Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There's nothing about motives in that; it was a comment about what might have been accomplished.Perhaps someone is attributing motives again...
And you too.Thanks for the conversation.
Looks the same as the first time.I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
"No, unexplained things do not mean that supernatural things are possible. It only means they're unexplained."
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.
Looks the same as the first time.
Two points here: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.
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.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.
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.
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 hear circular arguments from theists all the time.
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 not on both sides of anything. I'm saying that things unexplained can't be used as an explanation of the supernatural.
Yes, but all of that just sidesteps what I had said.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.
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".Terminal: "predicted to lead to death, especially slowly; incurable"
Agreed. Let's move on.Anyway, I think this is a semantic argument that isn't particularly relevant to the thread at hand.
At least when a theist makes a circular argument this can be corrected and what remains is still coherent and intellectually satisfying.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.
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.
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.
...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.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.
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....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.
I would suggest talking to the guy who is walking on water.
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.
Yes, and that's all I was saying there. It was a response to this: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.
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....
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?