The circular argument of God and miracles

[ScottA]

Yes he was contemplating why.

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

You are assuming Alice is jumping to her conclusion - simply because you yourself do not have within you what she may in fact have within her. The fact that she made such a claim, would indeed indicate that it came from some source - what that was is unknown by the information you gave.

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

No, that is right, she did not go through the same process...and rightly so, because it failed to solve the matter for Bob. Again, you are the one jumping to a conclusion and projecting your own lack of knowledge about something she may in fact know for certain and was no phenomenon at all. You have assumed everything about your position.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What do you hope to accomplish with such dishonest tactics?

"Lying for Jesus" is a thing...

Seriously, I'm seeing more and more theists on these boards being shady. The guidelines for this forum state:

"Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard given that this is a Christian site. Non Christians, lurkers, the weak of faith, etc. are reading your posts which means that the impression you give is what they see."

And yet, I see dishonesty running rampant here among the theists. And what's more, when you call them on it, they rarely apologize. They just try and change the subject or just not respond.

What does it say when the non-theists are more ethical than the theists?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You are assuming Alice is jumping to her conclusion - simply because you yourself do not have within you what she may in fact have within her.

1) How does Alice know that God exists? (And if you point to any miracle, then it is a circular argument!)

2) How does Alice know that God is causing the man to walk on water in this particular instance? (How does she know the guy isn't standing on a surfboard?)

The fact that she made such a claim, would indeed indicate that it came from some source - what that was is unknown by the information you gave.

True. So what is the source?

No, that is right, she did not go through the same process...and rightly so, because it failed to solve the matter for Bob.

How do you know the process failed to solve the matter for Bob? He only asks the question out of astonishment. But the story ends there.

The story could continue where Bob walks over and sees that the guy is standing on a surf board. Now wouldn't that make Alice look silly...?

Again, you are the one jumping to a conclusion and projecting your own lack of knowledge about something she may in fact know for certain and was no phenomenon at all. You have assumed everything about your position.

My assumption is that neither of them actually know what is causing the phenomenon. Because how could they?

 

[ScottA]

1) How does Alice know that God exists? (And if you point to any miracle, then it is a circular argument!)

2) How does Alice know that God is causing the man to walk on water in this particular instance? (How does she know the guy isn't standing on a surfboard?)

She did not say how she knows, or even if she "knows." (This is the half-way point in the circle )

True. So what is the source?

She said it was God.

How do you know the process failed to solve the matter for Bob? He only asks the question out of astonishment. But the story ends there.

The story could continue where Bob walks over and sees that the guy is standing on a surf board. Now wouldn't that make Alice look silly...?

It is not the process that failed, but Bob using the process who has failed. But no...we do know that it failed, because Bob says he "doesn't understand." Again, it's not the process, but Bob who has failed.

If Bob investigated further and found a surfboard...Yes, that would make Alice look silly...and wrong.

My assumption is that neither of them actually know what is causing the phenomenon. Because how could they?

But, then again, that is an assumption - which proves nothing of either position.

...The circular error here, is in going back to a system that has no definitive answer. Doing so, seems to take two different methods:

1. Going back to physics (which has nothing to offer the "no surfboard" scenario).
2. Categorically refusing to consider another area of study, other than physics.

Incidentally...this is a great discussion - because it shows the contrast between Bob and Alice's approaches, as Bob's being strictly mechanical (physics) much like a doctor only considering symptoms, where as Alice's approach does not give much consideration to the symptoms, but addresses the root cause. And that is the major flaw in the physics-only approach.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

She did not say how she knows, or even if she "knows." (This is the half-way point in the circle )

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

In my example from the OP, it does not say, "Alice answers, 'I think God is causing him to be able to walk on water.'"

She makes a positive claim which implies that she knows. If she didn't know, she would've said so.

She said it was God.

What is her source for that piece of knowledge? How does she know its God without investigating the man first?

It is not the process that failed, but Bob using the process who has failed.

Bob has not used the process. Bob said he doesn't know what is causing the man to be able to walk on water.

He doesn't know. Full stop.

Perhaps, in the future, he will use the process to better understand the scenario. (For example he will go ask the man some questions).

But no...we do know that it failed, because Bob says he "doesn't understand." Again, it's not the process, but Bob who has failed.

What?? He doesn't understand. Does Alice somehow understand?

How does Alice "understand" while Bob doesn't? What exactly do you think it is that Alice is understanding? Or are unproven assertions a form of "understanding"?

If Alice had said, "Zeus is causing him to be able to walk on water" would she still understand?

...The circular error here, is

in going back to a system that has no definitive answer. Doing so, seems to take two different methods:

1. Going back to physics (which has nothing to offer the "no surfboard" scenario).
2. Categorically refusing to consider another area of study, other than physics.

Incidentally...this is a great discussion - because it shows the contrast between Bob and Alice's approaches, as Bob's being strictly mechanical (physics) much like a doctor only considering symptoms, where as Alice's approach does not give much consideration to the symptoms, but addresses the root cause. And that is the major flaw in the physics-only approach.

What?? Alice doesn't have an approach. You haven't explained at all how Alice has approached the situation and come to the conclusion that God did it.

Physics seeks the root causes of the world around us.

 

[miknik5]

Well, for you this may be about proselytizing and evangelizing, but that´s not my problem, and I hardly could care less. Just so we´re clear.
And, btw., where I come from it´s considered poor style to pretend talking to a person while actually propagating and appealing to the audience. So I´d rather you don´t instrumentalize me for your purposes. Thanks.

I am not using you for anything. But any sort of diiscussion sir in a Christian forum discusses, glorifies and focuses on the Truth of Jesus Christ

Or at least should

 

[quatona]

I am not using you for anything. But any sort of diiscussion sir in a Christian forum discusses, glorifies and focuses on the Truth of Jesus Christ

Or at least should

Your opinion is noted. We disagree.

 

[miknik5]

Your opinion is noted. We disagree.

Yes I can see that
Thank you for ending our back and forth one on one exchange simply noting that

 

[DogmaHunter]

And so the admission finally comes out.

You consider it a bad thing, to require some minimum of supportive reasonable evidence, before one takes certain claims under consideration?

That certainly would explain a few things..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And so the admission finally comes out.

Yup - he's after knowledge, for which justification and truth (correspondence with the facts) are required.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... any sort of diiscussion sir in a Christian forum discusses, glorifies and focuses on the Truth of Jesus Christ

Or at least should

Thank you for ending our back and forth one on one exchange simply noting that

The forum Statement of Purpose makes it clear what should be discussed in the Philosophy Forum. Any discussion, glorification, or focus on the 'Truth of Jesus Christ' should be done according to those constraints, specifically:

"Philosophy of religion is a philosophical study of religion which seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, including the nature and existence of God, rather than examining or arguing against the theology of a particular belief system. The philosophy of religion is rational, critical thought and exploration of general religious themes and concepts. Philosophy of religion is focused on investigating religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion. The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers." (my italics)

 

[juvenissun]

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 gave a hypothesis and an explanation. She is also intellectually honest.
Intellectually, Alice is one step ahead of Bob.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Alice gave a hypothesis and an explanation. She is also intellectually honest.
Intellectually, Alice is one step ahead of Bob.

God is not an explanation; it is just a label for the lack of an explanation. It has no explanatory or predictive power and raises more questions than it answers by introducing an inexplicable entity with inexplicable powers. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable. When 'magic' is a better explanation by reason of parsimony, you know you're going badly wrong.

 

[Albion]

Alice gave a hypothesis and an explanation. She is also intellectually honest.
Intellectually, Alice is one step ahead of Bob.

That's right. Bob is befuddled and can't contemplate any possible explanation, while Alice has already begun to assess the possibilities.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That's right. Bob is befuddled and can't contemplate any possible explanation, while Alice has already begun to assess the possibilities.

You first have to establish that your hypothesis is possible before you can call it a possibility.

 

[Albion]

You first have to establish that your hypothesis is possible before you can call it a possibility.

To immediately rule out the possibility that there is anything which is unseen amounts to ignorance in action. That's Bob, according to this account we're discussing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

To immediately rule out the possibility that there is anything which is unseen amounts to ignorance in action. That's Bob, according to this account we're discussing.

The OP doesn't mention that Bob rules anything out. Needing evidence that something does (or even can) exist isn't the same as ruling something out. It's the complete opposite of ignorance, which would be accepting the possibility of something without any good reason to do so.

 

[Albion]

The OP doesn't mention that Bob rules anything out.

I was going by what Bob said, not someone else's interpretation of his thinking. That's what most of us have thought right to do.

 

[juvenissun]

God is not an explanation; it is just a label for the lack of an explanation.

It IS an explanation to Bob's question.
Question to that explanation is something else outside the OP.

 

[juvenissun]

You first have to establish that your hypothesis is possible before you can call it a possibility.

To have God or a god is certainly possible.