The circular argument of God and miracles

[Anguspure]

How did you come to the conclusion that this is less absurd than your proposed alternative - an infinite, timeless, all-powerful entity capable of creating time and the universe out of nothing?

The universe is in a state of entropic increase as it passes through time. The early universe exhibits very low entropy and the future universe will exhibit less entropy. An actual infinite number of past events would demand that an actual infinite amount of time would have passed us at this point and the universe would be in heat death. This is clearly not the case and so to hold this position is absurd.

As a consequence a beginning of things is demanded. The thing that begins it must be up to the job and we can easily deduce what is needed from the creation that is before us, primarily that it exists. This is a reasonable position to hold.

BTW I don't believe this being created anything out of nothing.

 

[devolved]

The universe is in a state of entropic increase as it passes through time. The early universe exhibits very low entropy and the future universe will exhibit less entropy. An actual infinite number of past events would demand that an actual infinite amount of time would have passed us at this point and the universe would be in heat death. This is clearly not the case and so to hold this position is absurd.

An entropy is generally a measure of "disorder" as per expectation of such observation. For example, a piece of frozen glass that you take out of the fridge would have higher entropy, and moving towards lesser entropy, and quite the opposite is happening. The glass is heating up.

We don't really know the nature of the origin enough to cast it into any entropy-related assumption like you do. Entropy is a concept related to known stable arrangement or state of something. You can't cast that assumption on unknown. That's still a TBD.

 

[miknik5]

That's not even remotely what evolution says.

That's not even remotely what evolution says.

Yes I know. My "relatives" are monkeys. That's what evolution says

Please forgive me but I can't believe it. It is far fetched. And what is even more far fetched is this idea that the Big Bang created all these free atoms which randomly joined other random particles to create each living species. And not only created just one of each kind of species but it's counterpart/mate as well

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes I know. My "relatives" are monkeys. That's what evolution says

No, evolution does not say that.

Did you ever take biology at all?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

DP

 

[miknik5]

Sorry sir I can't believe random atoms joined together to create each living species and its counterpart

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sorry sir I can't believe random atoms joined together to create each living species and its counterpart

Your incredulity isn't a factor in what's true. You seem to have a lack of knowledge in this area. I think you might have a different feeling if you studied the subject more. There's plenty of Christians that accept evolution you know.

 

[miknik5]

Your incredulity isn't a factor in what's true. You seem to have a lack of knowledge in this area. I think you might have a different feeling if you studied the subject more. There's plenty of Christians that accept evolution you know.

I also feel the same way about you with regards to the Yruth of God

And as I stated once one is given the revelation of The Truth of God. Everything and every thing changes and is seen in light of That Truth

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I also feel the same way about you with regards to the Yruth of God

And as I stated once one is given the revelation of The Truth of God. Everything and every thing changes and is seen in light of That Truth

The difference between us is that with evolution, you can read a book full of evidence, and even if even if you're unsure of the evidence, you can investigate it yourself using methods that help determine the truth.

And you really should read a biology book, because you have many misconceptions about it.

So far you're not providing any evidence that the book you believe in contains facts about a god. And no reliable way to investigate it.

Oh, and I was a Christian for many years, so between the two of us, I've actually done the work...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would argue that the general Christian worldview does correspond to truth. I would point to the continued existence of Christian faith itself, sometimes under the worst possible conditions, as proof of that. If it were not corresponding to peoples actual experience of reality, it would be discarded for something else. Christianity survived communism, after all, one of the most systematic attempts the world has even seen to eliminate it.

Are you saying that if enough people believe it for long enough it must be true? The majority of religions have lasted longer than Christianity, so does that mean they correspond to truth too (or even more, if time is the measure)?

Throughout most of human history, people took the existence of some kind of unseen force or forces that guide the world as a given.

Ditto for miracles. Until the rise of skepticism due to the infighting among various Christian confessions and consequent repristination of Greek skepticism, miracles were not something dismissed as impossible. Indeed, medieval and ancient life was full of those sorts of stories. That's not to say that they were not rare events, but people were generally less skeptical.

Yup; as far back as we have records, people have been prone to superstitious and magical thinking; ghosts, spirits, elves, little people, fate, luck, polytheism, etc. Like scepticism, monotheism is also relatively recent. Where does this leave the argument?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Does everyone read everyone else's posts? Frumious my post was in response to Todds post I'll go back to find it so you can understand I was being a bit facetious with regards to the normal pattern of a human being brought into the world in the human natural way and the impossibility of that having been the case for the very first being to have survived in that normal patten and state without at least one adult prior to it being born into the world

No worries, mine was a little facetious too <smiley>. The question was too easy a target, I couldn't resist - sorry. As Oscar Wilde said, "I can resist anything but temptation".

No newborn baby can come into the world of its own
The first being had to be fully grown and fully equipped FIRST

That's very much a chicken and egg kind of argument. The answer lies with evolution; that was basically sorted in 1870.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...a piece of frozen glass that you take out of the fridge would have higher entropy, and moving towards lesser entropy, and quite the opposite is happening. The glass is heating up.

I think that's the wrong way around. The warmer system (more disordered as it's atoms jiggle more) loses entropy to the colder system (less disordered, as its atoms jiggle less), which gains entropy.

Entropy is only roughly disorder; it's more a measure of uncertainty underlying a system's macro (thermodynamic) state; so, the number of possible microstates (arrangements of atoms, etc) that can give the same macrostate. Roughly, the number of possible ways its microscopic elements can be arranged to look the same from a distance.

 

[FireDragon76]

Are you saying that if enough people believe it for long enough it must be true?

You are trying to draw abstract principles from what I said. That was not my point at all.

The majority of religions have lasted longer than Christianity, so does that mean they correspond to truth too (or even more, if time is the measure)?

I have no problem saying that we may well live in a world where the plurality of religions has some kind of role in the divine economy. There are certainly some truths many share in common. I just don't know for sure how important that is. All I can speak from is the Christian tradition.

Yup; as far back as we have records, people have been prone to superstitious and magical thinking; ghosts, spirits, elves, little people, fate, luck, polytheism, etc. Like scepticism, monotheism is also relatively recent. Where does this leave the argument?

Monotheism is not as recent as western skepticism, and cynicism is a poor place to begin searching for truth. In fact the ancient cynics did not care about truth at all, that was the whole point of the philosophy.

 

[miknik5]

The difference between us is that with evolution, you can read a book full of evidence, and even if even if you're unsure of the evidence, you can investigate it yourself using methods that help determine the truth.

Yes Todd...,I guess we can say the same thing about The word of Truth.

And you really should read a biology book, because you have many misconceptions about it.

Yes....Todd. I guess I can say the same thing concerning the Word of Truth

So far you're not providing any evidence that the book you believe in contains facts about a god. And no reliable way to invpx

Oh, and I was a Christian for many years, so between the two of us, I've actually done the work...

Well. Not actually just between the two of us.

And do I dare to say that you actually didn't go the work you were supposed to do as s Christian? The required work of a question is stated in John 15. I actually sounds like you did exactly the opposite

 

[Radrook]

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 have never heard any Christian use that argument and would consider him or her irrational if they did. The argument which I have heard points to the marvelously intricate organization of matter toward's a purpose as the reason for belief in a designer or creator.

About honesty. Well, both might be honest in their beliefs.

 

[Near]

You might find this link interesting: Countering the Kalam 1-5.

For the 5 minute summary, see:

I'm aware of such videos, and I don't find them very strong as far as countering the Kalam goes. Some of the points seem irrelevant, and misconceived, especially the understanding of "nothing". The supposed counter arguments seem more like skepticism towards what "cause", "begins to exist", and "nothingness" mean in the philosophical context.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Are you suggesting that I wasn't a Christian?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm aware of such videos, and I don't find them very strong as far as countering the Kalam goes. Some of the points seem irrelevant, and misconceived, especially the understanding of "nothing". The supposed counter arguments seem more like skepticism towards what "cause", "begins to exist", and "nothingness" mean in the philosophical context.

The counters to Kalam (which are numerous) are more than strong, they essentially destroy the argument. Every premise in the argument has issues. And the meaning of the words in the argument (and this goes for every argument that's ever been made) aren't irrelevant in the least.

 

[Near]

That would indeed be easier. Frustrating that he doesn't, really.

Why is that frustrating?

As far as I can tell, you can never "understand that God was involved." God causing an event must always reside in the unknown. "We don't know what caused it, therefore I have faith that God caused it."

It is an argument from ignorance.

As @FrumiousBandersnatch mentioned, we seek materialistic, natural explanations first. If we can't find one, then that doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means we don't know what's going on. And our lack of knowledge shouldn't lead us to jump to the conclusion "therefore God".

Why should I think God's causing an event must reside in the unknown?
I find it odd that you'd bring up the God of the Gaps argument. That's irrelevant. I never suggested that we should jump to conclusions in the way you described.

Yes, people are satisfied by certain answers which I find unsatisfying.

For example, to say, "God caused that miracle" for some people is an explanation. For me, it is not an explanation but rather an introduction of a far more complicated scenario involving so many more questions.

Again, God of the gaps... irrelevant. A claim about miracles isn't meant to be an explanation about how the natural world works. They're assertions about specific events, such as Jesus' Resurrection.

I mean it is epistemologically useless. It cannot be used to further our collective knowledge. It is useless in our pursuit for understanding reality.

It may be subjectively useful. Sure. A person can believe things exist if they so desire. Are delusions virtuous?

Does someone that believes dragons improve their lives helping anyone but themselves? Are they contributing to our knowledge about the universe by studying their imaginary dragons? They can't show us their subjective dragons. They can't prove it. It is useless to everyone else.

If it's true that scripture contains knowledge about God, heaven, and hell, and how one ought to live, I think we could say it's pretty useful. As for delusions, I don't have good reasons to think belief in God is a delusion. Imaginary dragons are not the same as God. You'd have to say, "imaginary God", but that'd require you to affirm that it's the case that no God exists certainly. Another thing, what proof do you have that says metaphysical solipsism is false? You can't show yourself that other minds actually have experience of what it is like to be conscious. You'd have to have a belief not based on evidence.
Knowledge about the universe is pretty much useless, since we can't prove that our senses are reliable, or that we're not in the Matrix.

And until that time, you may be considered delusional: believing things to exist without showing that they do. Until you show us that they do exist, they might as well be delusions.

I guess that means I am delusional for denying metaphysical solipsism.
I don't think you've defined delusional properly.
Additionally, can you please show me that it's true that one needs to prove to other individuals that X is the case, in order for it to be considered non-delusional... because until you do, it may as well be considered a delusion.

The neutral hypothesis is to assume something does not exist until shown otherwise.

This is not a positive claim. It is inherently agnostic. I have not seen any evidence that God exists (or that God is a coherent concept), so the default is to assume that God does not exist until shown otherwise.

Similarly, I do not know that dragons do not exist, but I have not seen any evidence that dragons exist. So it is the neutral (and agnostic) hypothesis to assume that dragons do not exist until shown otherwise.

Can you please prove the statement, "The neutral hypothesis is to assume something does not exist until shown otherwise."
Until you do, I don't think I should accept that.
You haven't proven to me that you're a real person, and not an AI. So, please send me evidence that you're not an AI, or I'd be delusional to believe that you're a human. Otherwise, I'd be believing... without evidence.
As for dragons, I've never seen a dragon... therefore I suspend judgement on the matter. I don't assume one way or another.

This is incoherent. How can something exist but can't be proven to exist?

What I said was, I believe in God... I just haven't proven to you, personally, that he exists.
I didn't say he can't be proven to exist.

Yea sure its possible there is a bear. But if my friend can't point to the bear and just says, "I believe there is a bear, but I can't show you or prove it", then what am I left to do? Take his word for it?

What if I walk down the path and stand right where he claims the bear is and I see no bear?

Unless my buddy can show me this bear in some sort of tangible, coherent way, then I am left to conclude that there is no bear, until shown otherwise.

What if you're both blind, or your eyesight simply isn't reliable?
Oh, and how would you know that your eyesight is reliable?
I don't think you would know, so you should go with your own thinking... assume your eyesight is not reliable.
In addition to that, can you prove that your cognitive faculties are reliable, and always accurate?

Listening to a friend, I'd just act as if there were a bear, and perhaps trust my friends words. I would be cautious and get to a safer place. I think that's a smarter move, because failure to be cautious in the forest, a place where bears are known to be, is not smart.

If a woman claims she was raped, and she doesn't go to the police until 3 years later, should police accept your view and say, "pics or it didn't happen"... because you assume things if there's no evidence for the claim. I think you ought to instead, suspend judgement, and try to find out more. You shouldn't simply say, "the rape never happened since we can't prove it".
Rather, either it happened and we lacked the means to prove it, or it didn't happen.

Good point. God is often logically invalid as a concept. For example the problem of omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipresence present problems when we consider evil, free will, etc.

I'm not convinced that the "omni-qualities" of God are logically contradictory. So until you prove it, I'll say it's not contradictory... or should I suspend judgement?

You are too trusting. People see all sorts of things when they are in the forest. They make things up in their heads. They hear a twig crack and make all sorts of fear-based assumptions.

But remember, the point of my analogy is that you turn to your friend and ask, "Why do you think there is a bear?" If they respond, "I don't know, I just believe there is one" or "I don't know, I just feel it." or "I can't prove there is a bear, you just have to trust me."

All these answers are such BS. If you have a good reason for thinking there is a bear, then tell me and lets either leave the area or not. Don't give me all this beating around the bush nonsense.

I think your bear example is irrelevant. I believe it's more probable than not, that God exists. I find the arguments for God's existence convincing. If the person gave good arguments for why he believes there's a bear... you ought to take action.

Uh yea I would assume there is no bear...because you're just being scared and making dumb fear-based assumptions about a bear existing. Why would you think you saw a bear and then readily admit that its too dark to tell?

If its too dark to tell, then you obviously didn't see a bear. You're just making stuff up.

Also, I wouldn't go in the cave without a flashlight. I wouldn't assume that I knew there was a bear in the cave and therefore just not go in the cave. What a boring way to live. I would find a way to actually look in the cave and assess the danger. If I don't see a bear, I would proceed.

Bears can move from light places, to shadier places. So, the bear goes from a slightly lit place... to a darker part deeper into the cave.
I don't see why you'd try to assess the danger, afterall, you're rule would be to assume there is no danger.
If there is no evidence for the bear, assume it is not there. By your rule, you would just proceed without assessing danger, since no danger was proven to you.

Go in the cave, after trying to determine whether or not there's a bear? Oh... so first you suspend judgement, and then try to find out the truth, and then act on it... smarter than assuming there's no bear.

I will live my life assuming there isn't danger unless there is a good reason to assume danger is present. If you assume danger is present, you won't experience much because you can always invent possible dangers.

Someone saying, "There is a bear in that dark cave, but I have zero reason to think there is a bear in the cave because I haven't been in there and can't see in and don't have a flashlight" will not persuade me to believe the bear in the cave exists.

Danger is all around us. There are good reasons to assume danger is present. However, that doesn't mean we don't stop living... we just take the standard precautions. Ex. locking one's doors at night. Carrying a weapon. Using anti-virus software. Wearing glasses when driving. Buying insurance.

As for the bear, there's bear tracks leading into the cave. Why are you excluding reasons and evidence from the scenario exactly? Is it because you think there are no good reasons to believe in God?

If I heard a crackle of a twig in a forest, I wouldn't immediately assume, "Bear!"

In the few times I've encountered a bear in the forest, it has been obvious. I come around a corner and there is a bear. Obvious. Unambiguous. Verifiable. There is no doubt.

Oh, but what if the bear was a grenade instead... We're both soldiers, and I yell "GRENADE!"
I see a grenade, but you don't... you're too busy shooting at the terrorists. You then ask for evidence, but the gunfire is too loud for either of us to converse properly. I'm sorry to say, the grenade fell two feet behind you, and it wasn't in your sight at the moment. Wouldn't you think it's appropriate to trust someone's words at some point?

Belief in deism is more rational than belief in theism (or Christianity).

You need to explain what "God" actually is. Because, from what you described, this "God" could be some mysterious naturalistic force.

My understanding is that, when most people get down to it, God is more like an emotion rather than a verifiable external entity. God is a substitute for a cumulative group of emotions like "love+awe+peacefulness".

Are you asking for my understanding of God? I don't think of God as an emotion.
God is a rational being, the creator of the universe. He has revealed himself physically through Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Near]

The counters to Kalam (which are numerous) are more than strong, they essentially destroy the argument. Every premise in the argument has issues. And the meaning of the words in the argument (and this goes for every argument that's ever been made) aren't irrelevant in the least.

I disagree. They didn't really destroy the argument. They offered different understandings for the terms used in the argument, noting that there are certain presuppositions carried in each premise. I happen to think that the argument as Craig presents, and the presuppositions carried within each premise are valid. I think you can debate the presuppositions, sure, but granting those, the conclusion of the argument logically follows. The atheist hasn't shown that the alternative understandings to terms and ideas like "nothing" and "begins to exist" are true, rather they're just alternatives to adopt to avoid carrying a presupposition in the argument. So rather than destroying the argument, it's providing alternatives, or rather, skepticism towards presuppositions in the argument. However, if one agrees with the presuppositions, then one ought to say that the Kalam is a good argument. You're free to disagree with the presuppositions, but why think your alternatives, if any, are superior?