Please critique this argument against miracles

[dellarte]

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.

Gospel of Matthew (New International Version)
Chapter: 27
Verses: 52-53
52 ...and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Indeed. I don't believe this zombie apocalypse happened. It's one of many - only in the Holy Bible events - that no non-believer wrote about. Why were the zombies raised to life before Jesus' resurrection? What else did the zombies do after they appeared to many people? Did the zombies appear to their living relatives? Did their living relatives recognise them? Did the zombies die again? If so, how? If not, where are they now?

 

[Paul2]

False dilemma.

I don't mean to imply that those are the only two options. However, *IF* you choose one of those options in order to prove the other, you can't use the other to prove the option you first selected, as that would be circular. That's my fundamental point.

 

[psionl0]

I don't mean to imply that those are the only two options. However, *IF* you choose one of those options in order to prove the other, you can't use the other to prove the option you first selected, as that would be circular. That's my fundamental point.

An even more fundamental point would be to examine if a nexus between God and miracles exists in the first place.
Does the existence of God imply that miracles exist?
Does the existence of miracles imply that God exists?

If both these statements are true then you CAN use one to prove the other. But it isn't hard to come up with theoretical counter-examples that disprove both statements (God not performing miracles or miracles caused by other than God).

 

[Paul2]

An even more fundamental point would be to examine if a nexus between God and miracles exists in the first place.
Does the existence of God imply that miracles exist?
Does the existence of miracles imply that God exists?

If both these statements are true then you CAN use one to prove the other. But it isn't hard to come up with theoretical counter-examples that disprove both statements (God not performing miracles or miracles caused by other than God).

Sure, that’s one way to go. But my approach was to expose and thus forestall the circular argument.

 

[arthwollipot]

Does the existence of God imply that miracles exist?

It's possible to conceive of a God that does not work miracles. For example, the god of the Deists or the Pantheists.

Does the existence of miracles imply that God exists?

It's also possible to conceive of miracles - events that defy the understood laws of nature - that have their cause in something that is not a god.

The problem is - and always has been - evidence of either.

 

[psionl0]

But my approach was to expose and thus forestall the circular argument.

Of course but you can't beg the question (use the circular argument) unless the two way conditional is true.

 

[psionl0]

But it isn't hard to come up with theoretical counter-examples that disprove both statements (God not performing miracles or miracles caused by other than God).

It's possible to conceive of a God that does not work miracles. For example, the god of the Deists or the Pantheists.

It's also possible to conceive of miracles - events that defy the understood laws of nature - that have their cause in something that is not a god.

So we agree on that.

The problem is - and always has been - evidence of either.

A conditional statement makes no statement about the truth or falsity of the premise or conclusion. It only tells us which true/false combinations are valid.

 

[Paul2]

Of course but you can't beg the question (use the circular argument) unless the two way conditional is true.

I think you mean you can’t be logical and use the circular argument unless the two-way conditional is true. Do I have that right?

 

[psionl0]

I think you mean you can’t be logical and use the circular argument unless the two-way conditional is true. Do I have that right?

No, a circular argument is, by definition, not logical. But a circular argument (or begging the question if there are only two statements) depends on the two-way conditional being true.

 

[acbytesla]

An even more fundamental point would be to examine if a nexus between God and miracles exists in the first place.
Does the existence of God imply that miracles exist?
Does the existence of miracles imply that God exists?
If both these statements are true then you CAN use one to prove the other.

.
Your argument is contingent on the definition of a god and the definition of a miracle. Try proving one to start with. You would be the first EVER.

But it isn't hard to come up with theoretical counter-examples that disprove both statements (God not performing miracles or miracles caused by other than God).

This seems like an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It's not my job to disprove unproven and unprovable claims.

 

[acbytesla]

No, a circular argument is, by definition, not logical. But a circular argument (or begging the question if there are only two statements) depends on the two-way conditional being true.

Your argument is most definitely circular. It matters little that it is prefaced by conditional statements. You're assuming you can prove either and they are contingent on each other. They're not BTW.

 

[psionl0]

.
Your argument is contingent on the definition of a god and the definition of a miracle. Try proving one to start with. You would be the first EVER.

You totally misread the argument. The word "IF" doesn't mean that the statement is true so there is nothing to prove.

This seems like an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It's not my job to disprove unproven and unprovable claims.

You misread me again. I actually disproved both statements by the use of counter examples.

 

[psionl0]

Your argument is most definitely circular. It matters little that it is prefaced by conditional statements. You're assuming you can prove either and they are contingent on each other. They're not BTW.

You clearly don't understand circular arguments. None of the statements in a circular argument are proved by the circular argument itself.

 

[acbytesla]

You totally misread the argument. The word "IF" doesn't mean that the statement is true so there is nothing to prove.

Huh? Do much fence sitting?

But no. The "if" in this context Implies that if one is true, the other has to be. But nowhere do you prove either premise or that either is contingent on the other. Sure you could argue that this was some kind of intellectual masturbation. And if that is the case, may I suggest you don't do it publicly.

You misread me again. I actually disproved both statements by the use of counter examples.

No you didn't. While I agree both statements are nonsense. They are also unfalsifiable.

 

[psionl0]

Huh? Do much fence sitting?

But no. The "if" in this context Implies that if one is true, the other has to be. But nowhere do you prove either premise or that either is contingent on the other. Sure you could argue that this was some kind of intellectual masturbation. And if that is the case, may I suggest you don't do it publicly.

No you didn't. While I agree both statements are nonsense. They are also unfalsifiable.

You clearly don't understand conditional logic. Let's try an unrelated example"

"IF a man is living on the moon (without a space suit or breathing apparatus) THEN the moon has a breathable atmosphere".

Most people would say that both statements are false but it is not necessary to prove that either is true or false*. What matters is that the conditional statement is true (unless you want to argue that a man can live without an atmosphere).

* If you DID want to prove or disprove either statement, you could not use the conditional logic to do so.

 

[acbytesla]

You clearly don't understand conditional logic. Let's try an unrelated example"

"IF a man is living on the moon (without a space suit or breathing apparatus) THEN the moon has a breathable atmosphere".

Most people would say that both statements are false but it is not necessary to prove that either is true or false*. What matters is that the conditional statement is true (unless you want to argue that a man can live without an atmosphere).

* If you DID want to prove or disprove either statement, you could not use the conditional logic to do so.

But you neither proved the conditional premises, or that the conditions exist.

The analogy doesn't work because we understand that the moon lacks an atmosphere and human beings require gases that are present in the earth's atmosphere. We know nothing about Gods or miracles. So, nothing, absolutely nothing in your post can be addressed with logic.

 

[psionl0]

But you neither proved the conditional premises, or that the conditions exist.

You just don't get it (maybe you are emotionally affected by my failure to declare "THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!"). This thread has absolutely nothing to do with whether God exists or whether miracles exist. It is only about the logic of the conditional statement.

You could reverse the statements to read:
There is NO God (no matter how you define him).
There are NO miracles (no matter how you define them).
Does the truth or falsity of one of these statements say anything about the truth or falsity of the other?

The analogy doesn't work because we understand that the moon lacks an atmosphere and human beings require gases that are present in the earth's atmosphere. We know nothing about Gods or miracles. So, nothing, absolutely nothing in your post can be addressed with logic.

What does the highlighted have to do with the conditional statement?

 

[arthwollipot]

I think the fact that you're talking about God and miracles is muddying the water you want to swim in, psion. It would be clearer if you pared it down to just the logic:

IF x THEN y
AND
IF y THEN x
THEREFORE
X is true only if Y is true, and
Y is true only if X is true.

This way we see clearly the circularity if #143.

 

[psionl0]

I think the fact that you're talking about God and miracles is muddying the water you want to swim in, psion. It would be clearer if you pared it down to just the logic:

IF x THEN y
AND
IF y THEN x
THEREFORE
X is true only if Y is true, and
Y is true only if X is true.

This way we see clearly the circularity if #143.

#143 said the following:
IF x THEN y - is this true?
IF y THEN x - is this true?

"If both these statements are true then you CAN use one to prove the other". There is no circularity there.

The circularity comes if you do the following:
ASSUME that x is true. THEREFORE y is true. THEREFORE x is true.
That is just straight out begging the question (a circular argument).

 

[arthwollipot]

#143 said the following:
IF x THEN y - is this true?
IF y THEN x - is this true?

Oh, you mean

IF ( IF x THEN y ) THEN y
AND
IF ( IF y THEN x ) THEN x
THEREFORE
x is true only IF ( IF x THEN y ) is true, and
y is true only IF ( IF x THEN y ) is true.

And you get the same circularity.