Miracles as evidence for the divine/God
Almost, actually I think ALL, religions build up from the premise that miracles imply the divine. A standard definition of miracle would be an out-of-the-ordinary event. The more unexpected or inexplicable an event is the greater the attribution to the supernatural/divine.
I'm working from what I heard Christopher Hitchens said in a debate (paraphrasing): "Even if Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, this doesn't prove that Jesus had anything to do with God."
In the statement above I guess Hitchens means that there isn't a necessary link between "miraculuous" events and God/divine/supernatural.
From a scientific perspective an inexplicable event simply sends scientists back to the drawing board and see if they can fit the anomalous data by tweaking existing scientific theories or inventing a whole new theory that does a better job at explaining.
However, the religious don't follow these, what I assume are, rational principles. They simply infer God/supernatural from so-called miracles. From a scientific standpoint that's jumping to conclusions.
From a simple logical perspective the reasoning of believers depend on the following premise:
ALL miraculous events are evidence for the divine
I guess one needs to show that that's a false premise. I'd like suggestions for doing that.
My own counterexample would be a modern 1st world citizen with a simple modern device, such as a camera, visiting a pre-contact people and by that I mean people who are stuck in the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution (I believe there are tribes in Brazil who qualify). They would simply be struck with wonder by the camera which, in other words, means the camera would be a miracle. Yet, this person is not a God. In fact he may be a drug lord who fled into the jungles to escape capture or something like that. Does this serve as a good counterexample to the premise that miracles imply God/the divine?
Another Hithchenesque argument against such belief (I believe he quotes David Hume) is that which of the following two possibilities are more likely?
1. That the laws of nature have been violated in your favor
2. You're mistaken
So Hitchens brings out two solid counterarguments against miracles firstly and then against the inference miracles --> the divine.
Do you think Hitchens is right?
As a contrast to such religious views we can only see how theism is treated in philosophy. Miracles aren't referenced directly. To the contrary philosophers look for real world ordinary evidence e.g. the teleological argument.
This question and its answer is critical to all religions, all of which have miracles as their foundation.
I'm working from what I heard Christopher Hitchens said in a debate (paraphrasing): "Even if Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, this doesn't prove that Jesus had anything to do with God."
In the statement above I guess Hitchens means that there isn't a necessary link between "miraculuous" events and God/divine/supernatural.
From a scientific perspective an inexplicable event simply sends scientists back to the drawing board and see if they can fit the anomalous data by tweaking existing scientific theories or inventing a whole new theory that does a better job at explaining.
However, the religious don't follow these, what I assume are, rational principles. They simply infer God/supernatural from so-called miracles. From a scientific standpoint that's jumping to conclusions.
From a simple logical perspective the reasoning of believers depend on the following premise:
ALL miraculous events are evidence for the divine
I guess one needs to show that that's a false premise. I'd like suggestions for doing that.
My own counterexample would be a modern 1st world citizen with a simple modern device, such as a camera, visiting a pre-contact people and by that I mean people who are stuck in the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution (I believe there are tribes in Brazil who qualify). They would simply be struck with wonder by the camera which, in other words, means the camera would be a miracle. Yet, this person is not a God. In fact he may be a drug lord who fled into the jungles to escape capture or something like that. Does this serve as a good counterexample to the premise that miracles imply God/the divine?
Another Hithchenesque argument against such belief (I believe he quotes David Hume) is that which of the following two possibilities are more likely?
1. That the laws of nature have been violated in your favor
2. You're mistaken
So Hitchens brings out two solid counterarguments against miracles firstly and then against the inference miracles --> the divine.
Do you think Hitchens is right?
As a contrast to such religious views we can only see how theism is treated in philosophy. Miracles aren't referenced directly. To the contrary philosophers look for real world ordinary evidence e.g. the teleological argument.
This question and its answer is critical to all religions, all of which have miracles as their foundation.
Comments (89)
Miracles are indeed a bit controversial.
In the Islamic narrative, the prophet was often asked by unbelievers to perform miracles to give them evidence of his contact with God. He always refused to do that. He said that his only "miracle" was the Quran.
On the other hand, the Quran does not reject the miracles described in older scriptures, such as the Torah and especially the Gospels. Denying Jesus' miracles in the Gospels would obviously have discredited the son of Mary, while he is firmly considered to be the Christ, i.e. the Messiah, in Islam.
The Quran rather chooses to confirm these external miracles in globo without elaborating on any details.
I am not necessarily beholden to the testimony in the Gospels about the miracles, but I am also not particularly beholden to questioning that part of the narrative. If the Quran feels that it is suitable to confirm them, then who am I to come up with a different view? What useful result would I achieve by doing that?
So, strictu sensu, there is indeed no pressing need to perform miracles while transmitting messages of transcendental origin. The prophet of Islam certainly did not feel the need to do that.
You mean to say anyone can be a prophet? If we remove miracles from the metric what's the difference between a prophet and a very imaginative, resourceful and eloquent story teller?
Thanks for the information about Islam though I'll need some corroboration.
Say I'm wrong about the prophet Muhamnad. Do you mean to say miracles aren't the pillars that hold up religion? If Jesus hadn't done his set of miracles and Moses his would people have believed? If you watch TV it won't be long before there's a report on how a statue was weeping blood or a cancer patient is cured by faith alone. Are these small snippets of human thought not evidence for miracles --> God?
If you say "no" I'd like to know the reasons behind your faith or the lack of it.
Not in Islam. Mohammed, may he rest in peace, was the last prophet.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, what a prophet says, needs to appeal to an otherwise unknown mental faculty.
If rationality is about the capacity to use inference in order to produce statements of knowledge, then
It is trivial to argue that there are other mental faculties. A first example are the signals that the brain sends to the heart in order to adjust its rhythm. It is not under control of any conscious mental faculty. Still, it is definitely an important ability of the brain.
A second example is the discovery of knowledge. If access to existing knowledge along with rationality were enough to discover new knowledge, then humanity would either never have discovered any knowledge at all, or else, discovered all possible knowledge already. Hence, another, unknown mental faculty must be involved.
Quoting TheMadFool
In my impression, miracles are not necessary in religion.
Quoting TheMadFool
The ancient texts are deemed to appeal to the otherwise unknown mental faculty. So, in my impression, yes, people would still have believed them.
Quoting TheMadFool
In Islam, there cannot be any new prophets. This is what has been prophecied. So, there will be no new people recognized in that class any more. The ability to transmit transcendental messages will not be awakened again. That was elucidated in the stream of transcendental messages transmitted by the prophet of Islam.
With the second coming of Jesus, however, the historical person is expected to return to earth. That is a firm expectation in Islam. We are generally deemed to be able to recognize who it is, when he will have come back, by using our otherwise unknown mental faculty.
I think I discovered what you call "unknown mental faculty". It has a name, too, alright.
The hitherto unknown mental faculty that miracles in ancient texts seem to appeal I call "gullibility to the max".
Well, if you look at the alternative, you will detect gullibility that is much worse. What to think of people who believe that politicians are allowed to invent and enforce any new law to their liking? We believe that God has invented all the laws already, and that politicians are not allowed to further restrict our freedom.
For example, is there anything more gullible than paying more taxes, because politicians have increased the tax rate? We do not believe that we should pay, and when we can, we simply do not. So, who exactly is gullible? The ones who pay, or the ones who don't?
This is one thing I don't believe. Speak for yourself. 1/2 of the world's entire population don't believe this.
This is not gullibility at all that drives people to pay taxes. You are gullibilized by your own blind devotion to a god that does not exist. Taxes, at their most basic, much like laws, are necessary to alleviate the fatal fractures that would be caused and created by social forces. Why, do you think that law courts should be abolished, and let criminals run free? Or that schools be closed to the common people's children? Or that roads ought not to be built? You are a fool if you think taxes are wasted money.
That's your belief, not mine.
Thou art the perfect example of a gullible person, who believes everything unbelievable.
You don't believe that politicians are allowed to invent laws?
Islamic law does not allow for liberally inventing new extensions. Read the page on Sharia. The consensus of religious scholars will never defend the view that politicians would have the authority to extend Islamic law. That is unthinkable.
Quoting god must be atheist
If you believe that you should pay taxes to the politicians, then feel free to do so. All taxes and mandatory contributions that I am supposed to make are all listed in the Quran, along with the applicable tax rate. For a believer, there are no taxes other than the ones listed in the Quran. For a believer, there are no obligations outside the ones listed in the Quran.
An unbeliever who does not believe that all the taxes he owes, are listed in the Quran, cannot be exempt from taxation on grounds of the Quran. Therefore, the Quran says that the unbelievers must continue to pay the taxes that they have always paid.
I can guarantee to you that Islam is by far the most tax-efficient religion for its believers. All other religions lead to paying much, much larger tax bills. I am not interested in these other religions (or views such as atheism), if only, because they are more costly without providing anything of value in return.
That's the sort of "allowing" that doesn't amount to much, because what isn't "allowed" can be done, and with no repercussions.
So we'd need to clarify what "allowing" amounts to there.
Of course, I do not believe that politicians are allowed to invent new laws. Is it even in my interest to believe a thing like that? We were talking about gullibility ...
The Quran is a text with directives and guidelines, meant to be implemented by the believers in the text, at their earliest convenience.
?? So what does "allowing" amount to here?
Politicians are obviously physically able to create new laws. They do this all the time.
Nothing happens to them in response to creating new laws that would amount to, say, "If you do x, you'll be arrested/imprisoned/etc."
So what does "allowing" amount to?
Maybe in some places they can. There are a lot of places, though, where that does not work. You need a very gullible population for that to be possible. That does not exist everywhere.
Quoting Terrapin Station
We, the believers in the text, do not recognize politically-invented laws. Still, there are quite a few countries filled up with unbelievers. That is where you will find systems of punitive taxation.
But then again, we are also not against that, because unbelievers are simply meant to be punitively taxed. As believers, we are not allowed in any way to reduce the taxes on unbelievers or to alter the systems of punitive taxation that apply to them. The unbelievers are simply meant to pay exorbitant taxes, because that is what they are here for.
Read the Quran, and you will find it all explained there in excruciating detail.
So you're basically talking about practical nullification? What would be an example of this--a law is put on the books, but not only the citizenry, but the law enforcement arms of the government in question ignore the law so that it's the same as if it didn't exist?
In practical terms, it often depends on the composition of the population.
Politically-invented law always applies to the unbelievers who believe in their legitimacy or behave in a way that suggests that they believe in their legitimacy. Believers do not believe in politically-invented law. Therefore, it does not apply to believers.
A person is tributary to the law that he accepts, only.
If you accept Islamic law, you can be held to it. If you accept politically-invented law, then you can be held to that. Hence, it depends on yourself. The Quran is adamantly clear that Islamic law does not apply to unbelievers.
Therefore, unbelievers cannot restrict their taxes to the taxation rates in the Quran. That is not possible, because they reject the Quran.
So I take it there are no examples of this?
I just found an example, but in a different context:
[i]Most Countries Have Environmental Regulations. Very Few Actually Abide by Them.
A new U.N. report finds that, to address climate change, we don't need new laws or regulations, but to get countries to comply with laws that already exist.[/i]
I actually like environmental regulations, but they would need to be vetted to ensure that they are also halal. I am wary of new rules that cannot be fitted into, and properly derived from the existing framework of religious law.
You can safely that statement to:
Most Countries Have politically-invented law . Almost none outside the so-called western democracies actually abide by them. A new U.N. report finds that it is virtually impossible to get countries to comply with politically-invented laws that already exist.
So anything may be evidence in the specified regard and rarities are no exception. Rarities do not serve to prove divinity, but rather show just how little is understood of it - if any.
That's not very specific, unfortunately, and it looks like it's saying that politicians are creating laws that politicians aren't caring about, which isn't the same as them not being allowed to make laws.
To an important extent, it is.
For example, the legislature in those countries often comes under pressure from the so-called western democracies to adopt a new law. For example, domestic-violence laws sponsored by West and touted by western so-called NGOs. The local legislature grudgingly adopts the new law, but with a view of never, ever applying it. They simply do not want these foreign-import laws, if only, because they would have disastrous consequences. In the example, it would lead to a divorce fiesta, while they simply have no money to subsidize the living expenses of a new and growing demographic of divorced, single mothers. Furthermore, their population does not want these new laws either. If the bureaucracy or law enforcement really tried to enforce such new law, they would probably also have an insurgency on their hands. So, they just don't. In fact, they didn't even intend to from the very start.
Even if that were the case, it wouldn't be a matter of not being allowed to make a law.
You could argue that it's not being allowed to enforce a law that was made.
In quite a few Islamic-majority countries, they do not even make such new foreign-import law, simply, because it is against Islamic law to do that, and they can also afford to refuse to do that. Countries with lots of business with China are very much like that; such as half of Africa nowadays. They no longer create new foreign-import laws. Other countries do it anyway, but with a view on never enforcing them. It boils down to pretty much the same outcome.
The economic clout of China is changing the ballgame quite a bit. Almost no country gives as flying fart abou the IMF or World Bank anymore, because they'd rather make the deal with China. In that sense, China has become in some ways the long-awaited saviour of the world.
We should also clarify that you weren't saying that politicians can't invent laws period, but that there are particular laws they'd have a problem either getting approved, recognized or at least that they'd maybe not bother to enforce.
The simplest solution is to forbid the political invention of new laws. That also automatically solves the problem of new, foreign-import laws that these countries get shoved down their throats. Still, if they believe that their politicians are allowed to invent new laws, then as far as I am concerned, just let them. These new import laws will punish the population, but since they are unbelievers, the Quran says that we must not intervene in that process. In other words, it is not considered a problem whatsoever that very bad laws apply to unbelievers, because that is actually the way it should be. The more the problem is self-inflicted, the more we should encourage the process as well as its inevitable consequences.
You're absolutely right you know. I wasn't completely correct on this. My bad. I thought, the mad fool that I am, that the faithful are a bunch of idiots.
Take Buddhism for example. There's some miracles which the Buddha was associated with but Buddhism doesn't rely on that to make an impact on people. Buddhism appeals to the rational aspect (I sincerely hope that's not the "unknown" faculty of the mind) :lol: It's basic premise is life hurts and for avoidable reasons. How true.
Perhaps I've been misled by online videos. My fault again for not screening material I view.
That said, what if we were to purge scripture of miraculous material and instead emphasize the reasonable parts? Would there be anything left to instil or maintain faith? Now that I brought it up, what about "faith"? Isn't that belief despite lack of evidence? I'm afraid the "unknown mental faculty" is NOT rationality.
There is a rational element and a transcendental element. Quite a few people cannot assess the soundness of the rational element. So, they mostly ignore it. Use of the rational element only starts at a particular level of education, but everybody, educated and uneducated, will manage to assess the transcendental element, using their unknown mental faculty.
Quoting TheMadFool
The Quran rejects that option. I don't know why, actually. It just does. The Quran just acknowledges it in globo without much detail. It refuses to purge the older scriptures from their miraculous material. It is not my choice, but hey, I instinctively trust that this decision is the better one.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, in my opinion, the miracles are not essential.
Quoting TheMadFool
I have no clue as to how that mental faculty works. It just seems to be there.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, it is not rationality, but unknown mental faculties show up in so many different circumstances, that we cannot understand humanity without them. Another example. Can you explain why people like watching football? There is no rational explanation why looking at a bunch of people running after a ball would be so exhilarating. Still, it is.
I conclude that rationality is a tool amongst other mental tools. These other mental tools cannot be explained, because they are not rationality. If it were possible to explain them, then they would just be rationality again, which they aren't.
For the moment I'm voting in favor of your intuition.
What has this got to do with anything we are talking about? Law has nothing to do with faith. You can't legally force someone to believe in something or not to believe in something.
Your argument is completely superfluous and meaningless.
A shan't read the page on Sharia. It would be a waste of time. Mine and Sharia's.
My conviction from this point is that you are not a sensible person. (With all due respect.) You are enwrapped in religious thoughts, so much so, that reason and logic can't penetrate your thoughts and understanding. This is my opinion on you.
It is futile to argue with you, as you are a fanatic. This is another opinion I formed on you.
And thirdly, your behaviour is a classic case of trolling: you make statements out of the blue, that have no connection in any way to anything that has been said to you. This is a fact, not an opinion.
I suggest the mods would remove you as a major troll. But it's their call, not mine.
Well, from what you are saying, it is not clear who exactly is the "fanatic", and a "major troll", and so on.
Quoting god must be atheist
You would benefit from reading Nassim Nicolas Taleb's article, titled "We Don’t Know What We Are Talking About When We talk about Religion".
This article is exactly about your misconception and your ignorance, the type of which is incredibly widespread. Nassim is a Lebanese Orthodox-Greek Christian, and from his background and experience growing up in the Middle East, he really does understand the difference between the various Abrahamic religions.
You absolutely do not. You know absolutely nothing about religion, but you think you do. That is a Dunning-Kruger problem: Stupidity is defined as not knowing when you do not know. Let me put it straight for you:
You do not know what you are talking about when you talk about religion.
That is why you desperately need to read Taleb's article.
This is an excerpt:
People rarely mean the same thing when they say “religion”, nor do they realize that they don’t mean the same thing. For early Jews and Muslims, religion was law. Din means law in Hebrew and religion in Arabic. For early Jews, religion was also tribal; for early Muslims, it was universal.
((In fact, it still is.))
Let me repeat. People like you are very, very stupid. The worst problem about stupidity is that stupid people have no self-knowledge, simply, because they are too stupid for that. So, you fail to understand your own limitations. That is what makes you stupid. It is not the lack of knowledge on the subject. It is the fact that you are convinced that you know, while you know f_ckall.
What of faith in evidence?
I don't know. Are you suggesting something I'm not aware of? Am I missing something?
Self-proving or obvious starting points? I'll answer this from a rational perspective. Rationality admits to its flaws, one of which may be a smattering of faith. Faith, in its full-blown form, admits no evidence at all. I think that's the difference and it matters. Am I talking about blind faith here? You tell me. Thanks for your question.
Where and what is the evidence for evidence - it's evident - it even dints, it's even dense.
I've had three sequential miracles occur in my life through unplanned happenstance (these three indviduals all came to me to make unplanned proposals, and neither one of them knew each other yet required all three in unison to make one thing work ). I can't get into the specifics but it all came down to this: either it was by sheer chance or luck, or divine intervention. Based on my (leap of) faith, I chose to infer the latter.
How exquisitely beauitful that you infer a miracle.
:starstruck: :starstruck:
Reason bounds
Faith bounds
Choose one?
nay, the two are one
Well thank you kindly for your response!
I like your notion of faith and reason. Through logical inference or inductive reasoning we can uncover and discover certain human phenomena that sounds reasonable to most people.
Accordingly, at some point it becomes a choice or leap of faith. Kind of like Pascal's Wager...
I think it's a matter of degrees and not all or none. We've all jumped over holes. It's just that in religion the hole is bigger. Does that mean believers are mentally stronger and atheists are wimps jumping over tiny holes with the help of "evidence"?
Hey TMF!
Firstly, in a Kierkegaardian sense, no. The will to believe is a choice. To me, pragmatically, it's no different than any other faith I hold; faith in work, faith in science, faith in sports, faith in people, and so on.
Second, I don't know about Atheists and why they choose differently. Like I've speculated before, it has to do more with some psychological edict or an axe to grind about same. Similarly, Einstein had some concerns thus:
" Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . .. They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)"
In terms of extremism I look at it this way, Fundies are far-right; Atheists are far-left.
This is news to me. I don't know where you're coming from so excuse me if I make any silly mistakes.
I read a book on logic a couple of years ago and its opening few pages were about how denying facts/truths lead to hurt and, if unlucky enough, to death. I take this to mean that belief insofar as truth is concerned is NOT a choice. Refusing to believe in gravity may lead to disaster.
However, there are issues where the choice to believe or not is "real". I find this best exemplified in religion. We have theists and atheists, mutual contradictions and yet have people by the droves on both sides. This is, simply speaking, possible only if belief is a choice.
That said people aren't dumb, not at least as dumb as some forum members seem to think. People do reason and I suspect theism and atheism are choices based on reason and logic meaning they aren't completely free choices but actually compelled by the force of logic. Nevertheless, when options are open and one side is as good as the other choices are made and we can agree that belief is a choice.
To make the long story short I don't think belief is just a matter of choice. If one must use the word "choice" then a correct description would be informed choice.
What is interesting is that we do make choices without rationally analyzing situations e.g. we pick an icecream flavor without reasoning. This means we are capable of severing the link between logic and choice. This brings us back to your claim: belief is a choice.
Sure.....In the context of miracle's/logic, as well as religious beliefs, I would say more specifically the choice is made through inductive reasoning. That's an important distinction.
The other distinction you made: gravity--->computation and/or instinct--->'denial' or ignoring both leads to death.
And another point you made I think relates to the Will to believe; Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Maslow, William James and even Einstein to name a few talked about that so-called intrinsic nature or feature that we have called the Will. The connection there usually makes it way back to existential things like human instinct, sentience and intuition, or an innate sense of wonder.
So briefly, I would say in this context TMF, rather than your 'informed choice' you could replace it with logical inference. And more specifically, inference based upon unexplained phenomena from conscious existence (or from conscious human Beings ) if you prefer.
But yeah, The Will is an intriguing topic no doubt...and quite extensive to say the least. Does that interpretation clarify?
That's clearly unacceptable as a definition, given the logical consequences. [I]There aren't any miracles[/I].
Hitchens is correct that miracles wouldn't necessarily imply, or even count as evidence towards, the existence of God. There are any number of possible explanations that could be given. It could be attributed to the work of magical faeries, for example.
Here is a basic argument for the claim that miraculous events are evidence for the divine:
1. If a miraculous event happened, then the laws of nature were violated.
2. If the laws of nature were violated, then God made it possible.
3. Therefore, if a miraculous event happened, then God made it possible.
Premise (1) seems true, as long as the agreed upon definition of ‘miracle’ is a violation of the laws of nature. It seems like that is the way to go for defining miracles, so I’ll leave this premise.
Premise (2) is the more problematic one. One could object that God need not be posited to explain violations of the laws of nature. For instance, the only reason we have to believe that there are unbreakable laws of nature in the first place is because we have never, in the past, seen otherwise. But it does not follow from this that future events must follow the laws of nature. Just because we have always seen things follow the laws of nature in the past does not mean that things will always continue to do so. We have no grounds at all to say that the future will behave like the past, we can only say it probably will behave like the past. And it seems hard for someone to give reasons that miracles are evidence for God’s existence. It doesn’t seem to work to argue this way. The reason is that you would be using evidence for God as background evidence then using miracles as posterior evidence. It wouldn’t be the other way around. I think, as I will explain below, it would be best to go the other direction.
You are asking for an argument denying that miraculous events are evidence for the divine. I think the objection to premise (2) in the paragraph above supports that aim. Further, it seems more correct to go in the other direction. Perhaps we need really solid evidence for God’s existence first, so we can argue from that to the possibility of miracles. Arguing from miracles to God seems less plausible than arguing from God to miracles. For instance, the concept of God, specifically his maximal power, would allow him to uphold and violate laws of nature at his will. It wouldn’t be that the possibility of violations of laws of nature prove God exists. In this way, God could be used as evidence for miraculous events. But miraculous events cannot be used as evidence for God.
It would go something like:
1. If God exists, then He would be maximally powerful.
2. If God is maximally powerful, then He can violate the laws of nature at will.
3. If God can violate the laws of nature at will, then miracles are possible.
4. Therefore, if God exists, then miracles are possible.
1. A miracle is a “a violation of a law of nature”
2. If it is “a violation of a law of nature”, then the prior probability of a miracle is very low.
3. Therefore, the prior probability of a miracle is very low. (1,2 MP)
4. If the prior probability of a miracle is very low, then we should believe in a miracle only if the evidence for it is very strong.
5. We should only believe in a miracle only if the evidence for it is extremely strong. (3,4 MP)
6. The evidence for a miracle is never extremely strong.
7. So, we should never believe in any miracle. (5,6 MT)
I agree with Hume’s general argument about how there is never strong evidence for miracles, but I stray away from agreeing or disagreeing that we should never believe in any miracles. I simply think that miracles should not be used as evidence for God because of how impossible it seems to be, let alone prove. God by itself is already a being that is hard to prove with natural or scientific laws, so trying to use another thing that is impossible to prove through natural or scientific laws as evidence for God seems to be a little redundant.
I think the aim is to prevent the jump from unexplained event to the supernatural. So I don't believe "work of magical faeries" counts as good reasoning.
Quoting Teaisnice
Quoting Teaisnice
Ergo, there are two explanations for a miracle:
1. God
2. As an intrinsic feature of induction where the future isn't guaranteed by the past
Which is more probable in your view? Why?
Which possibility is more productive? Why?
As an aid to help you answer the above questions I'd like to refer you to heavier-than-air flight or planes and choppers. It's certain that when Moses was alive, planes would violate the laws of nature known then which excluded men from being able to fly. This knowledge would be based on induction right? Now imagine a person from those times being shown a flying plane. What would be and should be his reaction? If I know anything about human religious behavior he would say "god did it". However, given that we're in the know about aviation technology, his reaction should be to look for a natural explanation and, after having made the relevant discoveries, to update his knowledge of the laws of nature.
Even if miracles are logic-based conclusions I think it is fundamentally flawed because it involves the false dichotomy of either natural or supernatural.
I think a lot of the confusion has to do with the word "supernatural" which to science has the same meaning as an unexplained observation which would normally set off a barrage of tests or experiments and an investigation of existing theories that can't make sense of the unexplained observation. Contrast the preceding to how the average person associates all unexplained events with the divine. The word "miracle" and "supernatural" are loaded with divine connotations that few can resist the urge to think every unexplained event is god's doing.
I would say so but there are types who consider the very comprehensibility of our world a miracle which of course is leaning uncomfortably towards an intelligent design i.e. creator-God theory for some.
True. The creation of the Universe and Life are still miracles. This is the reason we are still in no position to abandon our Gods.
I find these definitions helpful:
Natural event = something with a non-zero probability of occurring naturally over time.
Supernatural event (a miracle) = something with a zero probability of occurring naturally over time.
Now if something has a non-zero probability of occurring naturally over time, then we expect multiple instances of it to occur, so the definitions can be also written as:
Natural event = things that occurs in a plurality
Supernatural event (a miracle) = a singleton event (across time and space)
Then the Big Bang is obviously a supernatural event. The same cannot be said for life though - it may have occurred on other planets at different times in the past - we do not know for sure.
The Big Bang may also have occurred at different times in the past. It might be occurring right now in a parallel universe.
(non-zero chance of Big Bang occurring per year) * (? past years) = (infinite number of big bangs)
With an infinite number of big bangs, the CMBR should be infinite in intensity too - which it is not.
Note that the dubious maths of infinity also imply that an infinite number of big bangs should have occurred at each possible point in space in the universe/multiverse (if big bangs are indeed natural events).
I imagine all 'parallel' universes to be connected to our universe via time and space so stray radiation from the infinite number of big bangs would find its way to us and contribute to an infinite CMBR. I suppose you could envisage parallel universes as islands of space-time separated by nothingness, but they would be expanding islands and eventually overlapping islands - leading to an infinite CMBR.
What makes you say past time is infinite? Past time is 13.8 billion years. And what makes you believe these parallel universes have contact with ours in any shape or form? To be honest, I don't even know what a parallel universe is.
- Time has a start
or
- The Big Bang is supernatural event
Both are indicate of the presence of some sort of creator deity IMO.
Yes that is what one may logically deduce. It would explain the existence of the Universe. It can not however explain the existence of a creator deity.
So it would be the 'brute fact' that is required to explain why is there something rather than nothing... brute facts must be timeless... everything in time has a cause so at least one timeless brute fact must exist else there would be no universe, no nothing.
To paraphrase Aquinas's 3rd way:
1. Can't get something from nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence else there would be nothing now / no universe
3. (because if there was ever a state of nothingness, nothing would persist till today)
4. Nothing can permanently exist inside of time - it would have no start to its existence and if it never started existing it does not exist.
5. That leaves a timeless 'something' as the only possible root cause of everything.
This point is false. Something can exist since all eternity, and can exist into infinite future. There is no logical or other limitation that prevents something from being such. The limitation Aquinas put on this is false, arbitrary, and does not stand up to even intuitive reason.
Something that exists forever, has no start for its existence, yet it exists forever. I don't see the difficulty that Aquinas raises is valid.
I have really stopped speculating on these mattters, infinity and eternity. My mind can't deal with these concepts. You get caught up in circular arguments from which there is no escaping.
Something existing for an eternity of past time is an impossibility. To see this you can for example imagine a 24h clock that has exist forever and has been keeping time forever. What time does it read currently?
Whenever I start to imagine eternity I stop somewhere along the line.
I can't imagine eternity, so it does not exist.
I guess we have to distinguish between:
1. Past Eternity
2. Future Eternity
[2] is, under the presentist model of time anyway, a form a potential infinity, so maybe it is possible, but I still doubt it.
[1] however is a a form actual infinity, which causes me to choke intellectually for several different reasons. For example:
An event that has occurred (for example, you reading this post) must have had a non-zero probability per calendar year of occurring. If we imagine time going back forever, then we have:
(a non-zero probability of the event occurring) X (? years) = (event occurs an infinite number of times)
So a belief in an infinite past equates to a belief that:
- Someone exactly like you
- On a planet exactly like earth
- Has been reading a post exactly like this
- And this event has occurred an infinite number of times in the past.
This has always struck me as an absurdum reductio argument for the impossibility of infinite past time.
I totally agree with you. That is why I have stopped to try to figure out Eternity. That is a sure way to end up in an asylum for the mentally insane.
It can show any time. The important thing is that it shows intervals of time. You are forcing a question that can only be answered with a numerical value if time started at one point. But time did not start at any point. The clock did not start at 0:00:00. The clock never started. It is going round and round, one cycle in 24 hours. The cycle could be from 0:00:00 to 0:00:00 or from 14:32:56 to 14:32:56. What the face shows is only material for things that are temporal (do not last infinitely in time).
Let me ask you: Let's suppose you are right, and time does have a beginning, at which the clock was started. Then what was the time five minutes before that? Because every time you pick a specific time, there are five minutes before that, and five minutes after that.
Another way of showing that time is infinite is the method of mathematical induction. Mathemathical induction is a type of proof in which if you can establish that in the first instance an iteration produces a specific result, and each iteration other than that form one instance to another, produces the same specific result, then the result at any one iterative point exists.
For instance, let's say the first instance is 0. Add to this two and subtract one. You get 1. This is the instance plus one in value.
Let's pick any instance now, say, X. Add to this two and subtract one. You get X+1. This is the instance plus 1.
The induction here shows that if you add two to any number and subtract one, then you get the number plus one.
The same process of induction can be applied to time.
At midnight tonight, if you subtract two hours, and add one hour, you get midnight minus one hour.
At any time on the timeline, if you take a time, X, and subtract two hours, and add one hour, you get that time minus one hour. This applies to all X values.
If X is infinite, then you get a value that satisfies the inductive process at each time, as it should.
If X has a minimum value, below which values don't exist, then the inductive process creates values that are outside the domain of the process. But that is impossible. Therefore X cannot be a minimum.
----------------
The short form of this I have already proposed: "The clock is set at the alleged beginning of time. The clock shows a time before which there is always a five minute period. When the clock is started at the beginning of the time, what was the time five minutes before it was started?"
Reductio ad absurbum is a proof that has a premise: "Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and at the same respect." If you claim that trees are green AND red at the same time and in the same respect, then that is a necessarily false claim.
I see no recuctio ad absurdum in your example.
You must somehow think that because something is bizarre, then it must be absurd, and anything absurd is impossible.
I think you commit the equivocation fallacy.
A belief in the infinite past and in the future both imply that those states that have a nonzero possiblity of occurring in the universe, infinitely repeat. This may strike you as unbelievable, but just because it strikes you so, you have not proven that they are impossible. They are bizarre, for which a synonym is absurd, but it has no relation to the reductio ad absurdum logic state.
It has been said that some qualities of eternity can be known, without experiencing eternity.
To try to experience eternity will certainly make a human question his own sanity.
Terry Pratchett, a writer for whom I hold high respect, wrote in one of his books: (not a quote, but a description of events) Two people from temperate climate zones who are by fate now in a desert at night, are staring at the starry sky with its infinite stars and galaxies, and one says something to the effect: "This is why religions always start in deserts. A man (meaning a human: man or woman) needs to place something, like a god, between himself and infinity in order to preserve his sanity."
This is a false argument. You might as well challenge the infinity of the three dimensional space with a similar mental experiment.
"Infinite directions are impossibilities. To see this, you can for example imagine an infinite series of yardsticks that have been lain in one direction coming toward you, and reaches the point at which you exist. How many inches (fractions are allowed) does the yardstick show at the point on which you stand?"
The clock never started keeping time so it can show no time currently - so an eternal clock is impossible - not only did it never start keeping time, it never started existing so cannot exist currently.
Every system that exists within time, be it a clock, a particle, or a whole universe, requires an initial state else there are no subsequent states - the initial state is the ultimate determinant of all subsequent states. That initial state can only be given by the start of time. Without that initial state, poof, the system does not exist.
Quoting god must be atheist
Time is UNDEFINED before the start of time and the clock does not exist. There is no time before the start of time. 'Before' is a temporal concept, it does not apply to timelessness.
Quoting god must be atheist
Induction cannot be used to prove past time is infinite because there is no first moment of time from which to start the induction reasoning from. The example you give is not induction, it is reverse induction - you are working backwards from today to justify infinite past time. That's not how time works; each moment defines and determines the next moment so it is only valid to use forward rather than reverse induction.
As you have found with the clock example, forward induction is impossible with infinite past time as there is no start of time from which to start the induction process.
Quoting god must be atheist
So you are at least admitting infinite past time is bizarre. Reductio ad absurdum is when you have an argument that leads to an absurd conclusion. You say my argument leads to a bizarre but not absurd conclusion. I think you are splitting hairs.
Consider also the measure problem:
- Assume time is eternal.
- Probability of event X happening is 1% per calendar year
- Probability of event Y happening is 0.00001% per calendar year
- Over infinite time X happens 1% * ? = ? times
- Over infinite time Y happens 0.00001% * ? = ? times
- That is the same 'kind' of infinity for both the number of occurrences of X and Y
- So X and Y are both equally likely over infinite time
- Reductio ad absurdum.
The math of probability works just fine for finite time periods, as shown above probability results in absurdities when used with infinite time. So either probability is absurd or infinity is absurd. My money is on the 2nd.
Quoting god must be atheist
I do challenge the infinity of infinite space. Infinity is plain impossible - the whole idea is a pipe dream. Only in our minds can things continue ‘forever’; in reality this would surely be akin to magic. In your infinite yardsticks example, how did the infinite yard sticks come about? Someone would have to lay the infinite yard sticks out - but that's impossible - they would never finish laying them out - there is no greatest number - numbers go on forever but at no point do we ever encounter a number ? - so an infinite number of yardsticks is impossibility.
We can also imagine the infinite yardsticks as represented by the series of negative integers:
{ ..., -5, -4, -3, -2, -1 }
So I would be standing at the point represented by -1 and the next yardstick out would be -2 etc... The person laying out the yardsticks would have to start at the point '...' but that's impossible, that point is UNDEFINED - so they can never have started laying out the infinite yardsticks - there are no infinite yardsticks.
,,,unless it has always existed.
The clock that has always existed shows an undeterminent time at present. Whatever it shows now, it will show five minutes more in five minutes.
The clock has a beginnig point on its dial, and an end point, if you choose 0:00:00 and 23:59:59. But a period of time elapsed that you are measuring does not have to start at 0:00:00. It can start at 14:24:38 if you want, and you simply subtract the beginning time from the end time to arrive at the elapsed time.
If you have a clock going on for infinite time, you can't measure a finite time segment, because infinite time is not delimited by a beginning (or by an end or by both). Therefore the clock face is meaningless as to what it shows for present time if it has been going on forever in the past.
Again, you are speaking of a starting point. But there is no starting point in infinite space in any direction.
Every one of your arguments involves a starting point. And you don't specifically say it, but you imply that everything must have a starting point.
Aside from chaning your argument form the fact that you try to prove that there is a starting point (end conclusion) because there is a starting point (your premise), you need to conceptualize that that there is no starting point when something is infinite. Once you got that, you can begin to realize what I am trying to explain to you.
Among other things to consider FOR ME, is my uncle, who is a physician, who, like you, also is stuck in this starting-point concept. He often wants to start discussion about belief in god, as he is religious, and he starts his discussion with "You see, nephew, everything has to have a start, and..." and there is no way in earth, heaven or hell, that I could convince him that not everything has a start. Those things that have gone on since infinity, don't have a start.
This is a conceptual problem or limitation, and I don't wish to discuss it further, because if you are like my uncle, then you are a person who can never imagine or conceptualize this, and there is nothing and nobody who can enlighten you with this intuitive thought.
Well, some aspects of it may, but there are aspects that you can internalize with limited wisdom, and the overview of the concept itself does not require infinite wisdom at all.
You can't internalize infinity. You don't have enough space.
I meant aspects of it. Not the entire thing. I think I expressed that in the post.
Otherwise you're right. But then again, otherwise everyone is always right.
You mean like a woman can be a little bit pregnant?
NO, but the way anyone can understand pregnancy without being pregnant.
Are you just trying to make conversation? Why don't you and I rent a room instead?
If it was that easy, we would have figured it out 200.000 years ago.
A clock that has 'always' existed has can only have an UNDEFINED time at present - it never started ticking and so for example, UNDEFINED + 24 = UNDEFINED. You admit so much yourself by using the term 'undeterminent'. No such clock can exist, it is a figment of wishful thinking, as is an infinite past in general.
Quoting god must be atheist
I believe everything in time must have a temporal starting point - maybe you can give a counter example?
And my arguments are not restricted to the need for a temporal starting point - I have referenced equilibrium, probability/math and scientific arguments in this / other threads.
Quoting god must be atheist
Spacetime has boundaries I believe. It started 14 billion years ago with the BB and has been expanding ever since - leading to a finite radius of the universe. What is beyond this radius? Nothing - there is no time and no space beyond these boundaries - nothing can exist without space or time - and nothing has no size - so the entirety of everything is finite.
It sounds to me like you should listen to your uncle more.
Interesting points about the role of Islam in this.
I’d like to provide a critique of your assertion that miracles are not evidence of the divine, and the counterexample that you use to illustrate that.
You say that religious people “simply infer God/supernatural from so-called miracles. From a scientific standpoint that's jumping to conclusions.” I think this is false. In the Catholic Church, for example, before an individual can be sanctified, they must have performed two miracles, which are investigated for eligibility. Say the miracle is a medical one, and a person recovered from a terminal illness. The person must have had no chance of survival, as documented by medical evidence, and must have recovered only after they started praying to a specific person, thus implying the presence of “God/supernatural.” On the other hand, if you’re referring to miracles recorded in the Bible, I think you have a better point, because those are less documented and researched (although equally outside natural laws.) If those are the miracles you’re referencing, it would be helpful to say that. You continue, “From a simple logical perspective the reasoning of believers depend on the following premise: ALL miraculous events are evidence for the divine.” That premise is too broad. Saying that all miracles are evidence for the divine makes it sound as though the miracles of the Buddha could be evidence of a Christian God, or vice versa. And what if believers of a religion find some miracles plausible, but reject others, such as Orthodox Jews who believe in some miracles from God but not in the resurrection of Jesus?
To show the above premise false, you say, “My own counterexample would be a modern 1st world citizen with a simple modern device, such as a camera, visiting a pre-contact people and by that I mean people who are stuck in the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution (I believe there are tribes in Brazil who qualify). They would simply be struck with wonder by the camera which, in other words, means the camera would be a miracle. Yet, this person is not a God.” I take issue with your definition of a miracle as something that strikes people “with wonder.” Miracles are outside natural and scientific laws, and a camera is not. If you are arguing that the camera is a miracle because these people had no way to explain it, then I see your point. However, if somebody showed you a time traveling machine, would you consider it a miracle? No, you’d probably want to know how it operated. Similarly, in your example, the people could be informed of the way the camera works, because there is a natural and scientific explanation for it. You’d have a harder time explaining miracles in Christianity, for example: the healing of paralytics, resurrection from the dead, and so on. Those things are outside natural and scientific laws, but your counterexample is not, so I think it should be refined in order to better illustrate your point; or if you consider those miracles to be false, then an argument formulated directly toward that conclusion would be helpful.
This is as good as it gets I suppose. The principles active therein seem inspired by reason. Come to think of it, the logic of the Catholic Church is captured in toto by Sherlock Holme's signature principle of reasoning: Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. And the detractors of Christianity claim that religion is irrational. :roll:
I suppose the issue, in the eyes of atheists, is that the Catholic criteria for miracles fall short of the mark because a key feature of a causal claim, I'm restricting myself to miraculous healing, is missing viz. persistence of the pattern otherwise known as repeatability Not all who pray are healed and that raises the possibility that a few instances of healing by prayer to saints could be mere conicidences.
Quoting Julianne Carter
Well, I was trying to be as inclusive as possible. The divine I'm referring to here is meant to encompass all religions. Yes, there are differences between religions but it only takes a moment of thought to realize that all religions represent a yearning for, an intuitive apprhension of, a recognition of the possibility of, a world, a realm, a reality beyond, more magnificent than our own.
Quoting Julianne Carter
I've come to the realization that miracles are relative to knowledge. The person who knows less will see more miracles than the person who knows more. Quite naturally right? After all, the entire notion of miracles hangs on the failure to explain them within the existing framework of knowledge. Ergo, knowing more will explain more, knowing less will explain less. The camera is inexplicable to people of the iron age and will be treated as a miracle.
On the matter of healing miracles, I've already said what I wanted to say but to reiterate my point, it has yet to be established that they aren't just coincidences.
As for resurrecting from the dead, it all depends on whether people of the iron age had a medically sound definition of death. Heck, even into the 17th century and 18th centuries, people didn't know how to tell apart unconcsciousness and death - I believe graves were equipped with a contraption the person in a grave could use to ring a bell to indicate that fae was still alive although assumed to be dead and thus buried.
JESUS WALKING ON WATER.. AND SILENCING THE WIND AND WAVES…A MIRACLE… OR ALLEGORY ? - “HE REBUKED THE WINDS AND THE SEA, AND A CALM SET IN”
“He is stilling the noise of the seas, The noise of their waves and the turmoil of the national groups. He causes the windstorm to stand at a calm, So that the waves of the sea keep quiet.” – “The national groups themselves will make a din just like the noise of many waters. And He will certainly REBUKE IT….”
ALLEGORY – As a literary device, an allegory is a metaphor in which a character, place or event is used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrences. Allegory (in the sense of the practice and use of allegorical devices and works) has occurred widely throughout history in all forms of art, largely because it can readily illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.
Writers or speakers typically use allegories as literary devices or as rhetorical devices that convey (semi-)hidden or complex meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey.”
"Then, getting up, HE REBUKED THE WINDS AND THE SEA, AND A CALM SET IN. So the men became amazed and said: “What sort of person is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” – Matthew 8:23
-