Please critique this argument against miracles

[Paul2]

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.)

we first have to make sure that the person was actually and fully dead. I’ve read credulous miracle reports that fail to account for that.

Secondly, just because a doctor, or even a group of doctors (as a group) say that someone was fully dead doesn’t mean that a mistake might still be lurking (faulty equipment, bad record keeping, etc.), or other explanations, all of which, while they may be unlikely, are still more unlikely than natural law being violated.

 

[acbytesla]

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.)

we first have to make sure that the person was actually and fully dead. I’ve read credulous miracle reports that fail to account for that.

Secondly, just because a doctor, or even a group of doctors (as a group) say that someone was fully dead doesn’t mean that a mistake might still be lurking (faulty equipment, bad record keeping, etc.), or other explanations, all of which, while they may be unlikely, are still more unlikely than natural law being violated.

I think you're both saying the same thing. "We can see no good explanation." In other words, we don't know.
Which is the best answer.
This doesn't mean the laws of nature were broken and therefore it was a miracle. It also doesn't mean it wasn't a miracle.
The unexplained or presently unexplainable doesn't mean that is a permanent answer.

This is the essential difference between a skeptic and a theist. A skeptic may not like being ignorant, but concedes that he is and appeals to further study. A theist asserts that God is the explanation. Never mind that he can not empirically demonstrate a reason for his explanation. And then very often obstructs any attempt to find a demonstrable answer.

And that is why I hate the God and the miracle answer. It's not that I hate God. It's not that I just want to sin. It's because it is an obstruction to education. It is an obstruction to progress. . It's an obstruction to a better world for us all.

Religion with it's known answers has hampered mankind. The Bible itself says this. History says this. My neighbors say this. Present day politics say this.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I agree with both of you, of course. Well put. Here's my take: I see Paul2's argument as coming down to -- you can't prove the supernatural. If there's significantly more to it, I'll back off because you shouldn't have to hold my hand after two and a half pages. That's on me.

If that is the essence of your argument, I'd reduce it to -- and focus on -- just that. The rest confused me a little, and draws away from the core objection to belief by faith. (I should prob confess, I'm easily confused.)

 

[Lithrael]

late addition and terrible nitpick but unless 'molocule' is a cultural spelling I'm not aware of, it should be 'molecule'

 

[Paul2]

I agree with both of you, of course. Well put. Here's my take: I see Paul2's argument as coming down to -- you can't prove the supernatural. If there's significantly more to it, I'll back off because you shouldn't have to hold my hand after two and a half pages. That's on me.

If that is the essence of your argument, I'd reduce it to -- and focus on -- just that. The rest confused me a little, and draws away from the core objection to belief by faith. (I should prob confess, I'm easily confused.)

I think my argument does not reduce to that, although one half of it merely says that evidence for the supernatural has a very high bar to reach. My argument has different considerations depending on whether you choose to show that God exists in support of the reality of miracles, or vice versa. For the former, the miracles in the Bible are off the table in order to avoid a circular argument, which leads to various arguments that deism explains more parsimoniously. For the latter, the full weight of naturalism argues against miracles because God is off the table to avoid a circular argument.

For details, see the OP.

 

[mikegriffith1]

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!
===========
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.

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:

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?

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Missing the forest for the trees. You assume there is no god and then proceed from there and rule out God's existence based on your assumption, but somehow that's not circular reasoning. But, if a Christian assumes that God exists and cites miracles as evidence of God's existence, somehow that's circular reasoning in your book.

A Christian looks at the staggering, astounding complexity in biochemical life and sees clear, self-evident evidence of intelligent design, but atheists look at that same complexity and attribute it to millions of random events (mutations), as if "natural selection" somehow, someway knew to "select" components to perform functions that did not yet exist and knew how to combine those components in just the right order to enable the functions to be performed.

 

[turingtest]

Missing the forest for the trees. You assume there is no god and then proceed from there and rule out God's existence based on your assumption, but somehow that's not circular reasoning. But, if a Christian assumes that God exists and cites miracles as evidence of God's existence, somehow that's circular reasoning in your book.

A Christian looks at the staggering, astounding complexity in biochemical life and sees clear, self-evident evidence of intelligent design, but atheists look at that same complexity and attribute it to millions of random events (mutations), as if "natural selection" somehow, someway knew to "select" components to perform functions that did not yet exist and knew how to combine those components in just the right order to enable the functions to be performed.

It would have been a miracle if, just for once, a fundie could have avoided the usual strawman of positing natural selection as if it must be some normative power that's in competition with his chosen god. No, there's nothing in the TOE that says that natural selection somehow "knew" how to do any of those things- it's a description of an overall process that has no aims, only outcomes, not an attribution to a purposeful agency. Given enough time to work in and enough material to work with, there will be complexities that don't need "everything is a miracle! Praise god!" to explain them. Your problem is that you don't want actual explanation, you want validation for your religion.

 

[Paul2]

Missing the forest for the trees. You assume there is no god and then proceed from there and rule out God's existence based on your assumption, but somehow that's not circular reasoning.

If someone claims that God exists, in order to examine that claim and see if it holds up you start from the position that that god doesn't exist, and proceed to marshall evidence to support the claim. That how the null hypothesis works.

If you didn't assume that God didn't exist when you're examining the claim that God exists, you're already know what you're trying to show.

But, if a Christian assumes that God exists and cites miracles as evidence of God's existence, somehow that's circular reasoning in your book.

No, you misunderstanding. You can cite miracles as evidence of God's existence, that's a perfectly acceptable move, it's just that, if you make that move, you then cannot use God's existence to prove the miracles happen.

A Christian looks at the staggering, astounding complexity in biochemical life and sees clear, self-evident evidence of intelligent design,

Intelligent design, however, does not make a case for the Christian god, only for a deistic god.

but atheists look at that same complexity and attribute it to millions of random events (mutations), as if "natural selection" somehow, someway knew to "select" components to perform functions that did not yet exist and knew how to combine those components in just the right order to enable the functions to be performed.

Evolution is more than random events.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I fear you will not manage to agree on even a definition of Miracle with Believers.

 

[Pixel42]

A Christian looks at the staggering, astounding complexity in biochemical life and sees clear, self-evident evidence of intelligent design, but atheists look at that same complexity and attribute it to millions of random events (mutations), as if "natural selection" somehow, someway knew to "select" components to perform functions that did not yet exist and knew how to combine those components in just the right order to enable the functions to be performed.

No, that's not what Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says.

The only part random chance plays is in the provision of variety - the raw material on which natural selection acts. Natural selection is a far more powerful force than pure chance, powerful enough to turn billion to one chances into stone cold certainties, but it is not a conscious force. It's like gravity, it doesn't need to be directed.

 

[turingtest]

I'd also like to say that, while I don't disagree with Mike's use of "staggering [and] astounding" as qualities of life's complexity, the difference between a fundie and an atheist is where those descriptions can lead to. For Mike, they are reasons for a reduction of that complexity to a simplistic "intelligent design," because it's religion's nature to see a forest without ever examining (or really even acknowledging) the trees; "staggering, astounding" are expressions of a bafflement that requires him to invent a box to keep them contained, a box that is both cozily comprehensive and safely incomprehensible. (Shrug) An atheist won't just give up so easily.

 

[Olmstead]

Missing the forest for the trees. You assume there is no god and then proceed from there and rule out God's existence based on your assumption, but somehow that's not circular reasoning. But, if a Christian assumes that God exists and cites miracles as evidence of God's existence, somehow that's circular reasoning in your book.

A Christian looks at the staggering, astounding complexity in biochemical life and sees clear, self-evident evidence of intelligent design, but atheists look at that same complexity and attribute it to millions of random events (mutations), as if "natural selection" somehow, someway knew to "select" components to perform functions that did not yet exist and knew how to combine those components in just the right order to enable the functions to be performed.

The moment you imagine God, you've already lost. It's fiction -- your personal fiction, Christian fiction, whatever. You've just filled some hole with attributes of benevolence and salvation with no justification, and it's no more likely than the next imaginary thing.

That's why there is no God, because it's always just fiction, while the natural selection you lambast is based on empirical evidence up to the point where the evidence runs out -- until more evidence is gathered. It isn't imaginary.

 

[acbytesla]

Missing the forest for the trees. You assume there is no god and then proceed from there and rule out God's existence based on your assumption, but somehow that's not circular reasoning. But, if a Christian assumes that God exists and cites miracles as evidence of God's existence, somehow that's circular reasoning in your book.

A Christian looks at the staggering, astounding complexity in biochemical life and sees clear, self-evident evidence of intelligent design, but atheists look at that same complexity and attribute it to millions of random events (mutations), as if "natural selection" somehow, someway knew to "select" components to perform functions that did not yet exist and knew how to combine those components in just the right order to enable the functions to be performed.

This is incorrect Mike. Paul doesn't assume there is no God. He doesn't assume there is one. Existential claims needs to be proven. If a Christian assumes that God exists he has put the cart before the horse. Miracles don't prove God. They prove themselves. God is a non-sequitor.

The problem with the Christian view is God is not required. Principle of parsimony. There is no reason to imagine an invisible magic man is the reason. You're just inferring it without reason from the result. On the other hand, there is significant interactions between electrons and sub-atomic particles all the time. Proteins self assemble and proteins are the building blocks of life.

You don't look exactly like you're parents do you? Are you a mutation? In the way you are using it you are. Natural and artificial selection (breeding) is constantly happening. By the way, breeding just makes use of the same mechanisms that are used in natural selection. How do you explain the change in fur color of rock pocket mice in different environments? In light-colored areas like sand dunes, light-colored mice are better camouflaged and survive predation better than darker mice. Conversely, in darker areas like lava flows, dark-colored mice are better camouflaged and have a survival advantage. This illustrates how natural selection favors traits that enhance survival and reproduction in a particular environment.

How do you explain that humans are taller today? How do you explain that human heads are larger? How do you explain that skin colr is darker near the equator? Was that God that made all of this happen? Or was that the result of populations of the human species adapting to their conditions?

But I'll humor you. I'll concede there was a magic man that made it all happen. That doesn't prove the Christian god is true. Or that the teaching is true.

Seriously, you know that the Bible was written by man. Is there any evidence that proves any of it? The creation story in the Bible is self evidently false. Isn't it? God spoke and the Earth and Heavens were created? How is that self evident? Are talking snakes self evident? How about talking donkeys? How about humans living nine centuries? Is Noah and the flood self evident? Science would suggest no? Is it self evident that you can climb the highest tree or mountain see every kingdom on the planet? Is it self evident that flowering plants preceded the sun?

It may be unbelievable to you that life happened without a God. But so what? Isn’t that a failure of your imagination?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Empirical evidence for an instance in which some law of physics failed to function as expected would be a call to reexamine our understanding. However, we simply are not able to isolate an event as wholly unique across spacetime, therefore we cannot in principle identify events that break physics, only those that, perhaps even surprisingly, call for more data and new explanations. Repeatable events can be observed, and become part of the workings of nature, of physics; not exceptions, not miracles.

Any claim for something to be a miracle requires being able to exclude that event from all of remaining physical existence across spacetime; i.e., demonstrate it is non-repeatable, unique. Yet, if we cannot repeat the observation, we cannot confirm it was ever accurately or veridically made in the first place. In short, miracles cannot ever be shown to exist in a logical manner relying on evidence.

This is, in fact, the very problem theists have; namely, they cannot show that miraculous claims are true, which is why you can only ever discuss those claims instead of jointly going out and making a new observation to confirm them, which would ironically disprove they are miracles.

This leaves hearsay as only recourse for believers. Not admissible in court.
__
As for first cause arguments with Christians, there is nothing in nature that would indicate which Creator gets the credit, apart from not being able to affirm that the Big Bang was a unique event.

 

[acbytesla]

Empirical evidence for an instance in which some law of physics failed to function as expected would be a call to reexamine our understanding. However, we simply are not able to isolate an event as wholly unique across spacetime, therefore we cannot in principle identify events that break physics, only those that, perhaps even surprisingly, call for more data and new explanations.

Any claim for something to be a miracle requires being able to exclude that event from all of remaining physical existence across spacetime; i.e., demonstrate it is non-repeatable. Yet, if we cannot repeat the observation, we cannot confirm it was ever accurately or veridically made in the first place. In short, miracles cannot ever be shown to exist.

This is, in fact, the very problem theists have; namely, they cannot show that miraculous claims are true, which is why you can only ever discuss those claims instead of jointly going out and making a new observation to confirm them, which would ironically disprove they are miracles.
__
As for first cause arguments with Christians, there is nothing in nature that would indicate which Creator gets the credit, apart from not being able to affirm that the Big Bang was a unique event.

I don't know how we can even do that. Science doesn't adequately explain the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life.

Still, the hypotheses for both being natural have a significant amount of evidence that imply that conclusion. It's not conclusive to the point where we can say it is proven. Perhaps one day we will fill in the gaps of our understanding. Supernatural answers have never been proven. And the evidence supporting them is poor if existent at all..

Also they are not explanations. They don't further our knowledge at all.

 

[arthwollipot]

A Christian looks at the staggering, astounding complexity in biochemical life and sees clear, self-evident evidence of intelligent design, but atheists look at that same complexity and attribute it to millions of random events (mutations), as if "natural selection" somehow, someway knew to "select" components to perform functions that did not yet exist and knew how to combine those components in just the right order to enable the functions to be performed.

Once again proving my contention that the one thing that unites all creationists and cdesign proponentists is that they do not understand evolution.

 

[psionl0]

Miracles are, by definition, events that run counter to the known laws of physics.

In some cases, it turns out that our known laws of physics are deficient and the event wasn't "miraculous" after all. In some cases, the event turns out to be just a magician's trick and no miracle actually happened. In the other cases, it remains provisionally a miracle unless or until it can be shown to be a trick or that the current laws of physics are shown to be deficient.

If you witness a "miracle" then the odds are that your knowledge of physics or magic tricks will not be sufficient to adequately discern whether it was really a miracle or not. So you will either have to go on what you "feel" or take another's word for it.

If somebody else tells you that they witnessed a miracle then the first question you should ask is "by how much to they stand to profit if many believe their tale?".

 

[psionl0]

@Paul2, I have gone through your OP and I believe that this is the crux of your argument:

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

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).

This is not necessarily the show stopper you make it out to be.

One argument could be "Miracles happen if and only if God exists". This is arguing that the conditional works both ways. IE "IF God exists THEN miracles happen" and "IF Miracles happen THEN God exists". (A mathematical equivalent would be "A triangle is equilateral if and only if it is equiangular").

If this two way conditional is true then you would only have to show that one of them exists (it doesn't matter which) to conclude that the other also exists.

 

[psionl0]

A Christian looks at the staggering, astounding complexity in biochemical life and sees clear, self-evident evidence of intelligent design, but atheists look at that same complexity and attribute it to millions of random events (mutations), as if "natural selection" somehow, someway knew to "select" components to perform functions that did not yet exist and knew how to combine those components in just the right order to enable the functions to be performed.

That is an astoundingly ignorant argument and if a Fundy makes it in the hopes of persuading others that God exists then it is likely to have the opposite effect.

Students of evolution know the real argument. Random events (ie events controlled by random forces) combined with natural selection (ie survival of the fittest) do result in the right components being selected and combined "in just the right order" to allow lower life forms to evolve in higher life forms. Evolution is an algorithm which is used a lot in computer aided design.

The real question is, "do these random forces actually exist"?

 

[acbytesla]

That is an astoundingly ignorant argument and if a Fundy makes it in the hopes of persuading others that God exists then it is likely to have the opposite effect.

Students of evolution know the real argument. Random events (ie events controlled by random forces) combined with natural selection (ie survival of the fittest) do result in the right components being selected and combined "in just the right order" to allow lower life forms to evolve in higher life forms. Evolution is an algorithm which is used a lot in computer aided design.

The real question is, "do these random forces actually exist"?

Exactly.