The circular argument of God and miracles

[Loudmouth]

That would be your "take" on the matter, and some of us feel that there's enough evidence for us to conclude that it's revelation. There is no way to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction.

It can be resolved. Just present the evidence.

The point is simply that because a human wrote something down does not establish that it's nothing other than his own thinking.

You are the one making the positive claim that the words of men were inspired by a deity. The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that this is true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That would be your "take" on the matter

I'ld submit that it's your take as well, when it comes to the scriptures of just about all religions - except the one you happen to buy into.

, and some of us feel that there's enough evidence for us to conclude that it's revelation. There is no way to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction.

There actually is....... Presenting the evidence!

And the courthouse may not have been built to code. And the judge might have been getting over the flu.

Que?

None of that relates to the analogy itself.

Again, your analogy is completely invalid.

Judges and court proceedings are demonstrably real.
The entity you are trying to argue for as the "ultimate author" of the bible, is not.

The point is simply that because a human wrote something down does not establish that it's nothing other than his own thinking.

Indeed. The person could also be writing down things that originated in the minds of other humans. As said, that is the default position.

But that's not what you are claiming.... You are claiming that it comes from a non-human mind that hasn't even been established to be real.

It's an outlandish claim with no supporting evidence.
You might as well claim that it comes from undetectable pixies and it would have the exact same merrit.

 

[Albion]

I'ld submit that it's your take as well, when it comes to the scriptures of just about all religions - except the one you happen to buy into.

??? Yes, I'm convinced of the Bible. I already pointed that out. You aren't. You are adhering to your own convictions, that's all.

This doesn't prove or disprove either party's POV.

There actually is....... Presenting the evidence!

Sure. And that has been done many, many times. You, though, present no evidence. You just say you aren't convinced, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

??? Yes, I'm convinced of the Bible. I already pointed that out. You don't. You are adhering to your own convinctions, that's all. This doesn't prove or disprove either party's POV.

We don't have to prove our position. You do. It's called the burden of proof, and it is with the person making the positive claim.

Sure. And that has been done many, many times.

WHERE?????

You, though, present no evidence. You just say you aren't convinced, right?

The burden of proof does not lie with us.

 

[Albion]

We don't have to prove our position. You do.

Sorry, but that's not so. You have staked out a firm position and it's an either-or question that you've taken a stand on. Therefore, there is as much burden of proof falling on your side as on mine. Only a person who is completely disinterested in religion could say, with credibility, that he has nothing to prove.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, but that's not so.

It is so. You are making the claim that the Bible was inspired by God. That is the claim. It is up to you to prove it. It isn't up to us to disprove claims that have no evidence to support them. That's how the burden of proof works.

You have staked out a firm position and it's an either-or question that you've taken a stand on. Therefore, there is as much burden of proof falling on your side as on mine.

My position is that there is no evidence for your claims, and each of your posts proves it.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

 

[Albion]

It is so. You are making the claim that the Bible was inspired by God. That is the claim. It is up to you to prove it. It isn't up to us to disprove claims that have no evidence to support them. That's how the burden of proof works.

You have made equally specific claims and offer nothing to support them other than that they are what you want to think. No, that argument doesn't work. We Christians at least do offer a lot of evidence, although you reject it out of hand. And you? Well, we see here that you've fortified yourself with the argument that you know what the truth is, but of course we just have to take your word for it being correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have made equally specific claims . . .

No, we haven't. You have made the positive claim. I have made no positive claims. The burden of proof lies with you.

We Christians at least do offer a lot of evidence,

Such as?

Well, we see here that you've fortified yourself with the argument that you know what the truth is, but of course we just have to take your word for it being correct.

I know that you haven't presented any evidence for your claims, and you don't have to take my word for it. Read your own posts.

 

[Albion]

No, we haven't. .

Yes, you have. You are not in the least taking the "who knows?" or "who can say?" position on this matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, you have. You are not in the least taking the "who knows?" or "who can say?" position on this matter.

I am taking the skeptics position. If you can't present any evidence for your position, then your position is unsupported. As the Hitch used to say:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

So are you going to present any evidence or not?

 

[miknik5]

It's the word of men.

Again there is no reason then for you to argue with the witnesses who testify otherwise

And by That Witness in us who also testifies

 

[DogmaHunter]

??? Yes, I'm convinced of the Bible.

How about the quran? bagavad ghita? Or any other scripture that isn't the bible?

I already pointed that out. You aren't. You are adhering to your own convictions, that's all.

What convictions?

This doesn't prove or disprove either party's POV.

When it comes to claim of "the bible is a revelation from god", the burden of proof is on you.

Sure. And that has been done many, many times.

Where?

You, though, present no evidence

Why would I need to present evidence, when YOU are the one making the claims?

You just say you aren't convinced, right?

Of YOUR claims, yes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry, but that's not so. You have staked out a firm position and it's an either-or question that you've taken a stand on. Therefore, there is as much burden of proof falling on your side as on mine. Only a person who is completely disinterested in religion could say, with credibility, that he has nothing to prove.

Consider this claim:

Star Wars is a true story, revealed to George Lucas by The Force.

Do you have a burden of proof concerning your desbelief of that claim?

 

[miknik5]

There is no burden for us

And Believing George Lucas' testimony is not George's burden

it does nothing to George if one believes or doesn't believe

Of course George's testimony of Star Wars is a completely different thing than the witnesses testimony of Christ as the Savior of the world

 

[Albion]

How about the quran? bagavad ghita? Or any other scripture that isn't the bible?

I find them unconvincing.

What convictions?

Don't create your own circular argument now. You identify yourself as an atheist.

 

[ScottA]

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.

No - that is not "intelligent" or "honest" - just the opposite:

If Bob were actually intelligent, he would put two and two together and surmise that his previous knowledge of the laws of physics was in error.

If Bob were actually honest, he would admit that he was wrong, and consider the obvious...starting with Alice's assessment, as being equally qualified, but more likely true, given the failure of his own intellectual findings.

 

[quatona]

Quatrona

I've already forgotten our disagreement. Care to remind me what it was?

I don´t remember, either. Chances are you wanted to convince me of Biblegod. IOW no biggie.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Sorry about the late reply.

Why should I think God's causing an event must reside in the unknown?

Can you give me an example of God unambiguously causing an event that is not just based on a lack of understanding of the witness?

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.

Can you give me an example of God unambiguously causing an event that is not just based on a lack of understanding of the witness?

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.

Assertions.

Unproven assertions.

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.

Not really. It seems too contradictory. It also often seems wildly out of line with 21st century ideals of liberty, pursuit of happiness, tolerance and globalism. Much of the Old Testament describes the traditions of a tribal cultural group whose morality is questionable at best.

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.

The person thinks the dragons are real. Who are you to say they are imaginary?

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.

Indeed. As does everyone else. It is a case of Occam's Razor. We assume the simplest explanation: what we collectively experience is real.

Inventing virtual realities or matrices or alien overlords is an unnecessary complication. Sure, it could be true. But it has no epistemic value.

Knowledge about the universe is pretty much useless

Knowledge about the universe is highly useful as it allows to us to live. If a bowling ball is dropped from the top of the Empire State Building and you are underneath it, it is useful to know how gravity will pull the ball towards you. It is useful to know that moving to the left or right will avoid the ball.

Knowledge not about the universe is useless.

I guess that means I am delusional for denying metaphysical solipsism.

You should not deny metaphysical solipsism.

You should say, "There is no evidence to suggest metaphysical solipsism. Until evidence is presented that metaphysical solipsism is true, it is safe to proceed living as if it is false."

Saying "there is no evidence for X" is not the same as "denying X as possible".

God could exist. But no evidence has been presented to show that God exists and therefore, until evidence is presented, it is safe to proceed living as if God does not exist.

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...

How do you distinguish a delusional schizophrenic from a non-delusional person?

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.

Do you assume dragons exist? Why or why not?
Do you think Zeus exists? Why or why not?
Do you think there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Venus and Mercury? Why or why not?
Do you think there is gold at the end of rainbows? Why or why not?
Do you think Obama is a humanoid alien from the planet Zerbulus? Why or why not?


I'm guessing that you answered "No" to all those questions. And I'm guessing the reason is because no evidence has been presented for the claim, so the neutral hypothesis is to assume the claim is false until evidence is presented.


Let's try this the other way by assuming the opposite. Lets say that "the neutral hypothesis is to assume something does exist until shown otherwise." If that was your condition, then all the above questions would have to be answered with a yes. This condition would force you to believe that dragons exist, Zeus exists, a teapot orbiting the sun exists, etc. It would then be up to you to show that such a teapot or a dragon do not exist. This is an impossible task. Does such a epistemic philosophy make sense?

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.

This isn't a conversation about what God is or isn't. Or about what I am or am not. This is about the question of existence.

I exist.

That's all you need to know. You're conversing with something that exists.

If I did not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As for dragons, I've never seen a dragon... therefore I suspend judgement on the matter. I don't assume one way or another.

Dragons could exist. But until evidence is presented, it is safe to proceed and live as if they don't.

I think we are in agreement here.

"Suspend judgement" means that you "proceed and live as if they don't exist"

Since no evidence has been presented that dragons exist, you've proceeded to live as if they don't!


And so it is with God.

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.

Replace the word "God" with "dragons" in the above quote.

"What I said was, I believe in dragons ... I just haven't proven to you, personally that they exist. I didn't say they couldn't be proven to exist."


To a complete outsider perspective, there is no distinguishing epistemological difference between these two claims.

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?

I think you have reached the limit of the analogy. Bears are fairly unambiguous and large. You can get your eyes tested at an optometrist.

That being said, I am prone to bias and mental blocks and poor memory (as is everyone). This is why it is highly important to have your beliefs and views validated by statistics and collective, empirical observations rather than feelings and emotions.

If I thought I saw a bear on a hike a few years ago but the 9 other people I was with did not recall seeing a bear, then I would think it is highly compelling that my memory is faulty rather than 9 other people's memories being faulty. It is a challenging thing to admit the fallibility of your own memories.

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.

Your analogy has some loaded tone to it with the dismissive "pics or it didn't happen" comment.

However, the philosophical basis is the same: The cops should absolutely assume that the rape did not happen until evidence is provided that it did.

That is the bedrock of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

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".

If no evidence is provided that the rape happened, then it is safe to proceed and live as if it didn't happen.

Are you serious right now? That is how our legal system works. Evidence is required to prove a claim.

If no evidence is provided, then the neutral hypothesis is to assume the claim is not true.

Think about it:

Woman goes into police station: "I was raped"
Police officer: "Oh my gosh, that is horrible! What happened?"
Woman: "I don't remember"
Police officer: "Okay, what were the circumstances of the rape?"
Woman: "I don't remember"
Police officer: "Where were you when it occurred?"
Woman: "I don't know."
Police officer: "Who was the person who you think did it?"
Woman: "I don't know."
Police officer: "How do you know you were raped?"
Woman: "I don't know."
Police officer (getting frustrated): "What were you doing the night that you were raped? Were you at a party? Who were you with?"
Woman: "I don't know."
Police officer (getting confused): "Do you have any evidence that you were raped? Any pain? Bruises? Indications of violence?"
Woman: "No."


How long can this go on before the woman's claim is tossed out?

You need evidence for a claim.

I think your bear example is irrelevant. I believe it's more probable than not, that God exists.

Why?

I find the arguments for God's existence convincing.

Which arguments?

If the person gave good arguments for why he believes there's a bear... you ought to take action.

Indeed. But lets say the person responded with, "I saw it in a book once" or "I just feel like there's a bear" or "An old philosopher once made a convincing argument for a bear" or "I have no reason for thinking there is a bear". Would you find any of those arguments convincing for there being a bear?

I wouldn't. I would ask my friend, "Where is the bear on the path? I don't see it. Can you point to it?"

Lets say my friend then goes and points to a small ant on the path and says, "There, see?"

I would say, "That's not a bear." And he responds, "I've just defined bear differently than you."

It all is just such BS.

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.


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?


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?

You've largely misunderstood the point of my analogy.

The point is that you need evidence for something before believing something to exist.

If your friend has a good reason for believing a bear is in the cave and he tells you this, then this is a potential form of evidence (which may or may not be reliable). If your friend has a good reason, then you would proceed with caution or perhaps leave the area.

If you see pawprints going into the cave, you would proceed with caution or perhaps leave the area.

However, my scenario was specific: there is no evidence presented for a bear being in the cave. The neutral hypothesis is to assume there is no bear in the cave.

(However the analogy is a bit muddled because we have an inherent wariness of dark caves so, based on previous experiences and learnings (aka evidence) we might proceed into the cave with caution anyway...because of previous evidence)

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.

And why do you believe that? Where is God?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

If Bob were actually intelligent, he would put two and two together and surmise that his previous knowledge of the laws of physics was in error.

No, that is jumping like 80 steps too far ahead.

All he says is he doesn't know what is causing it. Full stop.

That is honest. He doesn't know. Full stop.

He shouldn't assume that the laws of physics are being broken until he rules out other possibilities: the guy is standing on a surfboard, the density of the water is very high in that area of the lake for some reason, etc. There are many potential explanations that don't necessarily violate the laws of physics. It would be insane to assume that everything you see that you don't understand requires a reworking of the laws of physics.

If Bob were actually honest, he would admit that he was wrong, and consider the obvious...starting with Alice's assessment, as being equally qualified, but more likely true, given the failure of his own intellectual findings.

Would you have the same response if Alice had responded with, "Odin is causing him to walk on water"?

Why or why not?

 

[SteveB28]

No - that is not "intelligent" or "honest" - just the opposite:

If Bob were actually intelligent, he would put two and two together and surmise that his previous knowledge of the laws of physics was in error.

And if he did so, he would be jumping to conclusions, as Alice is doing.....which is not an honest approach. The correct, honest response to such an observation would be "in the light of my current understanding, I don't know". He cannot definitively state that his knowledge of physics is in error...merely that he does not know what caused this apparent phenomenon.

If Bob were actually honest, he would admit that he was wrong, and consider the obvious...starting with Alice's assessment, as being equally qualified, but more likely true, given the failure of his own intellectual findings.

He does not know that he was wrong in anything that he understands currently. He simply does not know what caused the behaviour he seems to be observing. Alice's "assessment" is in no way "qualified". She is making an unfounded assertion. Would it be equally "qualified" if a third observer were to claim "no, he's walking on the water because a group of sea pixies are forming an invisible bridge for him!"?