Please critique this argument against miracles

[Puppycow]

Proposition: miracles happen.


Faith is not the issue, evidence is.

Look, I'm on your side, and even I don't find your arguments particularly compelling. It isn't up to the skeptic to prove that miracles don't happen. It's up to people claiming that they are real to prove that they do.

 

[Darat]

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.

I would suggest then that you consider lessening your "scientism" - your argument is partly based on science being the sole arbiter of what is a miracle/supernatural. Perhaps adding in something like science being the best method we've so far developed to describe the natural world? I do think you need to address one of the points I raised earlier and that is how Christian theologians/apologists may say that god uses the "natural law" to make his miracles, so we wouldn't be able to tell he has intervened or not. Others may argue that our natural law is only the slice of reality humans can understand, i.e. god has transcendent powers because he operates at a "higher level" or some such comment.

(You've also got a couple of spelling mistakes, but I'm assuming you'll spellcheck again anyway.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's easy, a complete lack of evidence is the main argument against them.

 

[acbytesla]

It's easy, a complete lack of evidence is the main argument against them.

And it still won't matter. A miracle is a suspension of the physical laws. And God made the physical laws and therefore can break them if he chooses.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So the lack of evidence is the evidence, as usual.

 

[acbytesla]

So the lack of evidence is the evidence, as usual.

They don't need evidence.

In fact many Christians don't want evidence. If there was evidence, they wouldn't need faith. And they have been indoctrinated to believe that faith is a good thing. Even the best of things. Verse after verse in the Bible exalts the person who believes without evidence. Anyone that wants or needs it is a doubting Thomas. Better to have the faith of a child.

 

[ahhell]

Got to say, I basically agree with acbytesla.

That being said, it's pointless to argument against miracles as a concept. How can someone prove a thing is supernatural rather than a natural thing that can't quite be explained by the current state of knowledge.

 

[Paul2]

Look, I'm on your side,

Glad to hear it!

and even I don't find your arguments particularly compelling.

Can you say why they fail? That's what I'm looking for here.

It isn't up to the skeptic to prove that miracles don't happen. It's up to people claiming that they are real to prove that they do.

I'm not saying here that miracles don't happen. I'm laying out certain necessities in any attempt to do so.

 

[Paul2]

I would suggest then that you consider lessening your "scientism" - your argument is partly based on science being the sole arbiter of what is a miracle/supernatural. Perhaps adding in something like science being the best method we've so far developed to describe the natural world?

I didn't use the word "science" in the OP deliberately, as it will invoke some challenge using scientism. At this point, I don't it's proper to frame the issue you raise as one of what is a potential arbiter of what is a miracle or supernatural. What determines a miracle is the effects we observe in the natural world. If someone shoots up into the air, that would appear, at least at first glance, to be a miracle solely on the basis of what we observe in the natural world, and science is the best method to determine what is happening in the real world. Science would tell us that we'd have to check that person for some artificial means of flight, and whatever else clever scientists could come up with.

I do think you need to address one of the points I raised earlier and that is how Christian theologians/apologists may say that god uses the "natural law" to make his miracles, so we wouldn't be able to tell he has intervened or not.

That makes God's intervention unfalsifiable, which leaves miracles unconfirmed, which is fine by me.

Also, can you explain a bit more how natural law would be used to make a miracle? Can you give an example?

Others may argue that our natural law is only the slice of reality humans can understand, i.e. god has transcendent powers because he operates at a "higher level" or some such comment.

Again, observation of a miracle happens within the natural world. The OP would not be targeted to revelations and the like, other arguments take care of those.

 

[Darat]

The two example miracles (according to the RCC) that I gave above both were remissions, remissions do happen and given the numbers of people alive probably quite often. God could have triggered their immune systems to attack the tumours (as we do with drugs etc.).

 

[acbytesla]

The argument below is my personal work, although it obviously is informed by everything I've read and heard on the subject


Please critique it, I'm going to present this argument in a very few number of days.

Thanks!

OK, let me take a whack at it.

===========
We have very, very strong knowledge in natural law about how atoms are put together, how atoms combine to make molocules, and how molocules work that says that you can't walk on liquid water; and we know how molocules work to make living cells, which tells us that cells can't be reconsituted past a certain point when someone dies, so someone can't be raised from the dead.

If you want to claim that someone walked on water, or was raised from the dead, you have to have so much evidence of such good quality that it overwhelms the evidence from natural law that we already have about how atoms, molocules, and cells work. That is an enormous amount and quality of evidence to overcome, but it is potentially possible.

One argument for miracles is that if we add the existence of the Christian god
to what we already know, then we have some support for miracles, in a similar way that we have support in natural law against miracles, and this reduces or the impact of natural law on how much evidence we need to overwhelm it.

How do you do that? Isn't that trying to explain a miracle with another miracle?

We are now, then, considering whether we can wind up showing that the Christian god exists and that miracles happen. But we have to show each of them independently of the other in this way:

Again, how do you propose we show either?

First, let's decide which one we start with to prove: Is the goal to prove that miracles happen or that the Christian god exists?

Flip a coin?

Let's start with saying that the Christian god exists, therefore miracles can happen. This means you can’t use miracles to help prove that god exists because you're going to use god's existence to show that miracles happen. That’s assuming what you’re trying to prove, and is
circular argument.

It is.

You'll have to show that god exists without reference to miracles, and then use that fact, if you're successful, to show that miracles happen.

If  you can find any one that can, I'd be stunned

The other option is to try to show that miracles happen - particularly the resurrection - and therfore the Christian god exists.

Can't be done. The only evidence for the resurrection are 4 anonymous stories in a 2000 year old book. 3 of which are so identical they really should be considered 1. So now you're down to 2 such stories. They are not eyewitness testimonies. And were not written until decades later. And were written in a foreign language. Not the language of any of the individuals referenced in those stories.

This means you can’t use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen - that would be circular, too.

Yep.

It also means that you can’t add god's existence to what we already know, which means that the immense weight of natural law against miracles stands very high.

True. But redundant.

In brief, if you go "God exists, therefore miracles happen" then miracles are not available as evidence for God.

Why not? Circular reasoning is the bread and butter of religion.

If you go "miracles happen, therefore God exists" then God is not available as evidence for miracles (God is not part of what we already know).

There you go. Using logic agin..

The second option is relatively non-controversial, because if we don't know that God exists, then any proof of miracles has an extremely high bar to overcome. I'm not aware of any miracle claim that has.

Me either.

The first option - The Christian god exists, therefore miracles can happen - is more complicated to work through.

Not really. It says so in the Bible.

Without miracles on the table, we have to exclude the resurrection and all other miracles in the Bible and all other miracles throughout history and the current day.

Why would a Christian ever exclude miracles?

Several arguments have been offered to show the existence of the Christian god without reference to miracles

Briefly,

Cosmological - There is a personal being with agency and power that created the universe.

That's not really an argument. More of an unproven and unprovable claim. And that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Design - The universe and life had to be created by a personal being with agency and power.

Also no evidence. There really is no reasotn to suggest that life or the universe had to be created. Theists will do this though. It is the argument from incredulity. It's the equivalent of saying Zeus created lightning or Thor thunder. And we know that neither is true. And while science hasn't come to a completely proven answer for either, a God of the gaps is also unsatisfactory.

Soul - Humans have some sort of essence that continues after death.

Again, no evidence that a soul exists and lots of evidence it doesn't.

Morality - Morals are objective and are grounded in a god.

Morals are not objective. People's beliefs in their god, it's laws and dogma is totally subjective. The Christian religion itself has 40,000 different denominations.

They all have their own individual problems that I don't have time to discuss right now. But the one problem they all share is that they don't achieve their goal; they don't show that the Christian god exists, merely that some kind of transcendent personal being with agency and power exists. And there's nothing in those 4 arguments that even addresses performing miracles, much less makes it likely.

Even disregarding the individual problems they have, these attempts to demonstrate that the Christian god exists and that miracles happen has failed.

I agree

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip....

Let's start with saying that the Christian god exists, therefore miracles can happen. This means you can’t use miracles to help prove that god exists because you're going to use god's existence to show that miracles happen. That’s assuming what you’re trying to prove, and is circular argument. You'll have to show that god exists without reference to miracles, and then use that fact, if you're successful, to show that miracles happen.

The other option is to try to show that miracles happen - particularly the resurrection - and therfore the Christian god exists. This means you can’t use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen - that would be circular, too.

...snip...

I feel one could claim a definitional error. If we say that part of the definition of God is a being capable of miracles, and part of the definition of miracles are events generated by God, then there's no circular argument at play -- just interdependent definitions.

That would undermine your claim that "you can’t use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen," and vice versa. They are part and parcel of how each is defined.

 

[acbytesla]

I feel one could claim a definitional error. If we say that part of the definition of God is a being capable of miracles, and part of the definition of miracles are events generated by God, then there's no circular argument at play -- just interdependent definitions.

That would undermine your claim that "you can’t use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen," and vice versa. They are part and parcel of how each is defined.

Interdependent arguments is the very definition of circular. Yes, if God is capable of miracles then miracles don't need to be proven. That is a valid syllogism. The conclusion follows the premise. But what it isn't, is a sound syllogism. For a syllogism to be both valid and sound the premise is true and that there isn't a fallacy. There isn't a fallacy in the statement, but the premise hasn't been proven, so you can't prove the conclusion. So it is not sound.

 

[Apathia]

Various posters have already made the points I would have.
(This is what usually happens.)
But I'll point out that my experience with believers, especially those with a lot of Christian Apologetics under their belt, leads me to think they won't get Paul2's argument but will fall back on simultaneously citing God as the evidence of miracles and miracles as the evidence of God. The standards of belief are far less rigorous than the standards of knowledge. Rationalization is all they require.

 

[Paul2]

I feel one could claim a definitional error. If we say that part of the definition of God is a being capable of miracles, and part of the definition of miracles are events generated by God, then there's no circular argument at play -- just interdependent definitions.

That would undermine your claim that "you can’t use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen," and vice versa. They are part and parcel of how each is defined.

What abcytesla said.

 

[Paul2]

I feel one could claim a definitional error. If we say that part of the definition of God is a being capable of miracles, and part of the definition of miracles are events generated by God, then there's no circular argument at play -- just interdependent definitions.

That would undermine your claim that "you can’t use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen," and vice versa. They are part and parcel of how each is defined.

I'm not saying that, in any situation, you can't use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen. I'm saying that if you do use God to help prove that miracles happen, you can't use miracles to prove that God exists. And vice versa.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I'm not saying that, in any situation, you can't use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen. I'm saying that if you do use God to help prove that miracles happen, you can't use miracles to prove that God exists. And vice versa.

I'm prob not understanding the objection, but it seems to me you're defining both God and miracles as independent phenomena. I'm suggesting that may not be how religion views them. If you've found a miracle, you've found God (not just evidence of God, but his hand actively at work). If you've found God, miracles necessarily exist. They may be seen as part of each other's fundamental definitions.

You say, "We are now, then, considering whether we can wind up showing that the Christian god exists and that miracles happen. But we have to show each of them independently of the other..." That feels to me like a vulnerable point in your argument.

 

[Paul2]

I'm prob not understanding the objection, but it seems to me you're defining both God and miracles as independent phenomena. I'm suggesting that may not be how religion views them. If you've found a miracle, you've found God (not just evidence of God, but his hand actively at work). If you've found God, miracles necessarily exist. They may be seen as part of each other's fundamental definitions.

You say, "We are now, then, considering whether we can wind up showing that the Christian god exists and that miracles happen. But we have to show each of them independently of the other..." That feels to me like a vulnerable point in your argument.

So, let me grant here for the sake of argument that if we can conclude that someone came back to life after being actually and finally and completely dead, then God did it. We still can't use God's existence as evidence that someone came back to life; that's going to have to rely on doctors' reports before and after, and other empirical, verifiable evidence, right?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not saying that, in any situation, you can't use the existence of God to help prove that miracles happen. I'm saying that if you do use God to help prove that miracles happen, you can't use miracles to prove that God exists. And vice versa.

Exactly.

Although I would argue that while each specific miracle might prove itself, they don't prove anything else. In other words, the resurrection might prove the resurrection. It doesn't prove that a God is the reason. Or that the teaching in the bible is true. Each individual event is just that. Individual.

I had this discussion with my Christian neighbor a few years ago. He insisted his Christian God is real. His reason was based on something that happened to him. Something he described as a miracle. He was broke. He was driving his big rig a long distance and was terrified that he didn't have enough fuel to reach his destination. He said he prayed and his prayer was answered. He reached his destination.

What do we know? Do we assume that he correctly knew how much fuel he had? That he correctly estimated how much fuel he needed? Those are pretty big assumptions. My first reaction to this story is to question his calculations. That maybe he had more fuel than he thought. Or his destination was closer. But let's stipulate that yes, he correctly calculated both. Does that mean that the laws of the universe were violated? Or maybe he got better fuel efficiency for some other reason. A recent tune-up. The truck was more aerodynamic because it was washed and waxed. He was going downhill. He was traveling downwind. Etc etc.

These seem to me to be the most logical reasons for this conundrum. But for ◊◊◊◊◊ and giggles, let's assume that this was a bona fide miracle. Does that prove a god did it? Does that prove it was an answer to his prayer? Does that prove the Christian god answered his prayer?

Maybe it was the god Diesel?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

So, let me grant here for the sake of argument that if we can conclude that someone came back to life after being actually and finally and completely dead, then God did it. We still can't use God's existence as evidence that someone came back to life; that's going to have to rely on doctors' reports before and after, and other empirical, verifiable evidence, right?

Right. But sometimes doctors/teams say "We don't know how that person recovered. We can see no good explanation." And that happens, doesn't it? (Sorry, I don't think I'm following you to the punch line.)