The circular argument of God and miracles

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

Show that things like beauty or goodness necessarily can't be explained by natural means.

 

[miknik5]

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

Myself...I guess...although that won't be good enough...

 

[miknik5]

No, why?

Well, you wanted to explain to me biology...so I assumed we would be discussing cells and how things should work?

I thought you understood that a human being can't come into the world, unless it is brought forth as a result of a union between a male and a female...

So, I was wondering why and how even one man even came to be upon the earth...

That is why...
I can't comprehend how a baby could just be lying around in the world without even one adult parent to care for it...

So, I have to assume that one man came forth first and that makes more sense to me than a baby just lying around in the world where man had no input into his environment...yet.

He didn't work to provide shelter, and he didn't work to supply his own food.

And babies really can't do these things...
Therefore, it is a wonder that the species man even exists today...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Myself...I guess...although that won't be good enough...

Not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you are evidence that a particular religious book contains correct evidence about the beginning of the universe?

Seems highly unlikely, but go ahead and explain...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well, you wanted to explain to me biology...so I assumed we would be discussing cells and how things should work?

I thought you understood that a human being can't come into the world, unless it is brought forth as a result of a union between a male and a female...

So, I was wondering why and how even one man even came to be upon the earth...

That is why...
I can't comprehend how a baby could just be lying around in the world without even one adult parent to care for it...

So, I have to assume that one man came forth first and that makes more sense to me than a baby just lying around in the world where man had no input into his environment...yet.

He didn't work to provide shelter, and he didn't work to supply his own food.

And babies really can't do these things...
Therefore, it is a wonder that the species man even exists today...

You have heard of evolution, right? And how we descended from a common ancestor that wasn't a human being?

 

[quatona]

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."

That´s not even an attempt at answering Bob´s question.

Bob says, "But, first we must establish that God exists. How do you know God exists?"

I don´t think so. If Alice could actually explain the mechanism how it´s done she might establish God´s existence as a byproduct.

Alice answer, "Just look at all the miraculous events in our world."
Anyone have a response to this?

Sure: "How exactly would miraculous events establish the existence of a God?"

 

[Near]

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

Yes, and people do bother with details about Bigfoot. There are also people who've claimed to see Big Foot.

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

I know of people who have. From their testimony, I can say that people have seen God, and I find their testimony trustworthy. That testimony is in the Bible.

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?

Religious claims don't have to be accepted by everyone. If someone is convinced by the arguments for Christian theism, and it's more probable than not that Jesus is the Risen Lord, that's good enough for them. As for God having not been demonstrated to be real; I'm convinced that he has been demonstrated to be real through Jesus.

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.

People have claimed to have found evidence for Bigfoot, chupacabra, and God. It's just the case that not everyone finds the sources to be trustworthy for a number of reasons including bias against belief.
You yourself just said "Religion can provide grounds for community, art, philosophy, health", so it is viable and useful.
And if Christianity is true, is very useful when applying practices to avoid hell, and enter heaven. Quite useful.
As for homophobia, and YEC, those don't really have much to do with the claim that God exists, or the claim Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If someone is convinced by the arguments for Christian theism, and it's more probable than not that Jesus is the Risen Lord, that's good enough for them.

Do you feel as though people should believe things based on good arguments?

 

[Near]

Do you feel as though people should believe things based on good arguments?

Yes.

 

[miknik5]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you are evidence that a particular religious book contains correct evidence about the beginning of the universe?

Seems highly unlikely, but go ahead and explain...

Yes that is what I am saying.

The Truth of 1John 2 is truth
I didn't know anything until God chose to open the eyes and ears of my heart to the truth of His Word

And because I know what I learned and from whom I learned it no man will ever be able to convince me otherwise.

This anointing is real.

 

[miknik5]

You have heard of evolution, right? And how we descended from a common ancestor that wasn't a human being?

Yes I have heard that

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes.

Do you believe that are good arguments to believe any god exists?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes that is what I am saying.

The Truth of 1John 2 is truth
I didn't know anything until God chose to open the eyes and ears of my heart to the truth of His Word

And because I know what I learned and from whom I learned it no man will ever be able to convince me otherwise.

This anointing is real.

And your evidence of this is...?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes I have heard that

Then you should be able to see why your statement about a baby in the woods makes no sense at all.

 

[miknik5]

Do you believe that are good arguments to believe any god exists?

Yep. But God is a Soirit. And what can be known of Him can ONLY be known of God by His Spirit

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yep. But God is a Soirit. And what can be known of Him can ONLY be known of God by His Spirit

Provide any good evidence that any god is a spirit.

You do need to realize that here in the Philosophy forum, good evidence of any premise is necessary if anyone is to be taken seriously.

 

[miknik5]

Provide any good evidence that any god is a spirit.

You do need to realize that here in the Philosophy forum, good evidence of any premise is necessary if anyone is to be taken seriously.

Only One God. Only One Truth.

Are you willing to believe there are.many gods.? Are you willing to believe that there ieven a spiritual realm?

But Not willing to believe that there is only One GOD?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Only One God. Only One Truth.

Are you willing to believe there are.many gods.? Are you willing to believe that there ieven a spiritual realm?

But Not willing to believe that there is only One GOD?

I don't currently believe in any gods because I haven't been presented with any good evidence that any gods exist.

So, simple yes or no question:

Do you have any good evidence that any god exists?

Because if you don't, then any claims you have about a god are no different than any other unsubstantiated claim of any other god. And no one will see your claims as anything other than your opinion.

 

[Near]

Do you believe that are good arguments to believe any god exists?

Yes. To name one, I think the kalam cosmological argument is pretty good.

 

[quatona]

To dismiss the possibility of a supernatural explanation out of hand is to arrange to win the argument by the easiest route--by saying that no other ideas will be allowed to be considered

The problem I have here is: I have never seen a supernatural explanation - I have just seen appeals to the alleged "supernatural". IOW whenever the "supernatural" is invoked, I can be pretty sure that this isn´t going to be followed by an explanation.
Thus, I am not dismissing a "supernatural explanation" out of hand - rather I keep waiting for such in order to be able to consider it.