributes.
It is perfectly reasonable for Bill to ask, "What's a bear?" or "How do you know bear's exist?"

Amy responds, "Because of the paw prints!"

==> Circular


Bob's reply to Alice's claim that God caused the miracle is the same. (Except he didn't ask what God is...but perhaps he should have).

 

[Albion]

Someone walking on the water would be "supernatural" - full stop - unless there was some "natural" explanation.

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

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Basically, this is correct. However, Bob is clearly not a neutral party asking the obvious question. He immediately questions her belief in God rather than addressing the possible range of explanations for the event...and that's what the average person would most likely do.

Its a valid question to wonder how God caused it. Or why the person thinks God caused it.

Imagine if Alice had said, "Aliens are causing it."

Wouldn't you be inclined to ask, "Why do you think aliens are causing it?" or "How are aliens causing it?"

Or would you just accept her statement???

It is perfectly reasonable to ask the question!

 

[Albion]

Let's say Bill and Amy are walking in the woods and they come upon two paw prints. Bill says, "Wow, I've never seen anything like this before, I wonder what caused those?"

Amy responds, "A bear caused those footprints"

Bill has never seen a bear or heard of a bear. He doesn't know anything about bears or their attributes.
It is perfectly reasonable for Bill to ask, "What's a bear?" or "How do you know bear's exist?"

Amy responds, "Because of the paw prints!"

==> Circular


Bob's reply to Alice's claim that God caused the miracle is the same. (Except he didn't ask what God is...but perhaps he should have).

Except that Bob's response in the OP was NOT like this, not 'the same.' For the sake of your thread, shall we agree to throw it out and go with this amended scenario instead? That would have Bob answering Alice by saying, "What's a 'God?'"

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

No 'maybe' about it, they don't; if the friend recovers, the cancer was not terminal.

The problems with your hypotheticals seem to be in the assumptions made in them.

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.

People recovering from a terminal diagnoses is rare, but it does happen and it is often baffling.

Examples: here, here, here, here, and here.


Since there is no known natural cause or mechanism for these cases, they are often touted as "miraculous".

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Except that Bob's response in the OP was NOT like this, not 'the same.' For the sake of your thread, shall we agree to throw it out and go with this amended scenario instead? That would have Bob answering Alice by saying, "What's a 'God?'"

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

So, to return to my bear analogy:

Both Bill and Amy know the definition of what a bear is: a mammal with fur, rounded ears, etc. etc. But Bill has never seen one and for all he knows, they could be mythical creatures like dragons and centaurs. So he has no reason to ask what a bear is, but instead he asks, "How do you know bears exist?"

Amy responds, "Because of the paw prints!"


---> Circular.



(You may think this is a stupid example, but a similar thing actually happened. My wife's friend has a three-year old daughter and they were out in the mountains and saw a bear and the four-year old exclaimed, "Bears are real??!!" because she thought they were fake (like dragons, centaurs). So this scenario could indeed occur (mother / daughter walking in woods see paw prints, mom says bear caused footprints, daughter (never having seen a bear) asks how mom knows bears a real. If mom responds by pointing to the footprints...she's not explaining it well and is using a circular argument.)