Please critique this argument against miracles

[stanfr]

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a miracle if that happened. Only that it would be impossible to prove. Science relies on methodological naturalism. It can not explore, prove or disprove the supernatural or that this isn't natural.

Again, definitions matter. Prove what? That it happened? That is possible, empirically and scientifically. Prove that it violates the current laws of physics? Again, most definitely provable. Prove it is "supernatural"? That goes back to the working definition in the argument presented. Up to Paul to define.

 

[acbytesla]

I have zero disagreement with anything you just said--it summarizes my own worldview quite nicely. But I am talking about the argument presented in the OP, which presumably is geared towards the assumption that the supernatural exists. That is why I am saying that definitions matter. If you define supernatural as "anything that defies the current understanding of physical laws" then what we would call miracles would qualify. But If you say those things are by necessity 'natural' and that we simply don't have a full understanding of the physical laws--that is fine, and I completely agree! But that is not the audience the argument here is geared towards. I guess maybe that exposes a 'flaw' in the argument since apparently we are seeing it somewhat differently.

I agree, definitions matter.

I was merely pointing out the conundrum in trying to prove anything to be supernatural. We rely on science and science relies on naturalism. The supernatural is outside its ability to prove or disprove. I contend that the moment something becomes scientifically provable it instantly becomes something that is no longer supernatural. IE: Electricity, and magnetism just a few hundred years ago would be described as supernatural. And today it is harnessed and well understood.

 

[acbytesla]

Again, definitions matter. Prove what? That it happened? That is possible, empirically and scientifically. Prove that it violates the
current laws of physics? Again, most definitely provable. Prove it is "supernatural"? That goes back to the working definition in the argument presented. Up to Paul to define.

That wouldn't make it supernatural. Although it would lead us to conclude that the current laws of physics requires an update.

 

[acbytesla]

Your hypothetical makes zero sense to me but as it is worded I still say you are wrong. If I know the physics behind air travel, then there is nothing supernatural about you flying me in a plane, it only takes a few hours. In my hypothetical, the laws of physics are clearly broken, by our understanding of them. One could argue that maybe some day we will discover our understanding of physical laws is entirely wrong, and that's a fine (but somewhat crazy) argument. But if you are going to throw everything into the natural realm, even "anything that violates the laws of physics as we understand them" then the word has little meaning. You might as well throw out "natural" and just call it "everything" Maybe call it 'God"--why not, then 'God' is then clearly part of nature. But that's not how anyone argues these terms.

But to someone 2000 years ago it would be described as miraculous.

 

[Olmstead]

Strictly speaking, nature does not even include manmade objects. Supernatural by its very definition is supposed to be something outside the realm of materialistic elements, something that need not obey the laws of physics. If you are saying that is illogical, well I'll grant you that, the very idea of a God is illogical. But the OP doesn't presuppose the God hypothesis--it offers a choice between 1) God did it or 2) miracles exist (independent of God). So I am talking about the second proposition.

But it does obey the laws of physics, the laws of physics just aren't what you thought they were. They evidently include the possibility of some sort of influence by this God entity.

 

[acbytesla]

But it does obey the laws of physics, the laws of physics just aren't what you thought they were. They evidently include the possibility of some sort of influence by this God entity.

Or it's something else.

 

[Olmstead]

Or it's something else.

Well sure, but I'm playing with God hypotheticals.

 

[acbytesla]

Well sure, but I'm playing with God hypotheticals.

I know. I apologize.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Compatibilist view of Miracles is that it's not the act that is miraculous, but the emotional response it creates in the Believer: God is changing how you see what you see, not what is happening. Because he's the Clockmaker, he already set the miracle up at the Big Bang, so it would be fully explainable by science.

Not much you can argue with people who had to think about excusing their ideas for centuries.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm not sure where to begin. Maybe it would help to state the proposition that you are arguing against first.

Most religious people will admit that their beliefs are based on faith, not evidence. Faith is, essentially, belief without evidence, or at least without robust evidence. The only evidence usually comes in the form of testimony. A story that has been passed down from the past, which we can choose to believe, or not. I myself do not simply accept such claims at face value, and particularly when they would seem to violate the natural laws. Those with faith may counter that "The Almighty only intervenes rarely" and apparently hasn't done so for centuries or millennia. It's not easy to disprove the existence of an "Almighty" or miracles that only occur with such infrequency and only when "The Almighty" chooses to intervene. This essentially means that it is effectively an untestable proposition, since we cannot know when and where "The Almighty" will choose to create another "miracle". So it seems to be beyond the reach of science, which can only deal with testable hypotheses.

 

[Darat]

One point to consider is how miracles have become less and less impressive over time as our scientific models have improved and more tellingly our ability to investigate and record have improved.

Miracles today are not people walking on water, not people parting the Red Sea, not people being raised from the dead. Even the likes of stigmata have all but disappeared. Miracles today even at the Miracles-are-US attraction at Lourdes are a few cases of people who have gone into remission when doctors gave them no hope. Of course, these types of remissions happen to people without going to Lourdes and for people who don't believe in a Christian god. A good example of these now minor miracles are the miracles that qualified Mother Teresa for sainthood, one was a cancerous tumour in the stomach that went into remission on the first anniversary of her death and the other was the remission of a man who had brain tumours.

Today I would say most Christian theologists would say that god acts in the world via natural processes, so he used the girl's immune system to cure the tumour, which of course means there is no difference in a universe with god and one without, or perhaps slightly more generously god no longer acts in a way we can detect.

 

[acbytesla]

One point to consider is how miracles have become less and less impressive over time as our scientific models have improved and more tellingly our ability to investigate and record have improved.

Miracles today are not people walking on water, not people parting the Red Sea, not people being raised from the dead. Even the likes of stigmata have all but disappeared. Miracles today even at the Miracles-are-US attraction at Lourdes are a few cases of people who have gone into remission when doctors gave them no hope. Of course, these types of remissions happen to people without going to Lourdes and for people who don't believe in a Christian god. A good example of these now minor miracles are the miracles that qualified Mother Teresa for sainthood, one was a cancerous tumour in the stomach that went into remission on the first anniversary of her death and the other was the remission of a man who had brain tumours.

Today I would say most Christian theologists would say that god acts in the world via natural processes, so he used the girl's immune system to cure the tumour, which of course means there is no difference in a universe with god and one without, or perhaps slightly more generously god no longer acts in a way we can detect.

My closest friend had cancer as a teenager. Hodgkins to be specific. This would be the late 1970s. At that time, being diagnosed with Hodgkins was a death sentence. Survival chances was in the single digits

He was hospitalized at Children’s Hospital in Seattle. He received a revolutionary new chemotherapy treatment. And here he lives a half century later and people diagnosed with Hodgkins in the early stages have a 95+ percent survival rate. His Catholic parents called it a miracle.

No people, it's called science. It wasn't prayer. It was higher education, competent doctors and laboratory experiments.

 

[Paul2]

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a miracle if that happened. Only that it would be impossible to prove. Science relies on methodological naturalism. It can not explore, prove or disprove the supernatural or that this isn't natural.

There is a reading or an understanding of my argument such that we can say it would be a miracle if someone was raised from the dead, and that's the one I encourage everyone to use.

 

[Paul2]

I'm not sure where to begin. Maybe it would help to state the proposition that you are arguing against first.

Proposition: miracles happen.

Most religious people will admit that their beliefs are based on faith, not evidence. Faith is, essentially, belief without evidence, or at least without robust evidence.

Faith is not the issue, evidence is.

The only evidence usually comes in the form of testimony. A story that has been passed down from the past, which we can choose to believe, or not. I myself do not simply accept such claims at face value, and particularly when they would seem to violate the natural laws. Those with faith may counter that "The Almighty only intervenes rarely" and apparently hasn't done so for centuries or millennia. It's not easy to disprove the existence of an "Almighty" or miracles that only occur with such infrequency and only when "The Almighty" chooses to intervene. This essentially means that it is effectively an untestable proposition, since we cannot know when and where "The Almighty" will choose to create another "miracle". So it seems to be beyond the reach of science, which can only deal with testable hypotheses.

 

[Paul2]

What I am looking for is a critique of the logic within the argument. I'm going to present this argument to others including Christians and I expect a critical response, and I want to be prepared, especially to know where my argument might stumble or fail.

That is, did I miss something? Is there a logic fail somewhere? Is there some argument I ignored that makes my conclusion wrong? That's what I'm looking for.

Nowhere in the argument does the word "supernatural" occur, so the discussion about the supernatural is not the issue of the OP. Neither does "faith." The word "evidence" does, however.

I can define a miracle as something that is contrary to or violates natural law. Example: someone coming back to life after being (actually, fully, completely, truly) dead.

 

[acbytesla]

There is a reading or an understanding of my argument such that we can say it would be a miracle if someone was raised from the dead, and that's the one I encourage everyone to use.

That's fine. But from my perspective, miracles and god are nonsense. It's imagination, wishful thinking and language. Not reality. "If" I won the lottery. If I was tall and good looking. I can't help, but think of the things my father would say. "If is a condition contrary to fact." And if wishes and buts were candy and nuts I'd be a happy man."

Hypotheticals can be useful. But, I think we should consider if the specific hypothetical is. Or if it is just jerking off? Now I have no problem with mental masturbation. But it isn't quite as satisfying as actually getting laid.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Okay:

- the bar for evidence of a miracle is the SAME whenever we presume the existence of a God or not: just because God could have performed a miracle doesn't mean he did, and doesn't explain how he did it if it was him, and how we would be able to tell that it was him. Miracles are either possible or not, regardless of their cause.

- a Miracle in the sense of an event that seems to violate the laws of nature might be just the result of an insufficient understanding of nature: there are many types of paralysis etc. that, without proper equipment, could be taken for death. People can stop breathing or have no heartbeat for extended periods and recover with the right intervention. In the absence of a tightly controlled environment and an easily repeatable event of predictable outcome, separating Miracle from just Unusual will be difficult.

If you follow Bayesian inference, existence of gods and miracles is becoming less and less likely with every new set of data that indicates their absence for the actual reality we live in. But the probably will never go to zero, as their might be some yet unseen evidence so compelling that it will override all priors.

 

[Paul2]

That's fine.

Thank you.

But from my perspective, miracles and god are nonsense. It's imagination, wishful thinking and language. Not reality. "If" I won the lottery. If I was tall and good looking. I can't help, but think of things my father would say. "If is a condition contrary to fact." And if wishes and buts were candy and nuts I'd be a happy man."

Agreed.

Hypotheticals can be useful. But, I think we should consider if the specific hypothetical is. Or if it is just jerking off? Now I have no problem with mental masturbation. But it isn't quite as satisfying as actually getting laid.

I'm going to be discussing this topic with Christians, and I just want to get my argument correct.

 

[Paul2]

Okay:

- the bar for evidence of a miracle is the SAME whenever we presume the existence of a God or not: just because God could have performed a miracle doesn't mean he did, and doesn't explain how he did it if it was him, and how we would be able to tell that it was him. Miracles are either possible or not, regardless of their cause.

I fashioned the OP in this regard with a more strategic (tactical?) goal, as opposed to purely intellectual. The question is whether the existence of God should be included in what we already know, along with our knowledge about the natural laws of the universe. Because I'm discussing this with Christians, I didn't want to assume that part of their case was off the table. So, to be intellectually generous, I decided to grant them the existence of God and see where it led.

As to the mere possibility of God performing miracles, because we're talking about the Christian god, I didn't want to get into trying to promote a concept of the Christian god in which no miracles are assumed to have been performed, especially the resurrection of Jesus. I know they are logically separate, but Christians sure look at it as a package deal, and I felt I was not as well prepared to have a Biblically-based discussion, as my Bible knowledge isn't that good, and you'll note that nothing in the OP refers to the Bible. Technically, you're correct, but it's not an argument path I wanted to go down.

- a Miracle in the sense of an event that seems to violate the laws of nature might be just the result of an insufficient understanding of nature: there are many types of paralysis etc. that, without proper equipment, could be taken for death. People can stop breathing or have no heartbeat for extended periods and recover with the right intervention. In the absence of a tightly controlled environment and an easily repeatable event of predictable outcome, separating Miracle from just Unusual will be difficult.

Your point is true, but it won't impact the OP because I think the Christians I will be talking with would be willing to grant that a miracle is a violation of natural law as we understand it today, because if a potential miracle, according to today's understanding, was later seen to actually be just part of naturalism, it's an argument *against* miracles.

If you follow Bayesian inference, existence of gods and miracles is becoming less and less likely with every new set of data that indicates their absence for the actual reality we live in. But the probably will never go to zero, as their might be some yet unseen evidence so compelling that it will override all priors.

 

[acbytesla]

Thank you.

Agreed.


I'm going to be discussing this topic with Christians, and I just want to get my argument correct.

I get it. Totally respect that.

But I still think you have the same conundrum. You can't prove miracles or the Christian God. A faulty premise can not lead to a valid conclusion. It's like saying A + B = C and you don't know what A or B is. I have heard Christians on atheist call in shows say they can prove the existence of God through argument. It can not be done. A valid argument isn't the same thing as a sound one. You also can't disprove it. And oh by the way, both miracles and the Christian God are unfalsifiable.