Please critique this argument against miracles

[Paul2]

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


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

It's not intended to be a show stopper. One can still prove that God exists or miracles happen. But let's walk through your point, see immediately below

One argument could be "Miracles happen if and only if God exists".

One needs to bring support to demonstrate the truth of that argument. What support would one bring to demonstrate that "miracles happen if and only if God exists"? If you want to bring in God to show that miracles happen, you'd have to show that God exists first. If you then want to say that God exists because miracles happen, do you not see the circularity in that?

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").

Any equilateral triangle must always be equiangular, and we can demonstrate that through the postulates of math and geometry. How does one show that if God exists then miracles happen, or the reverse, without assuming what you want to prove? What takes the place of the postulates of math and geometry, in analogy, with God and miracles?

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.

My point doesn't disallow that. It merely says that if you choose to demonstrate A, and use B in support of demonstrating A, you can't then use A to show B.

 

[theprestige]

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.

I guess my critique continues to be that I don't understand who the audience is. People who (want to) believe in miracles don't care that they violate physical laws. That's kind of the point. And people who don't (want to) believe in miracles have probably already internalized this argument. It's going to be a very rare hypothetical person who is credulous enough to accept miracles at face value, but skeptical enough to change their mind once you point out that water to wine doesn't make any kind of physical sense.

 

[acbytesla]

I guess my critique continues to be that I don't understand who the audience is. People who (want to) believe in miracles don't care that they violate physical laws. That's kind of the point. And people who don't (want to) believe in miracles have probably already internalized this argument. It's going to be a very rare hypothetical person who is credulous enough to accept miracles at face value, but skeptical enough to change their mind once you point out that water to wine doesn't make any kind of physical sense.

In all fairness to Paul. He's polishing his argument. I get this.
Yes, if you don't believe in miracles, you're certainly not going to believe in a miraculous being caused them.

And alternatively, if you believe in a miraculous being, believing in other miracles is hardly a large step.

 

[Paul2]

I guess my critique continues to be that I don't understand who the audience is. People who (want to) believe in miracles don't care that they violate physical laws. That's kind of the point. And people who don't (want to) believe in miracles have probably already internalized this argument. It's going to be a very rare hypothetical person who is credulous enough to accept miracles at face value, but skeptical enough to change their mind once you point out that water to wine doesn't make any kind of physical sense.

I should have explained now that the event is over. Last Monday I was in conversation with Sean McDowell, Christian apologist and professor of apologetics at Biola University. It was a public event, free, but the audience consisted mostly of college students, and most of them were Christian, I think.

I was less concerned with targeting the audience as I was with making a logical case, and if someone in the audience was open to it, great, and if they weren't, then it hopefully was a drop of water on a stone that might have an effect eventually, as many have reported happening to themselves.

I also developed this argument for a practical reason, as I didn't want to get into the details of the Bible as they might relate to miracles, as Sean would obviously know the Bible far, far better than I do.

 

[acbytesla]

I should have explained now that the event is over. Last Monday I was in conversation with Sean McDowell, Christian apologist and professor of apologetics at Biola University. It was a public event, free, but the audience consisted mostly of college students, and most of them were Christian, I think.

I was less concerned with targeting the audience as I was with making a logical case, and if someone in the audience was open to it, great, and if they weren't, then it hopefully was a drop of water on a stone that might have an effect eventually, as many have reported happening to themselves.

I also developed this argument for a practical reason, as I didn't want to get into the details of the Bible as they might relate to miracles, as Sean would obviously know the Bible far, far better than I do.

Been there Paul. How did it go?

 

[psionl0]

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".

One needs to bring support to demonstrate the truth of that argument.

Why does it need to be demonstrated only that the argument works both ways and not that the argument works only 1 way (take your pick)?

(A mathematical equivalent would be "A triangle is equilateral if and only if it is equiangular").

Any equilateral triangle must always be equiangular, and we can demonstrate that through the postulates of math and geometry.

And again you ignore that the converse is also true: "Any equiangular triangle must always be equilateral". Do you not understand how conditional logic works?

You can't say that if God exists / miracles exists works one way then it can't work the other way without demonstrating the truth of that claim.

You appear to be arguing that this is a form of circular argument or "begging the question" but that is not what is going on here. Assuming that the God exists <==> miracles exists argument is true *, it simply means that you can show that God exists either by showing evidence that directly supports that claim or by showing evidence that directly supports the claim that miracles exist. Conversely, you can show that miracles exists by showing evidence that directly supports that claim or by showing evidence that directly supports the claim that God exists. (Think: You can show that a triangle is equilateral by measuring its angles).

What a lot of people forget about circular arguments is that if you can independently show that one of the arguments in the circle is true then every argument in that circle is also true.

* It is actually easier to argue that no nexus exists between God and miracles but for some reason you have chosen not to do so.

 

[arthwollipot]

Random events (ie events controlled by random forces)...

What "forces"?

 

[psionl0]

What "forces"?

What generates the random events?

 

[arthwollipot]

What generates the random events?

Causality? What generates events at all?

 

[psionl0]

Causality? What generates events at all?

Do you deny that evolution is a combination of natural selection and random events?

 

[Paul2]

Been there Paul. How did it go?

Fine but my judgment comes from a unique perspective. My friends said I did great but their judgment comes from a certain perspective. The Veritas Forum folk were happy we had a very civil discussion, which I think is very important.

I wish I had been able to lean into some things I said more strongly in rhetorical terms, but I did that somewhat anyway. In my opening statement I quoted from Sagan’s comments on the Pale Blue Dot photo, and I had a chance to rehearse that, and I enjoyed it greatly and even bordered on the oratorical, if I may say so, but Sagan made that easy.

 

[acbytesla]

Fine but my judgment comes from a unique perspective. My friends said I did great but their judgment comes from a certain perspective. The Veritas Forum folk were happy we had a very civil discussion, which I think is very important.

I wish I had been able to lean into some things I said more strongly in rhetorical terms, but I did that somewhat anyway. In my opening statement I quoted from Sagan’s comments on the Pale Blue Dot photo, and I had a chance to rehearse that, and I enjoyed it greatly and even bordered on the oratorical, if I may say so, but Sagan made that easy.

It always does.

When it comes to religion, most people start out with strong biases. I was on my high school and college speech and debate teams. I have a lot of experience with that kind of speaking. But we avoided speaking about religion because it was too controversial right out of the gate. If you make even a marginal effect you did well.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If you want to be mean, you could use your evidence-focused approach via a different route:

assuming miracles are a Real Thing:
- according to Scripture, they used to be frequent and unambiguous: making the Sun stand still is hard to dismiss as a fluke
- according to history and experience, they have become less frequent and far easier to dismiss or explained away by science

This can be explained only in 2 ways:
- either, people's ability to cast God Magic was so much greater, because they knew the correct spells (were in closer communion with God, more accurate in knowing and doing God's Will, lead a more pious life, etc.), which means that the lack of Great Miracles^TM proves that today's Christians are a very poor copy of a copy of a copy of Actual Christians, and can at best manage to cast Minor Cantrips when they accidentally meet the right conditions and God acknowledges their existence for a split-second
- or past miracles and present day miracles are a made-up thing.

either way, they will have to abandon a key component of their Faith.

 

[Paul2]

Why does it need to be demonstrated only that the argument works both ways and not that the argument works only 1 way (take your pick)?

I wasn't saying that. And, one needs to demonstrate that any of those statements are true before going further, see below.

And again you ignore that the converse is also true: "Any equiangular triangle must always be equilateral". Do you not understand how conditional logic works?

You can't say that if God exists / miracles exists works one way then it can't work the other way without demonstrating the truth of that claim.

You appear to be arguing that this is a form of circular argument or "begging the question" but that is not what is going on here.

That is what I'm arguing, but at a different place. Let's continue.

Assuming that the God exists <==> miracles exists argument is true *, it simply means that you can show that God exists either by showing evidence that directly supports that claim or by showing evidence that directly supports the claim that miracles exist. Conversely, you can show that miracles exists by showing evidence that directly supports that claim or by showing evidence that directly supports the claim that God exists. (Think: You can show that a triangle is equilateral by measuring its angles).

What a lot of people forget about circular arguments is that if you can independently show that one of the arguments in the circle is true then every argument in that circle is also true.

That holds only if one of the elements necessarily and always mean that the other element is true, your "if and only if." One would need to demonstrate that miracles necessarily and always demonstrate God and vice versa.

* It is actually easier to argue that no nexus exists between God and miracles but for some reason you have chosen not to do so.

I think I was assuming no nexus because Sean McDowell did not make that argument (at least in what I previewed he said).

 

[theprestige]

I should have explained now that the event is over. Last Monday I was in conversation with Sean McDowell, Christian apologist and professor of apologetics at Biola University. It was a public event, free, but the audience consisted mostly of college students, and most of them were Christian, I think.

I was less concerned with targeting the audience as I was with making a logical case, and if someone in the audience was open to it, great, and if they weren't, then it hopefully was a drop of water on a stone that might have an effect eventually, as many have reported happening to themselves.

I also developed this argument for a practical reason, as I didn't want to get into the details of the Bible as they might relate to miracles, as Sean would obviously know the Bible far, far better than I do.

Thanks! This fills in a lot of interesting context for me.

I think that as a debate between a skeptic and an apologist, in front of an audience, this is a great argument. I might come back later and try to organize my thoughts about why this context changes my view.

 

[acbytesla]

Do you deny that evolution is a combination of natural selection and random events?

Is it? There's an idea that none of it is random. Everything is a component of a causal chain. Even down to your thoughts. Not that it was intended. Only that when the electrons were set in motion our present and future conditions are the only possible result. (It's more of an idea since it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.)

 

[psionl0]

Is it? There's an idea that none of it is random. Everything is a component of a causal chain. Even down to your thoughts. Not that it was intended. Only that when the electrons were set in motion our present and future conditions are the only possible result. (It's more of an idea since it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.)

We don't have to worry about the existence of true randomness or not when discussing evolution. Even if the universe is totally deterministic, we can't identify or measure to a certainty all of the forces involved with each event so we model the event as "probabilistic". That is usually what is meant by "random".

Note that if you are going to argue that the universe is deterministic but there is no "intelligent designer" then you are going to have a hard time avoiding contradictions.

 

[acbytesla]

We don't have to worry about the existence of true randomness or not when discussing evolution. Even if the universe is totally deterministic, we can't identify or measure to a certainty all of the forces involved with each event so we model the event as "probabilistic". That is usually what is meant by "random".

Note that if you are going to argue that the universe is deterministic but there is no "intelligent designer" then you are going to have a hard time avoiding contradictions.

I get that. And I've heard that argued by many a theist.

But it doesn't have to be because of designer. But it does eliminate that there is any such thing as free will. That once the chain is in motion our acts, thoughts, etc were determined.

Understand I don't agree with this idea. As I've heard and said myself. We have to have free will. There is no choice.

 

[psionl0]

But it doesn't have to be because of designer.
. . . . .
Understand I don't agree with this idea,

Maybe it is better that you don't make arguments in support of an idea that you don't agree with.

At least, not in this thread. It will only generate a lot of heat that would distract from the main theme of this thread which appears to be whether we can infer anything about God from miracles (or vice versa).

 

[Olmstead]

Note that if you are going to argue that the universe is deterministic but there is no "intelligent designer" then you are going to have a hard time avoiding contradictions.

Why would there be contradictions?