The circular argument of God and miracles

[DogmaHunter]

Alice gave a hypothesis and an explanation. She is also intellectually honest.
Intellectually, Alice is one step ahead of Bob.

A hypothesis is independently testable and verifiable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To immediately rule out the possibility that there is anything which is unseen amounts to ignorance in action. That's Bob, according to this account we're discussing.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It IS an explanation to Bob's question.
Question to that explanation is something else outside the OP.

It's just as much an explanation as saying that undetectable fairies did it, or that nothing did it, because the universe was created 5 seconds ago with all our memories implanted.

The merrit of all these claims is the exact same.

Unfalsifiable models are infinite in number and have exactly zero explanatory power.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To have God or a god is certainly possible.

Demonstrate that it is possible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It IS an explanation to Bob's question.
Question to that explanation is something else outside the OP.

If it's an explanation, then the criteria for an explanation are so slack as to be useless. One can invoke an infinite variety of inexplicable invisible entities with inexplicable powers to 'explain' the observation, none of which give any more understanding of it than if they were not invoked.

 

[quatona]

Actually, I don´t even see how
"God is causing him to be able to walk on water."
is any more of an explanation than
"His wife is causing him to be able to walk on water."
or
"He just can do it by his own powers."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To have God or a god is certainly possible.

If you're referring to a 'traditional' tri-omni god concept (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent), there are good arguments that such an entity is logically impossible, not least because those attributes are logically contradictory. One should not make Anselm's mistake of confusing the concept of a thing with the existence of that thing. Before asserting the certain possibility of a God or god, you need to establish what you mean by the term and why it is logically possible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's right. Bob is befuddled and can't contemplate any possible explanation, while Alice has already begun to assess the possibilities.

On the contrary, Bob knows what he doesn't know.
'To know what you know and what you do not know, that is true knowledge.' Confucius

 

[juvenissun]

If it's an explanation, then the criteria for an explanation are so slack as to be useless. One can invoke an infinite variety of inexplicable invisible entities with inexplicable powers to 'explain' the observation, none of which give any more understanding of it than if they were not invoked.

Bob can certainly do that. But he is one step behind Alice.

 

[juvenissun]

If you're referring to a 'traditional' tri-omni god concept (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent), there are good arguments that such an entity is logically impossible, not least because those attributes are logically contradictory. One should not make Anselm's mistake of confusing the concept of a thing with the existence of that thing. Before asserting the certain possibility of a God or god, you need to establish what you mean by the term and why it is logically possible.

Bob's question does not need a triune God as an answer. God, or a god, would be good enough. Logic is not needed yet.

 

[juvenissun]

On the contrary, Bob knows what he doesn't know.
'To know what you know and what you do not know, that is true knowledge.' Confucius

That is not good enough. He needs a hypothesis to answer his unknown.
Whenever I say I don't know, I always have a hypothesis in mind, so I can explore if I want to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Bob's question does not need a triune God as an answer. God, or a god, would be good enough. Logic is not needed yet.

Without a description, God or a god is just an unidentified label - as I said previously. Alice may as well say a Boojum did it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is not good enough. He needs a hypothesis to answer his unknown.
Whenever I say I don't know, I always have a hypothesis in mind, so I can explore if I want to.

That appears to be what Bob is doing; he says he doesn't understand how it occurs, then he says, "I wonder how he is doing it", implying that he is considering, or is about to consider, potential hypotheses. At this point, he is interrupted by Alice with her unsupported assertion of the inexplicable.

 

[Albion]

What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

Asserted is not the issue with Bob and Alice, certainly not with their immediate reactions to the water walking incident..

 

[miknik5]

Lol. This is such a merry-go-round
And by the way "A" at the beginning of a root word means
"not"
Therefore atheist is a belief. Just not for God

 

[Albion]

On the contrary, Bob knows what he doesn't know.

And with that comment, it should be apparent to all that the thread has run its course and we should all go on to something else.

 

[miknik5]

A hypothesis is independently testable and verifiable.

A hypothesis is a hypothesis

 

[miknik5]

And with that comment, it should be apparent to all that the thread has run its course and we should all go on to something else.

LOL
Run its course?
It never will
It will just go around and around and around

 

[miknik5]

That appears to be what Bob is doing; he says he doesn't understand how it occurs, then he says, "I wonder how he is doing it", implying that he is considering, or is about to consider, potential hypotheses. At this point, he is interrupted by Alice with her unsupported assertion of the inexplicable.

Well if that is how you see it. Then it is up to every man to prove for himself
That is if he sees outward input from others as he is contemplating this unexplainable occurrence as as "interruption" to what he is so carefully considering

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A hypothesis is a hypothesis

"... a tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation and/or experimentation."