The circular argument of God and miracles

[Albion]

Perhaps someone is attributing motives again...

There's nothing about motives in that; it was a comment about what might have been accomplished.

Thanks for the conversation.

And you too.

I'd like for us to meet up again and be on the same side.

 

[Albion]

I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read what I actually wrote.

Looks the same as the first time.

"No, unexplained things do not mean that supernatural things are possible. It only means they're unexplained."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

First of all, it's only circular reasoning if you don't have a relationship with God. If you do, then you know God is as real as your next door neighbor.

The point isn't what you know, it's what argument you're using to try and express what you know.

A circular argument is circular no matter what other conditions are present.

The OP is trying to point out that an argument attempting to show a god's existence via miracles won't work because the argument is circular.

I will say that if an event can be established to have no other possible explanation than a god, then that becomes evidence of a god's existence. Proving that was the case would be difficult however.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Looks the same as the first time.

And you'd be wrong again. The statement:

"No, unexplained things do not mean that supernatural things are possible. It only means they're unexplained."

does not in any way say that supernatural things are impossible. The statement takes no stand at all about the possibility of the supernatural. It only states that unexplained events are not evidence that the supernatural is possible.

It's actually pretty obvious.

 

[Albion]

The point isn't what you know, it's what argument you're using to try and express what you know.

A circular argument is circular no matter what other conditions are present.

The OP is trying to point out that an argument attempting to show a god's existence via miracles won't work because the argument is circular.

I will say that if an event can be established to have no other possible explanation than a god, then that becomes evidence of a god's existence. Proving that was the case would be difficult however.

Two points here:

1. The thread referred to (and offered an illustration of) a circular argument. What significance that particular circular argument has, if any, was never explained. I don't see any, since it is not used very commonly and doesn't prove anything about God or miracles or bears anyway. I'm sure we could all fashion some sort of circular argument and then shoot it down. All that has been "proven" here is that circular arguments are, well, circular.

2. You've tried to be on both sides of this argument, initially saying that the absence of an explanation only means that we don't have the explanation, but now that's become what you said above--that it could have a supernatural explanation but only if proven to have one. So you presume that there is a natural explanation (but that we just haven't identified it) while at the same time you require proof of a supernatural explanation before admitting that there could be such a thing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Two points here:

1. The thread referred to (and offered an illustration of) a circular argument. What significance that particular circular argument has, if any, was never explained. I don't see any, since it is not used very commonly and doesn't prove anything about God or miracles or bears anyway. I'm sure we could all fashion some sort of circular argument and then shoot it down. All that has been "proven" here is that circular arguments are, well, circular.

I hear circular arguments from theists all the time. The OP is probably just pointing out the fallacy because they've heard the same arguments.

2. You've tried to be on both sides of this argument, initially saying that the absence of an explanation only means that we don't have the explanation, but now that's become what you said above--that it could have a supernatural explanation but only if proven to have one. So you presume that there is a natural explanation (but that we just haven't identified it) while at the same time you require proof of a supernatural explanation before admitting that there could be such a thing.

I'm not on both sides of anything. I'm saying that things unexplained can't be used as an explanation of the supernatural.

I'm also saying that if it could be established that the actions of a god was the only explanation for an event, then the event can be evidence of a god.

Those are two separate statements. The first statement says nothing about a god, and the second statement says nothing about the supernatural.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

Assuming that the best explanation for the walking on water in this case was actually God; Alice was wasting her time invoking God as a cause for the person walking on water to Bob.

In order for the miracle to be efficacious evidence for the existence of God one must first have established that God exists otherwise the argument is indeed circular.

Evidences for God that lead to a firm, consistent and intellectually satisfying knowledge of God tend to be accumulative, building upon one another.

The person who appreciates the need for an uncaused cause at the beginning of the universe then observes the need for reason and then sees the created order within the universe. Maybe they then see the law maker behind moral law, or appreciate the information and creativity in the biological world. Then their own subjective experience is attributed to the same Person. This sort of thinking produces a very strong cumulative and objective case for God upon which other observations such as miracles can consistently be pinned to further strengthen the trust that a person already has.

Of course most people do not come to their knowledge of God in this way and rely heavily upon subjective experience of themselves or others but this does not negate the truth of the argument that sits behind them, even if they are not aware of it.
As such for there is nothing wrong with Alice attributing the water walk to God. She may well after all have reached the correct conclusion in spite of her inconsistent path to that conclusion.

The point is that she has reached the correct conclusion, her mistake is in that she supposes that her circular path will be sufficient to convince Bob of the existence of God.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't dispute the medical definition or diagnosis, I'm just saying the illness is not actually terminal (i.e. fatal) unless the patient dies.

Terminal: "predicted to lead to death, especially slowly; incurable"

Anyway, I think this is a semantic argument that isn't particularly relevant to the thread at hand.

 

[Albion]

I hear circular arguments from theists all the time.

Strange that I don't hear them myself, since I'm not favorite of punk reasoning, even if it comes from someone who basically agrees with me.

I'm not on both sides of anything. I'm saying that things unexplained can't be used as an explanation of the supernatural.

Well, you'd have to actually engage with the entirety of what I wrote on that matter if this is not to be another one of those "tis so, tis not" kinds of debates.

I'm also saying that if it could be established that the actions of a god was the only explanation for an event, then the event can be evidence of a god.

Those are two separate statements. first statement says nothing about a god, and the second statement says nothing about the supernatural.

Yes, but all of that just sidesteps what I had said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Terminal: "predicted to lead to death, especially slowly; incurable"

Hah! duelling dictionaries - two can play that game - Terminal: "causing death eventually : leading finally to death; having an illness that cannot be cured and that will soon lead to death".

Anyway, I think this is a semantic argument that isn't particularly relevant to the thread at hand.

Agreed. Let's move on.

 

[Anguspure]

I hear circular arguments from theists all the time. The OP is probably just pointing out the fallacy because they've heard the same arguments.

At least when a theist makes a circular argument this can be corrected and what remains is still coherent and intellectually satisfying.
The opposite view, on the other hand, has a very circular argument at its foundation the correction of which undermines the whole position at its core.

 

[Dave RP]

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.

If you believe in God you see the evidence of his existence all around you, but if you don't believe in God then you see other causes of the things you see around you. My friend who is a Christian asked me once how I could explain the universe and all the beauty we see around us unless it was God, I said I couldn't explain everything but evolution seemed to do it for the amazing diversity of life, and the incredible time span of the universe's existence for the stars and galaxies etc.

She said "but isn't it all a miracle" and I said it is indeed a miracle - I just didn't see God as the originator of the miracle, I saw it as unknown, and in any event where did God come from?

So the argument is impossible to resolve, if you believe in God the miracle was his, if you don't it is either explanatory through known natural phenomena or unknown natural phenomena.

Much like UFO's - if you believe aliens visit earth then UFO's are proof, if you don't they are either explained or unexplained natural phenomena.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Assuming that the best explanation for the walking on water in this case was actually God; Alice was wasting her time invoking God as a cause for the person walking on water to Bob.

In order for the miracle to be efficacious evidence for the existence of God one must first have established that God exists otherwise the argument is indeed circular.

Evidences for God that lead to a firm, consistent and intellectually satisfying knowledge of God tend to be accumulative, building upon one another.

The person who appreciates the need for an uncaused cause at the beginning of the universe then observes the need for reason and then sees the created order within the universe. Maybe they then see the law maker behind moral law, or appreciate the information and creativity in the biological world. Then their own subjective experience is attributed to the same Person. This sort of thinking produces a very strong cumulative and objective case for God upon which other observations such as miracles can consistently be pinned to further strengthen the trust that a person already has.

Of course most people do not come to their knowledge of God in this way and rely heavily upon subjective experience of themselves or others but this does not negate the truth of the argument that sits behind them, even if they are not aware of it.
As such for there is nothing wrong with Alice attributing the water walk to God. She may well after all have reached the correct conclusion in spite of her inconsistent path to that conclusion.

The point is that she has reached the correct conclusion, her mistake is in that she supposes that her circular path will be sufficient to convince Bob of the existence of God.

I appreciate this response. Thanks for the input.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

At least when a theist makes a circular argument this can be corrected and what remains is still coherent and intellectually satisfying.
The opposite view, on the other hand, has a very circular argument at its foundation the correction of which undermines the whole position at its core.

Not to derail, but can you elaborate on the circular argument which is at the foundation of atheism?

 

[Albion]

So the argument is impossible to resolve, if you believe in God the miracle was his, if you don't it is either explanatory through known natural phenomena or unknown natural phenomena.

...but not by citing evolution, since nothing evolves unless it first exists. And not by saying that if it's the case that we don't know the origin of things, this means it CANNOT BE that there's a supernatural explanation. That's atheism's fallacy and circular reasoning, and yet it's jealously held to.

 

[Dave RP]

...but not by citing evolution, since nothing evolves unless it first exists. And not by saying that if we don't know the origin or things it CANNOT BE that there's a supernatural explanation. That's atheism's fallacy and circular reasoning, and yet it's jealously held to.

Evolution says that things evolve after its existence, correct and it seems a good theory for the multitude of life on the planet. It is not a theory of how life started, that's outside of its remit.

And I never said that the unknown origin of things means that there CANNOT BE a supernatural explanation, I just said I don't believe there is a supernatural explanation. I believe there is an undiscovered natural explanation, but in fairness you've just moved the problem up one level - if God did all this stuff, where did God come from?

 

[keith99]

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

I would suggest making sure he actually was walking on water and not a sand bar a few inches above or below the water level or something similar. But going out to talk to him would likely discover that.

 

[keith99]

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.

Again in this miracle healing wouldn't it be a good idea to talk to the doctors? The doctors say there is only a 1% chance of recovery and when a patient with those odds recovers his family, not unjustly, thinks of it as a miracle. Yet it may turn out that over a 5 year period the doctors are spot on and 99 out of 100 in that situation die.

 

[Albion]

Evolution says that things evolve after its existence, correct and it seems a good theory for the multitude of life on the planet. It is not a theory of how life started, that's outside of its remit.

Yes, and that's all I was saying there. It was a response to this:

My friend who is a Christian asked me once how I could explain the universe and all the beauty we see around us unless it was God, I said I couldn't explain everything but evolution seemed to do it....

 

[keith99]

Consider the case of the three-year old daughter and mother in the woods. It is perfectly reasonable for the daughter to know what a bear is but not believe they are real. It is not slanted for the daughter to ask "How do you know bears exist?" because the daughter thought they were fake.


The only reason you think it is "slanted" is because God is an emotionally charged idea whereas a bear is not.

I see one more difference. If the daughter still does not believe mom can easily show her other smaller animals who make paw prints. But even that might not be enough, the bear paw is so bit it is obviously a hoax. (Side note, for the American Centennial celebration a section of a redwood was shipped back East. It was considered a hoax).

So what is mom to do? How about a trip to Yosemite? Bear boxes, displays in the visitor center and if that fails a short talk with a ranger will give enough information that the daughter can sit up all night, for one night and have a 95% plus chance of seeing a bear. And the trees are even easier a trip to Sequoia will allow the daughter to see and touch hundreds of hoax size trees.

Yet the believers in God cannot do the same. Does that disprove God? No, but it sure makes it obvious that their claim is of a different nature.