The circular argument of God and miracles

[SteveB28]

My apologies Mr leftright, I seem to be duplicating your thoughts.

 

[ScottA]

No, that is jumping like 80 steps too far ahead.

All he says is he doesn't know what is causing it. Full stop.

That is honest. He doesn't know. Full stop.

He shouldn't assume that the laws of physics are being broken until he rules out other possibilities: the guy is standing on a surfboard, the density of the water is very high in that area of the lake for some reason, etc. There are many potential explanations that don't necessarily violate the laws of physics. It would be insane to assume that everything you see that you don't understand requires a reworking of the laws of physics.

You are not giving Bob enough credit. If he had a brain...he would not "stop", and by posing his comment as a question, that tells us that he did not stop, but was contemplating "why."

The rest is on you...you are the one whom has painted things as if he is faced with a mystery and the idea of God. Otherwise, what's your point?

Would you have the same response if Alice had responded with, "Odin is causing him to walk on water"?

Why or why not?

In keeping within what you actually purposed, No - If I were Bob in that same scenario, I would rule out the surfboard, etc., be forced by not finding my preconceived ideas to be valid, to then move on to consider Alice's idea. It's a simple process of elimination.

 

[ScottA]

And if he did so, he would be jumping to conclusions, as Alice is doing.....which is not an honest approach. The correct, honest response to such an observation would be "in the light of my current understanding, I don't know". He cannot definitively state that his knowledge of physics is in error...merely that he does not know what caused this apparent phenomenon.

Not so. It is indeed an honest approach to consider the matter in a process of elimination. Wrong again, his knowledge of physics have offered him nothing to explain the circumstances. Furthermore, the fact that he would considered it a "phenomenon", does not mean a failure of physic, but a failure of his knowledge and ability to explain it. The failure is his.

He does not know that he was wrong in anything that he understands currently. He simply does not know what caused the behaviour he seems to be observing. Alice's "assessment" is in no way "qualified". She is making an unfounded assertion. Would it be equally "qualified" if a third observer were to claim "no, he's walking on the water because a group of sea pixies are forming an invisible bridge for him!"?

Alice may also be speaking conjecture.

But what are we really talking about here? What has been described, is a scenario where neither party knows the truth. So, rather than arguing for ones own version of conjecture...why don't WE be intelligent and honest, and move on?

 

[miknik5]

I don´t remember, either. Chances are you wanted to convince me of Biblegod. IOW no biggie.

meaning we are okay with one another and there are no hard feelings between us?

 

[Near]

Sorry about the late reply.



Can you give me an example of God unambiguously causing an event that is not just based on a lack of understanding of the witness?



Can you give me an example of God unambiguously causing an event that is not just based on a lack of understanding of the witness?




Assertions.

Unproven assertions.



Not really. It seems too contradictory. It also often seems wildly out of line with 21st century ideals of liberty, pursuit of happiness, tolerance and globalism. Much of the Old Testament describes the traditions of a tribal cultural group whose morality is questionable at best.



The person thinks the dragons are real. Who are you to say they are imaginary?



Indeed. As does everyone else. It is a case of Occam's Razor. We assume the simplest explanation: what we collectively experience is real.

Inventing virtual realities or matrices or alien overlords is an unnecessary complication. Sure, it could be true. But it has no epistemic value.



Knowledge about the universe is highly useful as it allows to us to live. If a bowling ball is dropped from the top of the Empire State Building and you are underneath it, it is useful to know how gravity will pull the ball towards you. It is useful to know that moving to the left or right will avoid the ball.

Knowledge not about the universe is useless.



You should not deny metaphysical solipsism.

You should say, "There is no evidence to suggest metaphysical solipsism. Until evidence is presented that metaphysical solipsism is true, it is safe to proceed living as if it is false."

Saying "there is no evidence for X" is not the same as "denying X as possible".

God could exist. But no evidence has been presented to show that God exists and therefore, until evidence is presented, it is safe to proceed living as if God does not exist.



How do you distinguish a delusional schizophrenic from a non-delusional person?



Do you assume dragons exist? Why or why not?
Do you think Zeus exists? Why or why not?
Do you think there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Venus and Mercury? Why or why not?
Do you think there is gold at the end of rainbows? Why or why not?
Do you think Obama is a humanoid alien from the planet Zerbulus? Why or why not?


I'm guessing that you answered "No" to all those questions. And I'm guessing the reason is because no evidence has been presented for the claim, so the neutral hypothesis is to assume the claim is false until evidence is presented.


Let's try this the other way by assuming the opposite. Lets say that "the neutral hypothesis is to assume something does exist until shown otherwise." If that was your condition, then all the above questions would have to be answered with a yes. This condition would force you to believe that dragons exist, Zeus exists, a teapot orbiting the sun exists, etc. It would then be up to you to show that such a teapot or a dragon do not exist. This is an impossible task. Does such a epistemic philosophy make sense?




This isn't a conversation about what God is or isn't. Or about what I am or am not. This is about the question of existence.

I exist.

That's all you need to know. You're conversing with something that exists.

If I did not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.




Dragons could exist. But until evidence is presented, it is safe to proceed and live as if they don't.

I think we are in agreement here.

"Suspend judgement" means that you "proceed and live as if they don't exist"

Since no evidence has been presented that dragons exist, you've proceeded to live as if they don't!


And so it is with God.



Replace the word "God" with "dragons" in the above quote.

"What I said was, I believe in dragons ... I just haven't proven to you, personally that they exist. I didn't say they couldn't be proven to exist."


To a complete outsider perspective, there is no distinguishing epistemological difference between these two claims.




I think you have reached the limit of the analogy. Bears are fairly unambiguous and large. You can get your eyes tested at an optometrist.

That being said, I am prone to bias and mental blocks and poor memory (as is everyone). This is why it is highly important to have your beliefs and views validated by statistics and collective, empirical observations rather than feelings and emotions.

If I thought I saw a bear on a hike a few years ago but the 9 other people I was with did not recall seeing a bear, then I would think it is highly compelling that my memory is faulty rather than 9 other people's memories being faulty. It is a challenging thing to admit the fallibility of your own memories.



Your analogy has some loaded tone to it with the dismissive "pics or it didn't happen" comment.

However, the philosophical basis is the same: The cops should absolutely assume that the rape did not happen until evidence is provided that it did.

That is the bedrock of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty.



If no evidence is provided that the rape happened, then it is safe to proceed and live as if it didn't happen.

Are you serious right now? That is how our legal system works. Evidence is required to prove a claim.

If no evidence is provided, then the neutral hypothesis is to assume the claim is not true.

Think about it:

Woman goes into police station: "I was raped"
Police officer: "Oh my gosh, that is horrible! What happened?"
Woman: "I don't remember"
Police officer: "Okay, what were the circumstances of the rape?"
Woman: "I don't remember"
Police officer: "Where were you when it occurred?"
Woman: "I don't know."
Police officer: "Who was the person who you think did it?"
Woman: "I don't know."
Police officer: "How do you know you were raped?"
Woman: "I don't know."
Police officer (getting frustrated): "What were you doing the night that you were raped? Were you at a party? Who were you with?"
Woman: "I don't know."
Police officer (getting confused): "Do you have any evidence that you were raped? Any pain? Bruises? Indications of violence?"
Woman: "No."


How long can this go on before the woman's claim is tossed out?

You need evidence for a claim.



Why?



Which arguments?



Indeed. But lets say the person responded with, "I saw it in a book once" or "I just feel like there's a bear" or "An old philosopher once made a convincing argument for a bear" or "I have no reason for thinking there is a bear". Would you find any of those arguments convincing for there being a bear?

I wouldn't. I would ask my friend, "Where is the bear on the path? I don't see it. Can you point to it?"

Lets say my friend then goes and points to a small ant on the path and says, "There, see?"

I would say, "That's not a bear." And he responds, "I've just defined bear differently than you."

It all is just such BS.



You've largely misunderstood the point of my analogy.

The point is that you need evidence for something before believing something to exist.

If your friend has a good reason for believing a bear is in the cave and he tells you this, then this is a potential form of evidence (which may or may not be reliable). If your friend has a good reason, then you would proceed with caution or perhaps leave the area.

If you see pawprints going into the cave, you would proceed with caution or perhaps leave the area.

However, my scenario was specific: there is no evidence presented for a bear being in the cave. The neutral hypothesis is to assume there is no bear in the cave.

(However the analogy is a bit muddled because we have an inherent wariness of dark caves so, based on previous experiences and learnings (aka evidence) we might proceed into the cave with caution anyway...because of previous evidence)




And why do you believe that? Where is God?

Since it seems like what you've written generally has the same type of thinking expressed by another user, I'll just say plainly:

People don't always believe things because of evidence alone. Perhaps God somehow made me to believe in him; deterministically, or molinistically. My brain chemistry could be off, and that's why I accept the bible's claims but not Harry Potter's. I trust the sources of the bible like a child trusts one's parents, history seems to corroborate Christ's existence, and at the end of the day I feel pretty confident about Christ.

And,
I haven't gone into much detail as far as arguments go. I think the point of my posts here was merely to show why I believe something. I think there's been a great misunderstanding on the part of a few people replying to my posts. Here I am saying, "I believe X to be true, and how I came to belief in X is this way"... it's been misunderstood as, "I believe X, and here's an argument for why X is true".
As for consistency with reality, I haven't seen any argument that shows that Christianity is not compatible with observable reality, nor inconsistent with known facts.

When it comes to God, plenty of people believe in God, but don't act as if he exists. In fact, many deists are out there who don't believe in a God that wants them to keep commandments.

I don't think that belief in God is rationally untenable, and if someone doesn't believe in God, and they don't feel compelled by the evidence, ie a lack of trust in scripture, then it makes sense to say they wouldn't believe.
I don't think we have to prove anything in order for a person to believe something. The bar for reaching belief is different among many people, and there isn't a universal predetermined bar for belief, the bar can be low, or high.

 

[SteveB28]

Not so. It is indeed an honest approach to consider the matter in a process of elimination.

Without evidence, the speculations of the cause would be literally infinite. One could dream up any explanation.

Wrong again, his knowledge of physics have offered him nothing to explain the circumstances.

Hence, "I don't know" being the correct response.

Furthermore, the fact that he would considered it a "phenomenon", does not mean a failure of physic, but a failure of his knowledge and ability to explain it.

This makes no sense. You are simply throwing words at the screen

 

[DogmaHunter]

I find them unconvincing.

So, clearly, the concept shouldn't be that strange to you...

Don't create your own circular argument now. You identify yourself as an atheist.

Which would mean that I am not convinced of god claims.

You understand the difference between "not convinced" and "convinced", right?
It sounds like you don't, though.

 

[quatona]

meaning we are okay with one another and there are no hard feelings between us?

Ah, come on. This is an internet forum where anonymouses exchange ideas. No place to have hard feelings or something.

 

[miknik5]

Ah, come on. This is an internet forum where anonymouses exchange ideas. No place to have hard feelings or something.

I'll take that as a yes

 

[miknik5]

By the way. I have to disagree with that:

"Anonymouses" are NOT "anonymouses" before God

 

[quatona]

By the way. I have to disagree with that:

"Anonymouses" are NOT "anonymouses" before God

Yeah, but I am not God, and you asked me about my feelings.

 

[miknik5]

You realize that

Yeah, but I am not God, and you asked me about my feelings.

Okay. But to those who are here talking about God they really can't be offering "ideas"

In which case it is important to me
I am Not anonymous (and you aren't either-regardless of whether you believe in HIM or not)

 

[quatona]

You realize that

Okay. But to those who are here talking about God they really can't be offering "ideas"

Everyone is offering but their ideas.

In which case it is important to me
I am Not anonymous (and you aren't either-regardless of whether you believe in HIM or not)

I think it was clear that when saying "anonymous" I meant anonymous to each other. No need to overcomplicate this.

 

[miknik5]

No it wasn't clear. There are those who do things considering God and pleasing Him. And there are others who don't consider these things.

I would think an important piece of the puzzle would be having that first and foremost in ones mind when they enter into a discussion with others about God and His existence

For as you know without faith it is impossible to please God for one would have to First believe that He is and the rewarder of all who diligently seek Him

 

[Albion]

So, clearly, the concept shouldn't be that strange to you?

That there are other religions? Certainly not. But the existence of other religions doesn't suggest that all are equally unpersuasive.

That may be a thesis that makes sense to Atheists who are revolted by the thought of any religions beliefs at all, but it seems obvious to me that, as with other intellectual concepts that are presented to us, we judge some to be credible and others not to be so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That there are other religions?

No. Rather, that books are written and inspired by humans, rather then invisible "supernatural" entities - even when they claim otherwise.

But the existence of other religions doesn't suggest that all are equally unpersuasive.

And yet, you reject all the others for the exact same reasons as I reject them all.

That may be a thesis that makes sense to Atheists who are revolted by the thought of any religions beliefs at all, but it seems obvious to me that, as with other intellectual concepts that are presented to us, we judge some to be credible and others not to be so.

The thing, however, is that all religions make the same kind of claims. When asking the followers for their reasons to believe, they all give the same kind of reasons. They all use the same kind of arguments.

Next to that, all religions claim to be "the one and only truth". They are all mutually exclusive. So right out the gates, at best only 1 (of the hundreds, thousands even) can be correct.

But since they all make the same kind of claims, use the same kind of arguments and have the same kind of non-verifiable "evidence", the most likely outcome is that they are all wrong.

Consider the reasons why you find the quran unconvincing.
Now consider that I think the exact same about your religion.

 

[Albion]

No. Rather, that books are written and inspired by humans

That's your (de facto) religion. Don't be outraged that I have another.

And yet, you reject all the others for the exact same reasons as I reject them all.

Sure, but I have assessed each of them and decided if any are credible and convincing, whereas you have merely dismissed any and all out of hand.

The thing, however, is that all religions make the same kind of claims.

That's only very loosely so. They do deal with the supernatural, and then they diverge. But the fact that all religions deal with, well, religion...isn't a sign of some sort of inauthenticity, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Consider the reasons why you find the quran unconvincing.
Now consider that I think the exact same about your religion.

But here's the difference. I take your non-belief for granted. That's your choice. I'm not starting threads or making posts attempting to talk you out of your POV or to ridicule it or you for holding to it. You, on the other hand, are on a quest to show me "why" I should reach the same conclusion you have.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

People don't always believe things because of evidence alone.

I think they do. If you ask someone why they believe X, they will likely be able to provide some reason (aka evidence) for why they believe it. It may not be good evidence or a good reason.

Perhaps God somehow made me to believe in him; deterministically, or molinistically.

Sure. That could be placed in the same philosophical category as solipsism: epistemologically useless.

My brain chemistry could be off, and that's why I accept the bible's claims but not Harry Potter's.

This is a weird thing to admit. You're okay with being delusional?

I trust the sources of the bible like a child trusts one's parents, history seems to corroborate Christ's existence, and at the end of the day I feel pretty confident about Christ.

I guess the confusion comes on my part because these reasons do not seem like good reasons. In fact, they seem wholly and woefully inadequate.

Sure, they might be satisfying reasons (or evidence) for you to believe, but they are full of holes from my perspective. The confusion comes in that I don't understand how you don't see the holes. How can you see these things as good reasons to believe?

As for consistency with reality, I haven't seen any argument that shows that Christianity is not compatible with observable reality, nor inconsistent with known facts.

Have you ever observed someone to physically rise from the dead after three days? Such a notion seems wholly incompatible with observable reality and inconsistent with all known facts about biology. Bodies begin to decay almost immediately.

Have you seen how "religious writings" can be given authority when such authority is not warranted? For example, I assume that you view the religious writings of Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, etc as "misguided" or "incorrect" and yet, for some people, these writings hold the same level of authority as the Bible holds for you.

Have you seen people be mistaken before about their recollection of events? Have you seen people lie? Have you seen people wish for a loved one to be alive again? Have you seen someone die for a false cause? Have you seen a story change with re-telling over time? Have you seen people's ability to knowingly or unknowingly exaggerate stories over time? Why do you think the writers of the gospels were immune to these shortcomings?

I don't think we have to prove anything in order for a person to believe something.

Are you seeking truth?

The bar for reaching belief is different among many people, and there isn't a universal predetermined bar for belief, the bar can be low, or high.

The bar should be set higher than you are setting it.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You are not giving Bob enough credit. If he had a brain...he would not "stop", and by posing his comment as a question, that tells us that he did not stop, but was contemplating "why."

Yes he was contemplating why.

Whereas Alice, rather than contemplating why, jumps to the conclusion that God was causing it.

In keeping within what you actually purposed, No - If I were Bob in that same scenario, I would rule out the surfboard, etc., be forced by not finding my preconceived ideas to be valid, to then move on to consider Alice's idea. It's a simple process of elimination.

Yes but Alice does not go through that process. She jumps to a conclusion which may be false rather than investigating the observed phenomenon.

 

[keith99]

What happened to a family of proposals made on the first page of this thread. Go out and check! Ask then guy 'walking on water'!

It would seem Alice is unwilling to actually investigate. One is inclined to think this is because deep down she knows that if things are actually investigated it is not apt to lead to the conclusion she wants. And even if it is in the ballpark she wants if she actually asks the guy he is as apt to say Vishnu, Neptune or something about a Martian named Smith.