[PassedOut]

Phil, on May 1 2010, 11:01 AM, said:

I tend to agree with all of this, however, I also think that there are many unexplained things in this world that we don't have a clue about.

For sure. And if folks get comfort from classifying those unexplained things as miracles, what purpose is served by disputing the matter?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 1 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position. The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof? I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

i once took part in a debate on "does God exist?" ... my opponent took the stance you just took and his opening statement was something like, "the burden of proof is not on me and i will provide no argument against, it is the proponent's duty to prove his case" (paraphrased)... i countered with, "God exists because i say so"... i won the "debate" - the shortest i've ever been a part of - 5 to 0

the point is, both sides of a question have an equal responsibility, regardless of how it appears to you - at least in the eyes of most fair-minded judges

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 1 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 1 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position.  The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof?  I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

i once took part in a debate on "does God exist?" ... my opponent took the stance you just took and his opening statement was something like, "the burden of proof is not on me and i will provide no argument against, it is the proponent's duty to prove his case" (paraphrased)... i countered with, "God exists because i say so"... i won the "debate" - the shortest i've ever been a part of - 5 to 0

the point is, both sides of a question have an equal responsibility, regardless of how it appears to you - at least in the eyes of most fair-minded judges

I think that is reasonable. Still, it seems to me the one attempting to prove the +1 position has the burden of proof, whereas the -1 position only has to disprove those claims. In other words, the -1 is offering a refutation, not a claim.

In the debate you mentioned, how can one prove the negative that there is no god? That is why I say the burden of proof is on the +1 claim; although I agree the opposite side must refute the claims, I do not understand a refutation to be the same thing as a burden to prove.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 1 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 1 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 1 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position.  The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof?  I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

i once took part in a debate on "does God exist?" ... my opponent took the stance you just took and his opening statement was something like, "the burden of proof is not on me and i will provide no argument against, it is the proponent's duty to prove his case" (paraphrased)... i countered with, "God exists because i say so"... i won the "debate" - the shortest i've ever been a part of - 5 to 0

the point is, both sides of a question have an equal responsibility, regardless of how it appears to you - at least in the eyes of most fair-minded judges

I think that is reasonable. Still, it seems to me the one attempting to prove the +1 position has the burden of proof, whereas the -1 position only has to disprove those claims. In other words, the -1 is offering a refutation, not a claim.

In the debate you mentioned, how can one prove the negative that there is no god? That is why I say the burden of proof is on the +1 claim; although I agree the opposite side must refute the claims, I do not understand a refutation to be the same thing as a burden to prove.

it isn't necessarily about proving something, it's about providing logical, non-fallacious, argument for or against... you might not be able to prove that God does not exist and i might not be able to prove (to your satisfaction) that he does, but our arguments for and against the question can be judged

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on May 1 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 1 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position.  The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof?  I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

Its true, that in the case of miracles, the burden of proof is on those who say that miracles exists, because our day to day expereince is that normal things happen.

The same does not apply in the atheist vs theist case, as a the goal is to show that your assumptions lead to a better description of life/the universe, as a whole, and a priori it can not be said to be more "likely" or not that God exists - that is precisely what you are there to argue about. Moreover, there are a million ways to skin a cat in that particular argument. Arguments that atheism cannot be true, arguments that there are aspects of our eexisitence that atheism is incapable of explaining. Arguments that Atheism is not logically consistent, are just as valid strtategies as trying to "prove" that God exists.

The law of numbers only refers to those things that are "within the realm of possiblility". Science makes some things impossible just as it makes other things possible. It is possible that cancer can go into regression and that you can suffer a complete healing. It is not possible for an 8 inch tunour to dissapear in a single day. It is possible to create the illusion of levitation, it is not possible to actually levitate. Evidence of anything that science deems to be impossible === evidence that sceince's lawas were broken===evidence of a miracle.

Re the other things, you have to open your mind a little bit. Suppose that there is a 5 year old who really did see a vision of God. Was asked to serve Him all the days of his life, and to preach the good news. He would definately "appear" hysterical, and as awm pointed out there are a certain number of hsyterical persons every year who claim to see visions and are (presumeably) mistaken. Apparently every year 6 people claim to be the Second Coming of JC. Clearly, claiming to have seen a vision of God =/= convincing evidence. How would God help people defferentiate between genuine disciples and frauds? By doing miracles. See for example mark 16:17-18. If anyone claims to have seen God the first assumption is always that he is deluded, whether you beleive or not. It is more likely, but that does not mean that it is universally true.

WRT awm, talking about the predictive power of miracles is a bit bizarre, if miracles exist they represent always an act of free will on the part of God. Free will is always unpredictable. To claim that because someone is Holy they Must work miracles is to but a constraint on God. The revrese subset might be true, that all miracle workers are necessarily holy, but I dont really beleive that either. If God works miracles he does so for his own reasons and for his own ends. Generally 3 criteria are necessary to be recognised as a saint (1) conspicous holiness, (2) miracles and (3) good fruits, and the Cathlic church is generally pretty suspicious of apparent saints. Hence the poor treatement of Padre Pio by the church hierarchy. This is the norm for rather obvious reasons.

Anyway, the point of my ratehr than meandering post was to discount the accounts of miracles on account that he appears hysterical is precisely wrongheaded, its the existence of miracles which is the only way that you know that he wasnt hysterical.

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on May 1 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

Quote

Lets be clear, this is often said, but we don't know for sure where they put the nails.

Then how can we know that the stigmata accurately reflected real wounds rather than simply reflecting idealizations of wound positions and type?

i didnt say that the position was evidence for, i just said that it was not evidence against. The existence of the wounds + their nature, is evidence of their miraculous nature.

[Winstonm]

phil_20686, on May 2 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 1 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

Quote

Lets be clear, this is often said, but we don't know for sure where they put the nails.

Then how can we know that the stigmata accurately reflected real wounds rather than simply reflecting idealizations of wound positions and type?

i didnt say that the position was evidence for, i just said that it was not evidence against. The existence of the wounds + their nature, is evidence of their miraculous nature.

Yes, but the location of the wounds if innacurate would be proof of influence by belief system, i.e., a believer of someone who was crucified would not produce rope burns around his neck as evidence of a miracle.

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on Apr 30 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Quote

If one beleives that God created the rules and is omnipitent, clearly he can break the rules in whatever fashion he chooses.

If he can break rules, why didn't he dispense with punishment for original sin?

This is possibly an interesting conundrum, as it gets to the heart of one of the atheist arguments - you claim that an omnipotent God must be able to break the rules he creates, but if he cannot create a rule even he cannot break, how can he be considered omnipotent?

No its a flawed argument. When one says colloquially that "God created the rules" one means that God chooses to behave in a certain way. The fact that God always behaves in such a way may appear to us to be a constraint on God, but in fact it his only a choice. Your argmuent is analgous to:

A always tells the truth

B concludes; I lie and tell the truth as I see fit. Clearly, A must be forced to tell teh truth, otherwise he would like me. Ergo, A must be less powerful than B.

No prizes for seeing the error.

[phil_20686]

[quote name='Winstonm' date='May 2 2010, 08:25 AM'] [quote name='phil_20686' date='May 2 2010, 08:07 AM'] [quote name='Winstonm' date='May 1 2010, 10:36 AM'] [QUOTE]Lets be clear, this is often said, but we don't know for sure where they put the nails.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the location of the wounds if innacurate would be proof of influence by belief system. [/quote]
True, but since there is no evidence as to whether the wounds are accurate or not, it seems irrelevant.

You might be interested to know that the Shroud of Turin has wounds in the wrists, which has been present both as evidince that its real and evidence that its a fake

[Winstonm]

Quote

Anyway, the point of my ratehr than meandering post was to discount the accounts of miracles on account that he appears hysterical is precisely wrongheaded, its the existence of miracles which is the only way that you know that he wasnt hysterical.

Phil,

I won't call it wrongheaded, but I will point out that it is the belief in the existence of miracles that leads one to accept a supernatural reason.

This is really no different than the willing suspension of disbelief called on by fantasy authors for their readers. And exactly like fantasy authors, internal consistency in their imagined world is required to keep the reader reading.

This debate has been held for many years and by very bright and learned participants on both sides - it is somewhat futile to re-debate it here.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The fact that God always behaves in such a way may appear to us to be a constraint on God, but in fact it his only a choice.

Rather than point/counterpoint this argument, (which as I pointed out above has been hashed over numerous times) I will simply point to the arguments made by J.L. Mackie for my side of it, then you can point to Plantiga, and then I can point to the next refutation....

I am positive you can provide your own expert witnesses - and the end result is nothing will be accomplished.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Evidence of anything that science deems to be impossible === evidence that sceince's lawas were broken===evidence of a miracle.

I think we have seen this argument before....

Quote

Belief in evidence of anything that science deems to be impossible === Belief of evidence that sceince's laws were broken===A WITCH!!!

Sorry, but I can't help but be a little snarky. I guess it's in my genes.

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

Quote

Evidence of anything that science deems to be impossible === evidence that sceince's lawas were broken===evidence of a miracle.

I think we have seen this argument before....

Quote

Belief in evidence of anything that science deems to be impossible === Belief of evidence that sceince's laws were broken===A WITCH!!!

Sorry, but I can't help but be a little snarky. I guess it's in my genes.

lol yes we have.

However the argument is sound, it was merely misused by people who didnt understand science.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

Quote

Anyway, the point of my ratehr than meandering post was to discount the accounts of miracles on account that he appears hysterical is precisely wrongheaded, its the existence of miracles which is the only way that you know that he wasnt hysterical.

Phil,

I won't call it wrongheaded, but I will point out that it is the belief in the existence of miracles that leads one to accept a supernatural reason.

but you see, this is not good reasoning... can i not say the opposite thing, that it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 08:43 AM, said:

Quote

The fact that God always behaves in such a way may appear to us to be a constraint on God, but in fact it his only a choice.

Rather than point/counterpoint this argument, (which as I pointed out above has been hashed over numerous times) I will simply point to the arguments made by J.L. Mackie for my side of it, then you can point to Plantiga, and then I can point to the next refutation....

I am positive you can provide your own expert witnesses - and the end result is nothing will be accomplished.

I'm pretty sure that the argument you gave about can God create a rule that he can't break is definitively flawed. I'm also pretty sure that you are quoting sources on the so called "problem of evil" which is a similar but better formed objection, and it is generally considered that it was Huxley who gave it its best and most persuasive form. However, its also widely considered that "the free will defence" is logically valid and internally consistent. Hence, both position are rational.


More interesting is the question of whether atheism is itself internally consistent, particularly in the materialistic bent normally favoured by the pundits.

1) There is no God nor supernatural entity of in any sense.
2) Everything that has will or does exist is purely a product of material processes.

Hence, logic itself, by (2) is merely a process in the minds of apes with an over inflated view of themselves. Thus, in short, an empirical atheist should not claim that a logical truth such as "p ==>Q therefore not Q ==> not p" is any more certain than any other empicical law, and hence casts the validity of the arguments used to arrive at a supposedly "rational" viewpoint. In this sense materialistic atheism is not ontologically complete.

One could, of course, simply posit (3) that logic is necessarily valid, however, if you start to the esistence of abstract rules which are outwith and beyond the material universe (such that the material universe is forced to comply with them) you run straight into the Lawgiver objection.

[phil_20686]

luke warm, on May 2 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

Quote

Anyway, the point of my ratehr than meandering post was to discount the accounts of miracles on account that he appears hysterical is precisely wrongheaded, its the existence of miracles which is the only way that you know that he wasnt hysterical.

Phil,

I won't call it wrongheaded, but I will point out that it is the belief in the existence of miracles that leads one to accept a supernatural reason.

but you see, this is not good reasoning... can i not say the opposite thing, that it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

precisely luke warm. As yourself, lobowolf, and myself have pointed out, this is essentially argument by assertion from winstonm.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 2 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

Quote

Anyway, the point of my ratehr than meandering post was to discount the accounts of miracles on account that he appears hysterical is precisely wrongheaded, its the existence of miracles which is the only way that you know that he wasnt hysterical.

Phil,

I won't call it wrongheaded, but I will point out that it is the belief in the existence of miracles that leads one to accept a supernatural reason.

but you see, this is not good reasoning... can i not say the opposite thing, that it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

I don't think so, though I may be wrong. IMO it is reliance upon verifiable fact that creates the doubt of supernatural origins, which to me is not the same as discounting the possibility of the supernatural. I guess this is another way of saying it is doubt about the reality of a truly totally mysterious occurence.

I pointed out before how Uri Geller convinced millions by apparently bending a spoon with his mind. Yet, to my knowledge, not a single instance exists where paranormal activity has been successfully repeated in a controlled setting. It is not so clear to me that any so-called miracle has been scrupuoulsy examined in a laboratory setting and found valid.

Edit: And, yes, I do think there is motivation for some to falsify extraordinary claims whereas there is no such compelling equal motivation to falsify reality in order to show that reality exists.

Re-edit:

Quote

it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

The fallacy of your statement is that it is not enough to simply believe in the possibility of extrarodinary methods as explanations for miracles, but one must also assume that a particular event was acted upon by this extraordinary power. No such dual belief is required to reject the claim.

Rejection of the idea of an event acted upon by the choice of an extraordinary power does not exclude the possibility that an extraordinary power exists. If that were the case, then non-miraculous events (day-to-day life) would be proof of the non-choice of an extraordinary power to intervene. It then follows that assuming both intervention and non-intervention to be evidence of extraordinary power requires belief; however, assuming extraordinary power is possible but disputing non-intervention as proof of its existence is not based on belief but on lack of evidence.

Therefore, the disputing of miraculous events is not based on disbelief but on the lack of evidence that an extraordinary power made a choice to act, the same lack of evidence that day-to-day life represents of a choice made by an extraordinary power not to intervene.

[kenberg]

I am probably just repeating myself (it seems to happen when we discuss religion) but I really think that "I am an atheist and I don't believe in miracles" is redundant.

I have never felt the need to explain how apparent miracles actually can be explained. I don't know how Moses led his people out of Egypt if the Red Sea was not parted. I don't know how multitudes were fed with limited bread. Or how Lazarus came back to life. If I believed in a God, and accepted the Bible as the Word of God, I would no doubt give at least some credence to the Biblical explanation. But I don't hold such beliefs about God and the Bible, so I assume that there is some other explanation. I just don't know what it is.

If I can just add a probably irrelevant piece here: I was at a Bat Mitzvah yesterday. Part of the ceremony had the father explaining to his daughter the meaning of being an adult Jew: "You are now morally responsible for your actions" and "According to Jewish Law, you are now at a marriageable age. But not according to your father's law". Mostly of course I was just caught up in the ceremony but on reflection I like the spirit of both explaining Jewish Law and explaining that in the modern world there may need to be some updating. I know, this proves nothing about nothing.

I have no quarrel with people who believe in miracles. If you are a Christian, of course you do, or at least you do unless you apply a great deal of poetic interpretation to the New Testament. I was born and baptized as a Christian, confirmed in the Presbyterian church, but I have come to see things otherwise. So, for me, no miracles. I can live with that.

[blackshoe]

There is no spoon.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on May 2 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

There is no spoon.

There is only Zule.