The circular argument of God and miracles

[miknik5]

Some points about the thread - we look to natural (materialistic) explanations first because they're most likely to be testable and to correspond to an existing body of knowledge about the world. An 'explanation' that raises more questions than it answers doesn't explain; an explanation that makes no predictions isn't testable. But also, you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

Someone can be 100% correct in analytic contexts such as logic or mathematics, but can't be certain of being 100% correct about situations in the world (states of affairs). Whether we can trust an eyewitness to be honest or not has no bearing on whether their report is an accurate representation of what they observed. Eyewitness reports are unreliable due to flaws in observation, perception, processing, and memory storage and retrieval (reconstruction).

If one accepts that our thought processes are the result of evolution (survival of the fittest), it seems to me that this implies that they have a fundamental relation to reality; evolution is a process that is driven by reality, it responds to reality; reality is predators, prey, competitors, mates, food, hiding places, vantage points, etc. Our thought processes evolved to facilitate our responses to these selection pressures. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are well-suited to our current context, they're the product of earlier times; but the idea that because "our thought processes are evolved for survival of the fittest, there is no reason to suppose that anything that anybody thinks reflects truth or reality", clearly can't be correct.

Very good explanation...thank you...
I understand

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Incredulity has nothing to do with it.
For example it is quite reasonable to consider that before the natural world began to exist that the natural world did not exist, and therefore what did exist (given that something that caused the universe to exist did exist) is supernatural.

Argument from ignorance.

We don't know if the question "what came before the universe" is even a coherent question, let alone speculate what it could be if it is a coherent question.

 

[miknik5]

The positive description of the supernatural thing caused the universe to exist is that it is the Uncaused Cause.
Given that the thing, whatever it is exists (the causeless cause) then it is quite reasonable to provide further identifying descriptors about that thing in terms of whatever we can know about it including the traits that it does not exhibit.

In this way we can perhaps narrow down the nature of the Creator to being this as opposed to that. So, for example we could consider that none of the gods of pantheism meet the criteria because they posses traits that the creator does not posses.



Why must the mind take in communication or input before it does something? A mind with a (free) will is capable of having a thought or making a decision without any external input whatsoever.

I think you are confusing computing with consciousness. The process you describe is one of computing where inputs determine outputs, where it never thinks about anything but merely crunches data through a pre-determined algorithm.

The mind on the other hand is always thinking about things including abstract things that exist nowhere but in the mind itself. Thus a mind can exist and function within its own context without the need for any input whatsoever.
The uncaused cause certainly exists within its own context as that is the necessary nature of its being in that it is the thing that exists necessarily that is the cause of all causes

What prompted its decision is it own will, something that is also a hallmark of consciousness as opposed to computing.




Causality is not an essential precursor to mind. The minds we know follow causal patterns because they exist within time. A mind existing timelessly is not impossible if difficult to conceive of and only requires that the mind interacts with time at the point which it creates time within the universe.

But perhaps you are correct. The mind of the uncaused cause is completely unique, as it must be, and so we should describe this person in a unique way.

A curious insight from the Torah relates that the God of Israel described Himself to Moses as "I AM".
So where we humans will say "I think therefore I am.", the uncaused cause simply says "I AM".

And "I AM" means I am...the same: yesterday today and tomorrow...complete...no change in HIM...I AM

we, on the other hand are be"ings" (the very suffix itself implies constant motion)...we move, we change...we are striving to a finished end...

I AM doesn't have to strive to a completed end...HE IS...

PERFECT...FULL....COMPLETE...no need to move from one beginning to an end and completed point...

 

[miknik5]

Argument from ignorance.

We don't know if the question "what came before the universe" is even a coherent question, let alone speculate what it could be if it is a coherent question.

There had to be a starting point...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There had to be a starting point...

What do you mean by a starting point and why do you think there had to be one?

 

[miknik5]

What do you mean by a starting point and why do you think there had to be one?

You base your "starting point" on the tangible evidence that you can study and you can only go as far back as what you have available to study...

But you can't go back to the very beginning...

What do you mean by a starting point and why do you think there had to be one?

how is a man naturally brought into the world?

If you suggest there is no GOD. Why was the first man a man at all? Shouldn't he have been a newborn baby since that is the normal and natural starting point for all men (and animals) as well

And if there were a bunch of newborn babies in the world and that was the starting point how the heck did they make it this far?

Which means there had to be a first man created as exactly that. A man, not entering into the world as a newborn but as a man with no mother or father

 

[ToddNotTodd]

WYou base your "starting point" on the tangible evidence that you can study and you can only go as far back as what you have available to study...

But you can't go back to the very beginning...you ca

Not being able to "go back to the very beginning" doesn't mean there was a "before" the universe, and it certainly doesn't mean there's a god.

how is a man naturally brought into the world?

I was delivered at a hospital.

If you suggest there is no GOD.

I don't.

Why was the first man a man at all? Shouldn't he have been a newborn baby since that is the normal and natural starting point for all men (and animals) as well

And if there were a bunch of newborn babies in the world and that was the starting point how the heck did they make it this far?

Which means there had to be a first man created as exactly that. A man, not entering into the world as a newborn but as a man with no mother or father

Have you ever taken a biology class?

 

[devolved]

The positive description of the supernatural thing caused the universe to exist is that it is the Uncaused Cause.

Again. You run to the unjustified assumptions from your initial premise ... Universe began to exist.

The term Universe means "everything in existence". So semantically it would include everything. So you seem to misunderstand as to what we mean by "Universe began to exist", and how we know that it's likely the case. And from that misunderstanding you begin to invent concepts without demonstrating why these are necessary.

Saying everything is has a cause, therefore there must be uncauses cause is logically inconsistent. Causality only works when you have a cause and effect already existing. Otherwise there's nothing for that "uncaused cause" to cause as an effect. If material things don't exist, and all you have is a "spiritual cause", then how do you ever arrive at a material effect that was caused? Cause/effect relationships work between existing things that can interact and effect other things.

That's how cause-effect relationship works. You are inventing something new that we never observed as a necessary condition, which is fine as a science-fiction or fantasy type of premise... but when we are talking about likely explanation for reality, you actually need to justify whatever it is that you invent as an explanation.

Given that the thing, whatever it is exists (the causeless cause) then it is quite reasonable to provide further identifying descriptors about that thing in terms of whatever we can know about it including the traits that it does not exhibit.

Again, how do you go from something as generic as "causeless cause" and then arrive ... to "It must be a mind"? What do you go by to trace these "identifying descriptors"?

In this way we can perhaps narrow down the nature of the Creator to being this as opposed to that. So, for example we could consider that none of the gods of pantheism meet the criteria because they posses traits that the creator does not posses.

Well, proponents of pantheism would postulate the same uncaused cause that you would, only they say that it's unnecessary to shift and externalize God into "spiritual", hence everything material is God and therefore it's uncaused, because it is God, and therefore there wouldn't be a need for that God to create anything. It always was and is as God.

When you begin play through these semantics, you have no consistent justification as to what is plausible or better explanation. Hence, you are merely gauging reality via your own preferences.

Why must the mind take in communication or input before it does something? A mind with a (free) will is capable of having a thought or making a decision without any external input whatsoever.

Because that's how minds work. Does a mind of an unborn infant make free will decisions? You are projecting an developed and informed mind apart from the ONLY context where we find such concept in reality - an informed brain.

Then you detach that concept from the ONLY place where we find it, and you place it in the middle of nowhere with nothing else around, literally, and you say that it can decide everything into existence. How exactly does that work?

I think you are confusing computing with consciousness. The process you describe is one of computing where inputs determine outputs, where it never thinks about anything but merely crunches data through a pre-determined algorithm.

I don't think I do, because I'm actually going by the dictionarry. Consciousness and mind are two different concepts.

Consciousness definition: the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings, awareness by the mind of itself and the world

Mind definition: the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

Consciousness is an attribute of mind that communicates self-awareness. But, not all minds are self-aware. Do you think that infants in mother's womb have a mind? Are they self-aware at that point? I don't think so. Do they have a mind? Yes. Consciousness in terms of self-awareness is something that's developed over time through perception of the environment and ability to make a distinction between what is "I AM" and what is everything esle. Thus, self-awareness is not a prerequisite for a mind. Like you said, a mind is a "choice-making" mechanism.

When the only thing that exists is the mind, then such distinction is not possible, hence self-awareness is a moot concept. If everything that exists is "Self" then there's no way to tell "self" apart. The concept of self is a necessarily the concept that separates it from everything else.

Hence, you are detaching mind from the brain, and it doesn't really work out too well.

The mind on the other hand is always thinking about things including abstract things that exist nowhere but in the mind itself.

Before we move on with this discussion, please understand at least this one thing. Abstract things derive their reality from actual things, because abstract is a model of reality. It's a shortcut description.

When there's nothing to describe at all, then you would have nothing in such mind in the middle of nowhere, because there wouldn't be any inherent necessity for thinking those things. We necessarily think of abstract things because these are contingent on outside reality.

Again, you detaching the concept of mind from the actual reality of mind - a brain or some sort of brain-like mechanism.

What prompted its decision is it own will, something that is also a hallmark of consciousness as opposed to computing.

Consciousness doesn't make any decisions. It's a attribute of self-awareness. It's passive. Intellect is the part of mind that makes decisions, and intellect requires some form of input. Yes, intellect can run within boundaries that would not require "external input"... but intellect is an A-Z logical process, and as a process it needs to go through a sequence of events. Otherwise you are not talking about an intellect, and you are not talking about a decision. You are talking about random events.

I suggest you to look up the definitions first as to how we define these things with respect how these work. And the second thing I'd suggest is to actually look up why we define it as such, and observe how these things work in reality.

You are detaching the reality of our knowledge about these concepts and you assume that these will work the same in the middle of nowhere with nothing around them.

Causality is not an essential precursor to mind.

Causality is the PRIMARY prerequisite for the mind, because mind the way we describe and define it is an analytical process that in conscious case of mind would include the the attribute of self awareness.

If mind doesn't progress through cause-effect pattern, then you essentially have a random decision generator without any prerequisites for these decisions. You are not describing a mind.

The minds we know follow causal patterns because they exist within time.

Well, that's the only example of minds we know of. How do you detach that concept from reality, plop it in a middle of nowhere with nothing around it, and then think that such construct would be capable of causing anything?

Again, I'm asking for a justifiable answer to that question other than "Well, it just can, because it's magical"

But perhaps you are correct. The mind of the uncaused cause is completely unique, as it must be, and so we should describe this person in a unique way.

Sure, again, it wouldn't be problematic at all in context of a myth or sci-fi/fantasy genres. But, when we are attempting to explain reality, we can't jump from "it's reasonable to think that" to "forget about what I've said about logic and reason, because it doesn't apply".

Why would you go through all of the "logical hoops", if you decide to ignore these later and merely postulate a subjective necessary preference that you can't justify or explain?

curious insight from the Torah relates that the God of Israel described Himself to Moses as "I AM".
So where we humans will say "I think therefore I am.", the uncaused cause simply says "I AM".

Well, in order to say "I AM", one must tell a difference between what I AM and what I AM NOT. That's how self-awareness functions in reality. If there's absolutely nothing to go by in that reguard, then saying "I AM" is rather meaningless because what would such "I" even mean in such context?

Again, you are taking a concept of human mind out of the brain, and out of the environment in which brains operate. You are sticking it in the middle of nowhere with nothing around it, and it doesn't really work. You are not explaining as to how such mind can cause anything. You are not explaining as to how such mind can be aware of anything.

You are simply saying, "I know that it works that way in reality, but in this case it must be different", but you are not showing how any of this is plausible.

 

[Near]

This is precisely the problem though. There could be many different explanations for this unknown phenomenon. How could it be shown that God was doing it?

Well, I guess God could make an appearance, and just say it was him.

As far as I know, history plays out in one way only. So either a miracle happens or it doesn't.
It cannot both be an illusion and real at the same time.

What I meant was, a miracle seems to be something that just amazes a person that currently isn't explained with certain views of natural laws. If we understand exactly how something is working, it ceases to be a miracle. We could understand that something is a lie, or that God was involved. Miracle seems to be a label.

"God as described in the bible is real" is an empty assertion. It raises the question why you would think the Bible is a trustworthy and authoritative source.

If you answer, "Because it is the holy word of God" (or some variant) then you have just walked into another circular argument.

My point wasn't to prove God. My point was to show the order in which a person believes in miracles and God.
You've seemed to assert that we look around and say things are miracles, and then because of that we posit God.
We may look at the sun, and say, "wow, what a miraculous thing, it must be that something powerful made this, we will call that thing, God." That's a God of the Gaps scenario.
That's not what I believe, nor does traditional Christianity embrace that view.
I'm sure it does raise questions, but one does not need to have answers to every question that is raised in order to believe in that which is questioned. That's a matter of fact, people will believe regardless of whether or not all of the questions are answered. As for saying, "because it is the holy word of God", I wasn't trying to prove the bible is trustworthy. I could merely say, I personally find the bible to be trustworthy to me, and other may share this feeling for a number of reasons.

Precisely the epistemological issue. Believing something to exist is essentially useless if that belief cannot be verified in some way by others. If you believe something exists, and I can't verify it, then it is up to you to show that it actually exists. Until then, it should be assumed to not exist.

In what way is a belief useless, specifically belief in Christian doctrine?
It really depends of what use is specified. I don't think belief in Christian doctrine is useless. At the very least, Christian doctrine has led me to live a more peaceful happier life, with hope for a better future. I find my beliefs to be practically useful, not essentially useless.

Is that really useless, or did you mean useless in a academic sense in which we have to prove to colleagues in our respective fields the truth of something?
If I believe something exists, and you can't verify it, it's only up to me to show that it actually exists if that is my personal goal. I could very well choose not to inform you of my beliefs.
As for assuming somethings non-existence, no one has verified that God doesn't exist, so should be assume that it's not the case that God doesn't exist?
Rather, you shouldn't really assume anything claiming that it's a proven fact. I don't claim that it's a proven fact that God exists, but I do claim that God exists, just not that I've proven anything.

For example, if I am walking in the wood with you and you exclaim, "Look there's a bear on the path!" and I look and see no bear, then one of us is mistaken. I would say, "Where?" and you would need to point to it, describe it, describe it's location, describe what it looks like. If your replied by saying, "Oh I don't know that a bear is on the path, I only believe there is a bear on the path" then my response would be, "Oh, so you haven't seen it then. Or you're imagining something in your mind which cannot be verified by others."

So, should we then, assume that there is no bear?
Should we accept it as a fact that there is indeed no bear?
Or, should we say, it's possible that there is a bear? There's nothing logically invalid about there being a bear. Now, if I said I saw a bear that was as large as a common elephant, but as small as a common mouse, you ought to deny that, since it's a logical contradiction.
If someone told me they saw a bear, I would be asking where, and grant that the person actually saw a bear. I'd try to get the heck out of there. I would err on the side of caution being open to the possibility of there being a bear.
If you wanted to check out a cave in the forest, but then I said, I think I saw a bear in there, but it's dark so I don't know...
Would you assume there is no bear?
I could go on and on about the dangers of assuming that there isn't a danger, when indeed there is one, with no proof happening to be available at the time.
As for believing in things, when it comes to the bear, there is typically a reason for believing that a bear is present, small hints maybe, a crackle of a twig, blood in the water, but nothing very conclusive. Perhaps the same is with God. I've learned about God, I look at the world around me, and I reflect on morality, the existence of the universe, as well as other things, and something about all of that speaks to me and reminds me of God, and I choose to affirm his existence.

 

[devolved]

Perhaps the same is with God. I've learned about God, I look at the world around me, and I reflect on morality, the existence of the universe, as well as other things, and something about all of that speaks to me and reminds me of God, and I choose to affirm his existence.

Yes, I think that the bear example is a very loose on in respect to the reality of both claims. Bears exist demonstrably, hence we can provisionally grant a possibility that someone saw a bear.

God doesn't demonstrably exist and has to be "induced" into existence through some derivative means or rationalizations. Hence it's justifiable to say that God provisionally doesn't exist unless we can have some conclusive evidence otherwise. It's not the same as conclusively saying that God doesn't exist, but we generally don't bother with attempting to disprove existence of things prior to labeling such things as irrelevant in the scope of what's observable.

I hope you understand the difference. It's not the same as saying that God doesn't exist. It's that God's existence is pending conclusive evidence, and that until then it doesn't matter.

Likewise, if God exist, I really don't think that it would matter to God whether we believe it or not. Why would that be more important than other things that would overlap with purpose of such God? If the intent of such God is to be known conclusively, then it is doing an exceptionally poor job in doing so. If it's not the intent, then why would answering that question matter, since we seemingly can't tell a difference?

 

[devolved]

I AM doesn't have to strive to a completed end...HE IS...

PERFECT...FULL....COMPLETE...no need to move from one beginning to an end and completed point...

So if complete thing don't move, and don't need to add anything. How is it that you get anything else from that equation?

 

[FireDragon76]

Positing an unknown doesn't explain things like beauty, truth, or goodness. If your friend marvels at the beauty of the universe, the scientific explanation is going to come up negating that beauty actually exists except as a sense-perception. Of course, nobody thinks or talks like this in real life all the time, it would be frustrating and maddening to live with such a worldview, so this worldview is necessarily inconsistent.

 

[Near]

Yes, I think that the bear example is a very loose on in respect to the reality of both claims. Bears exist demonstrably, hence we can provisionally grant a possibility that someone saw a bear.

God doesn't demonstrably exist and has to be "induced" into existence through some derivative means or rationalizations. Hence it's justifiable to say that God provisionally don't exist unless we can have some conclusive evidence otherwise.

I hope you understand the difference. It's not the same as saying that God doesn't exist. It's that God's existence is pending conclusive evidence, and that until then it doesn't matter.

If God does indeed exist, it seems to me that he does exist demonstrably, just not to everyone.
If someone actually saw God, that would be evidence. I don't think you can make generalizations about what we, over a billion human beings, have or haven't seen. We, as in, you and I, don't know what everyone has experienced. So, we're both biased and ignorant in some way, and we can't really say what's likely in a universal way, but only in a local, or personal way.
If disembodied souls are in some ethereal world seeing God, to them it's demonstrably true that God exists.
As for the two of us, I don't think I can personally demonstrate that God exists, but that doesn't mean someone else can't, or that God himself couldn't. So, all talk of what we provisionally know is quite limited and since we don't know everything, and because of a lack information that may otherwise disprove our provisional knowledge, that provisional knowledge should not be applied to all people, but only to the individual, and those that are in the same boat as the individual.

Likewise, if God exist, I really don't think that it would matter to God whether we believe it or not. Why would that be more important than other things that would overlap with purpose of such God? If the purpose of such God is to be known conclusively, then it is doing an exceptionally poor job in doing so. If it's not the purpose, then why would answering that question matter, since we seemingly can't tell a difference?

As for God, our knowledge is limited. Can we really say for all people across time, that it's likely that God doesn't care about what we believe? Is the purpose of God to be known of conclusively? (I'm guessing you meant known of, rather than personal knowing).
I don't recall that being the case in my learning. As for answering the question of whether God exists, does it have to be conclusive? To me, it just has to be believable, enough to put faith in, and at least to me, that's good enough.

 

[FireDragon76]

If we are going to assert some kind of freedom or ability to know the truth with certainty, we are going to have to look elsewhere than science for our foundation. We are going to have to deal with philosophy and all that gooey stuff.

 

[devolved]

If God does indeed exist, it seems to me that he does exist demonstrably, just not to everyone.

Couldn't you say it about any claim then, like the ever-evasive Bigfoot, for example? Do you bother with details about Bigfoot?

If someone actually saw God, that would be evidence. I don't think you can make generalizations about what we, over a billion human beings, have or haven't seen. We, as in, you and I, don't know what everyone has experienced. So, we're both biased and ignorant in some way, and we can't really say what's likely in a universal way, but only in a local, or personal way.
If disembodied souls are in some ethereal world seeing God, to them it's demonstrably true that God exists.

Have you seen God? If not, then what exactly are we talking about?

As for the two of us, I don't think I can personally demonstrate that God exists, but that doesn't mean someone else can't, or that God himself couldn't. So, all talk of what we provisionally know is quite limited and since we don't know everything, and because of a lack information that may otherwise disprove our provisional knowledge, that provisional knowledge should not be applied to all people, but only to the individual, and those that are in the same boat as the individual.

Sure. Provisional knowledge is pragmatic, and that's my point. If God can demonstrate, or if someone can... that's great! I'm all for it! I'd love that, actually. The same is the case for Bigfoot or Nessy.

The problem is that it didn't happen yet, and including Bigfoot as an exhibit of the museum as some possible reality doesn't make much sense, does it. Why would it make sense in case of religious claims?

As for God, our knowledge is limited. Can we really say for all people across time, that it's likely that God doesn't care about what we believe? Is the purpose of God to be known of conclusively? (I'm guessing you meant known of, rather than personal knowing).
I don't recall that being the case in my learning. As for answering the question of whether God exists, does it have to be conclusive? To me, it just has to be believable, enough to put faith in, and at least to me, that's good enough.

Again, Bigfoot and chupacabra are both believable. Is it relevant in respect to our experience of reality? Not really.

The same with God and religious claims. Whether these claims overlap with reality... then religion becomes viable and useful. And in many cases it is. Religion can provide grounds for community, art, philosophy, health. But when it doesn't (think YEC, and homophobia, and etc), then why should anyone care based on inconclusive belief claims?

I think that the common denominator in all religious experiences isn't God, but rather people. Hence, it seems like a way for people to find meaning and act in accordance with that meaning.

 

[miknik5]

Not being able to "go back to the very beginning" doesn't mean there was a "before" the universe, and it certainly doesn't mean there's a god.



I was delivered at a hospital.



I don't.



Have you ever taken a biology class?

Have you ever been a baby, outside in a world where there is no hospital, and without an adult parent to take care of you...

 

[miknik5]

So if complete thing don't move, and don't need to add anything. How is it that you get anything else from that equation?

Well, because the ONE WHO IS COMPLETE loved HIS CREATION and because HE did, even as HE knew HIS CREATION (created in HIS IMAGE) would fall/disobey/sin...did so much more for HIS CREATION than HE really had to...

Thereby showing that HIS GRACE upon us was present even from the beginning.

 

[miknik5]

Argument from ignorance.

We don't know if the question "what came before the universe" is even a coherent question, let alone speculate what it could be if it is a coherent question.

We know the answer of what came before the universe...It is found in Genesis 1:1

The "earth" before GOD separated the "waters above" from the "waters below" was just a dark, void, formless soupy cosmos/mass...water...it was all just water before GOD began separating and creating

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Have you ever been a baby, outside in a world where there is no hospital, and without an adult parent to take care of you...

No, why?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

We know the answer of what came before the universe...It is found in Genesis 1:1

The "earth" before GOD separated the "waters above" from the "waters below" was just a dark, void, formless soupy cosmos/mass...water...it was all just water before GOD began separating and creating

Give evidence that any religious book contains correct evidence about the beginning of the universe.